"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Ratings but that was mostly due to FOX.

They had it on a Friday night timeslot. Remember this was before the TiVO revolution. Friday night was where shows go to die, not start. Also the same timeslot where sports pre-empted over it. You go to turn into some space cowboy adventures and get football instead. FOX also aired episodes out of order screwing up all the character development.

Exactly this. It was a mess.

I tried to watch Firefox when it was first broadcast.

But out of order and pre-empted, I thought it was just "meh". Later a friend loaned me the DVDs, I binged it, and then thought it was fantastic.

Firefly is the perfect example of how to kill a good show with scheduling nonsense. Though that would happen less today with all the viewing/streaming options.
 

owned66

n00b
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
43
Did any one really like discovery ?

I binged watched Every startrek 2 years back .it had a specific theme while this series feels like it's trying to recreate the expanse badly.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Oh for sure. If it were to have come out now and with streaming services the way they are, it would have thrived IMO.

it would of done fine in 2002 when it released if it was on any other channel at the time, it probably would of ended up doing 4 or 5 seasons.. but fox did everything they possibly could to tank the ratings since they were stuck in the original contract to do 15 episodes. but ultimately it become popular later on after it was cancelled did even more harm since the original producers were trying to buy the show rights from fox and even 10+ years later are still trying to buy show rights since all the original actors still want to bring the show back but won't do it under the fox banner.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,619
In today's world, the original Star Trek would get a very poor reception. Star Trek, the Next Generation would have never been renewed past the 2nd season. Star Voyager and Enterprise would have never seen the light of day.

We are looking back on these shows now through rose tinted glasses and a whole lot of nostalgia as well. There were a lot of very poor episodes on those shows, a lot of mistakes and terrible acting. The episode format helped these older shows too. For the most part everything was solved in the course of the episode and then moved onto the next adventure. Whereas With Discovery the problem they are solving is spread over the season which makes it harder to separate the good episodes from the bad.

In regards to Firefly, what a terrible mistake it was to cancel that show. It can't be remade, they will never get that unique blend of cast and story together again.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
In today's world, the original Star Trek would get a very poor reception. Star Trek, the Next Generation would have never been renewed past the 2nd season. Star Voyager and Enterprise would have never seen the light of day.

We are looking back on these shows now through rose tinted glasses and a whole lot of nostalgia as well. There were a lot of very poor episodes on those shows, a lot of mistakes and terrible acting. The episode format helped these older shows too. For the most part everything was solved in the course of the episode and then moved onto the next adventure. Whereas With Discovery the problem they are solving is spread over the season which makes it harder to separate the good episodes from the bad.

In regards to Firefly, what a terrible mistake it was to cancel that show. It can't be remade, they will never get that unique blend of cast and story together again.

You are describing television as a whole there plenty of things that gets stuck in the time they were produced some genres are more sensitive to time then others.

There is plenty of TV with bad acting today in any genre.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,338
In today's world, the original Star Trek would get a very poor reception. Star Trek, the Next Generation would have never been renewed past the 2nd season. Star Voyager and Enterprise would have never seen the light of day.
On the other hand, Discovery is pure garbage at every point of the space-time continuum.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,619
On the other hand, Discovery is pure garbage at every point of the space-time continuum.

Which is your opinion and others will agree with you, Others won't.

I think it's ok and it's getting better, season 2 was better than season 1.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,619
You are describing television as a whole there plenty of things that gets stuck in the time they were produced some genres are more sensitive to time then others.

There is plenty of TV with bad acting today in any genre.

erm? what? I am just purely talking about Star Trek. We forgive the Original Star Trek and TNG for all the terrible acting, bad stories, plot loopholes, bad science and all that other crap because we are looking back at them in their entirety and a lot of emotion. The first two seasons of TNG were saved because of the Episode with Q and the Borg.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
erm? what? I am just purely talking about Star Trek. We forgive the Original Star Trek and TNG for all the terrible acting, bad stories, plot loopholes, bad science and all that other crap because we are looking back at them in their entirety and a lot of emotion. The first two seasons of TNG were saved because of the Episode with Q and the Borg.

There was some bad acting from the secondary players, but for the main character there is no comparison at all. Patrick Stewart's worse acting across the entire series would/should shame the best Sonequa Martin-Green moment by an order of magnitude. It's Stewart that held TNG together. It's Martin-Green that destroys Discovery.


Which is your opinion and others will agree with you, Others won't.

I think it's ok and it's getting better, season 2 was better than season 1.

It can't get to tolerable levels of better until they kill off Michael Burnham. Terrible character, terribly written, terribly acted, and she's is the main character, so ruined show.

While that is the most glaring problem, I think most of Discovery is dreck.

It feels like a committee designed season 2 for fan service: "Throw in Spock, everyone loves Spock", "Give Klingons hair again, that will make the nerds happy", "throw in Pike, a nod to the TOS fans"...

The whole series feels like it was a bunch of bullet points in a slide presentation, followed up with weak writing, trying to connect them.
 

PeaKr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
887
A big problem today is the cut throat attitudes of tv execs. If a show doesn't draw enough audience at specific age groups its over. rather than build up a story and characters gradually they're written in with heaps of shock and awe off the bat and slathered with ideologies. For sci-fi to work you need believable characters with relateable problems since you are asking people to believe in warp tech, phasers and mind melds. Dizzy Florez is believable. Ripley's arc works, she goes from emotionally wrecked space miner to ass kickin warrior and we're shown how, not choked with cliched sub plots and high T females.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
For sci-fi to work you need believable characters with relateable problems...

IMO, whatever the Genre, it is Characters, Characters, Characters.... (cue Steve Balmer).

Well developed, believable characters are key (I would throw in charismatic/compelling). Every show I ever really liked had great characters. That is from "The Wire", to "DS9", to "Firefly" to "Deadwood", to "Justified" to "Westworld S1" to "Breaking Bad", to "BSG", to "GoT"...

It's characters that you can't look away from, that you will dearly miss when gone.

Discovery has the opposite of that. I want to fast forward through Burnham scenes. She is the Wesley Crusher of Discovery(and miscast lead), and the best characters are already off the show (Lorca, Pike).

Too often SciFi tries to skip on characters, and fall back on nerd tropes, instead having "good enough" characters for SciFi, like SciFi watchers will put up with lower quality characters to get some SciFi. :(
 
Last edited:

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
278
IMO, whatever the Genre, it is Characters, Characters, Characters.... (cue Steve Balmer).

Well developed, believable characters are key (I would throw in charismatic/compelling). Every show I ever really liked had great characters. That is from "The Wire", to "DS9", to "Firefly" to "Deadwood", to "Justified" to "Westworld S1" to "Breaking Bad", to "BSG", to "GoT"...

It's characters that you can't look away from, that you will dearly miss when gone.

Discovery has the opposite of that. I want to fast forward through Burnham scenes. She is the Wesley Crusher of Discovery(and miscast lead), and the best characters are already off the show (Lorca, Pike).

Too often SciFi tries to skip on characters, and fall back on nerd tropes, instead having "good enough" characters for SciFi, like SciFi watchers will put up with lower quality characters to get some SciFi. :(
I couldn't agree more. Do give Babylon 5 a go. Its got the best characters in scifi. And the best arcs. Nothing short of amazing.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
IMO, whatever the Genre, it is Characters, Characters, Characters.... (cue Steve Balmer).

Well developed, believable characters are key (I would throw in charismatic/compelling). Every show I ever really liked had great characters. That is from "The Wire", to "DS9", to "Firefly" to "Deadwood", to "Justified" to "Westworld S1" to "Breaking Bad", to "BSG", to "GoT"...

It's characters that you can't look away from, that you will dearly miss when gone.

Discovery has the opposite of that. I want to fast forward through Burnham scenes. She is the Wesley Crusher of Discovery(and miscast lead), and the best characters are already off the show (Lorca, Pike).

Too often SciFi tries to skip on characters, and fall back on nerd tropes, instead having "good enough" characters for SciFi, like SciFi watchers will put up with lower quality characters to get some SciFi. :(

They still have Georgiou and Saru. Those two absolutely have potential. All they need is to not turn them to shit.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
They still have Georgiou and Saru. Those two absolutely have potential. All they need is to not turn them to shit.

They have robot-chick replacement too, and as a blond, she's pretty cute.

With respect to Burnham, I think it's important to remember that she wasn't meant to be likable, initially. Her character was written to be broken, and one of the enduring and endearing themes of Star Trek is learning what it means to be human by way of non-human examples. The times where Burnham showed her humanity were the times that the actress shined and I expect that to be more the case going forward.

And, as we've had a few vacancies, we can probably expect new 'guest star arcs'.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
They have robot-chick replacement too, and as a blond, she's pretty cute.

With respect to Burnham, I think it's important to remember that she wasn't meant to be likable, initially. Her character was written to be broken, and one of the enduring and endearing themes of Star Trek is learning what it means to be human by way of non-human examples. The times where Burnham showed her humanity were the times that the actress shined and I expect that to be more the case going forward.

And, as we've had a few vacancies, we can probably expect new 'guest star arcs'.

My wife was just complaining about the writing of Burnham's character over dinner. The actress is good but in the end she's just a mouthpiece for the people running the show. Season 2 was in that department.

What about the rest of the crew, though? The best they could hope for is to report shield levels during battle. I know there isn't enough time for everyone but they seem to have plenty of minutes for Tilly's feelings on science and broken gay doctor's hearts.
 

hurleybird

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
106
They still have Georgiou and Saru. Those two absolutely have potential. All they need is to not turn them to shit.

Sadly, I think that's been the case for Georgiou since at least midway into S2. Saru on the other hand, seems much more resilient to crappy writing if only by virtue of Doug Jones' tremendous acting talent.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I couldn't agree more. Do give Babylon 5 a go. Its got the best characters in scifi. And the best arcs. Nothing short of amazing.

That was off the top of my head, so of course there were show omissions. I really like B5 as well. Londo and especially G'Kar were real standouts for me, though most of the rest were serviceable. But at least there were no Wesley Crushers or Michael Burnhams. ;)

For whatever reason, "Enterprise" popped into my head. That was also pretty bad, but I Want them to do some kind of "Andorian Tales" show, staring Shran. He was awesome.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
They still have Georgiou and Saru. Those two absolutely have potential. All they need is to not turn them to shit.

I almost brought up Saru, he was the main standout of the regular cast for me. Even better now that they got rid of the pop out ganglia gimmick when he senses death or gets scared.

Georgiou is OK, if a little over the top, but still fine.
 

Susquehannock

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,030
Hey now. I just picked up season 2 from the Library. Not expecting much except for some pretty colors to gawk at. Watching season 1 made me feel sorry for those who pay to see it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,947
Hey now. I just picked up season 2 from the Library. Not expecting much except for some pretty colors to gawk at. Watching season 1 made me feel sorry for those who pay to see it.

Season 2 starts off with what I can only describe as a very exciting visual spectacle mired in absurd plot ideas and failing logic. It's also woke as fuck. You get two Mary Sue's for the price of one. Another straight white male gets punished for mansplaning.

So, Michael Sue Burnham sets off on a mission to rescue potential survivors of a crashed ship stuck on an asteroid that's being pulled down into a pulsar's gravity well. For reasons.................they can't use a shuttlecraft or use the transporters. So, the plan is to take these tiny one man ships with huge glass domes for the cockpits that hold one pilot each and have no shields to rescue survivors that may or may not exist. You know, a wreckage that could have dozens or even hundreds of people on it.

So they fly down to to the wreckage and while mansplaning, the straight white male pilot gets killed by a rock which proves that the canopies are glass and that these things have no shields. Yet we are supposed to believe this made more sense than taking a shuttlecraft which has a strong hull and shields.

When they get there, they find some man hating engineer woman who has her diesel dyke haircut that's performing complex neurosurgery on an alien and caring for about a dozen wounded aliens. When the surviving characters meet this engineer, she's obviously mistaken as the chief medical officer. So, man hating Mary Sue responds by correcting them and telling them that she's the chief engineer. When questioned about why or how she's doing complex medical procedures on aliens, she responds with the following: "People are a kind of machine. And I read a lot." So all that training that Starfleet Doctors like McCoy and Crusher had to do all those years is apparently optional and evidently unnecessary.

The above spoilers are just some examples that show how far Star Trek has fallen. No longer do we have cerebral and intelligent science fiction grounded in reality. No longer does Star Trek present its allegories to today's problems in a neutral way that makes the viewer consider both sides of the issue in a way they might not have before and decide which position is right, wrong, or best. Now we are beaten over the head with hamfisted lectures that amount to:
  • Women are better than men.
  • Orange Man Bad
  • White men are the root of all evil and all of the problems on Earth.
Granted, these aren't the lessons you actually learn by watching the show but these are essentialy the crux of the shows message.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,749
Season 2 starts off with what I can only describe as a very exciting visual spectacle mired in absurd plot ideas and failing logic. It's also woke as fuck.

And then it only gets worse from there. On the plus side, Picard had a solid first episode so hopefully that will end up being a good Trek series.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,947
And then it only gets worse from there. On the plus side, Picard had a solid first episode so hopefully that will end up being a good Trek series.

It's not solid. It's better than Discovery and shows some potential, but it has a number of flaws. Not the least of which is that it's got a convoluted plot with way too much going on that makes very little sense if you think about it in the slightest.

So, here we go:

So, right out of the gate, the Romulans being refugees makes no fucking sense. The Romulan Star Empire was a vast and branching empire that was the Federation's only real threat in a post Dominion War galaxy. The Romulan Star Empire entered the Dominion War at the tail end of it, which meant that they lost very little in the way of ships and manpower compared to everyone else. The only reason why the Federation was still a match for the Romulans after the Dominion War was due to some technological advantages and being considerably larger and more vast than the Romulan Empire. Post-war, it's likely that the Federation had more ships than the Romulans did. We also saw that Starfleet began to seriously modernize and advance as evidenced in First Contact and Nemesis.

The idea that the Romulan Empire would come to the Federation for help when their sun was going to go supernova is absolute bullshit. Also, the star being close to a super nova is likely something they would detect and evacuation of Romulus and even Remus would likely have been underway for decades. Even if this was a sudden thing, the loss of the entire system wouldn't have been a crippling blow to the empire the way its portrayed in the TV show. It's a vast Star Empire. The name even suggests this. Again we have writers and show runners that know nothing of their source material.

The Federation building an armada of ships to evacuate Romulus makes no damn sense and even if it did, why would they be dicks to the Romulans after a bunch of androids attacked Utopia Planetia? It makes zero sense. An intergalactic government that's founded by and made up of dozens of species becoming isolationist and xenophobic makes no sense. Their attitude towards surviving Romulans makes no sense.

Then there is the crap about Data's daughters. What the hell? How can you clone everything he was off the equivalent of a single neuron. It would be like making a copy of me based on a single cell and that cell containing all my memories and experiences. It's bullshit and makes no sense like most of the rest of this plot. Lastly, watching Data's daughter clone thing talk to her diverse boyfriend was enough to make we want to grab a sword off my wall and fall on the point ear first so I'd never have to hear talk like that again. Star Trek is supposed to be set in the future. Why would these people speak like teenagers or millennials do today? Star Trek characters have always spoken in a way that we can understand, but was always a bit different than we do today. Common sayings and vernacular of the time the shows aired has never been in the dialog of any Star Trek show outside of cases where time travel was used as a plot device.

Picard also seems a bit off to me. He seems more like Patrick Stewart and less like Jean-Luc Picard. It could certainly be worse, but it could have been a lot better.
 

mlcarson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
362
I want a sci-fi show (Star Trek preferably) that isn't tying to throw this "woke liberal propaganda" at me continuously -- nobody wants this crap in their entertainment. I wouldn't call the first episode of Picard very solid. It was a piss poor decision to use Patrick Stewart for a new Star Trek series. The guy's almost 80 and he really does seem elderly -- especially when they put him in a French vineyard. Just give us a Star Trek series with a new crew, some good stories, and no PC crap and it'll do fine. Instead, Discovery and Picard will both be cancelled in short order and they'll say that there just wasn't any demand for a new Star Trek series. And don't use it as a platform for political messages in a US election year.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
7,126
I gave it one season and didn't care enough to watch when the 2nd season dropped. I am liking Picard tho.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,896
I want a sci-fi show (Star Trek preferably) that isn't tying to throw this "woke liberal propaganda" at me continuously -- nobody wants this crap in their entertainment. I wouldn't call the first episode of Picard very solid. It was a piss poor decision to use Patrick Stewart for a new Star Trek series. The guy's almost 80 and he really does seem elderly -- especially when they put him in a French vineyard. Just give us a Star Trek series with a new crew, some good stories, and no PC crap and it'll do fine. Instead, Discovery and Picard will both be cancelled in short order and they'll say that there just wasn't any demand for a new Star Trek series. And don't use it as a platform for political messages in a US election year.

The "progressive agenda" has always been a part of Star Trek since the very beginning.

Of course, they wouldn't call it that, they would have called it something along the lines of "a vision of a future ideal society where everyone is of equal value".

The original show was highly controversial in the 60's in part because it dared have a multiracial cast and in part because it displayed women in positions of power, as officers on a ship!

Not to mention that interracial kiss!
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,896
Season 2 starts off with what I can only describe as a very exciting visual spectacle mired in absurd plot ideas and failing logic. It's also woke as fuck. You get two Mary Sue's for the price of one. Another straight white male gets punished for mansplaning.

So, Michael Sue Burnham sets off on a mission to rescue potential survivors of a crashed ship stuck on an asteroid that's being pulled down into a pulsar's gravity well. For reasons.................they can't use a shuttlecraft or use the transporters. So, the plan is to take these tiny one man ships with huge glass domes for the cockpits that hold one pilot each and have no shields to rescue survivors that may or may not exist. You know, a wreckage that could have dozens or even hundreds of people on it.

So they fly down to to the wreckage and while mansplaning, the straight white male pilot gets killed by a rock which proves that the canopies are glass and that these things have no shields. Yet we are supposed to believe this made more sense than taking a shuttlecraft which has a strong hull and shields.

When they get there, they find some man hating engineer woman who has her diesel dyke haircut that's performing complex neurosurgery on an alien and caring for about a dozen wounded aliens. When the surviving characters meet this engineer, she's obviously mistaken as the chief medical officer. So, man hating Mary Sue responds by correcting them and telling them that she's the chief engineer. When questioned about why or how she's doing complex medical procedures on aliens, she responds with the following: "People are a kind of machine. And I read a lot." So all that training that Starfleet Doctors like McCoy and Crusher had to do all those years is apparently optional and evidently unnecessary.

The above spoilers are just some examples that show how far Star Trek has fallen. No longer do we have cerebral and intelligent science fiction grounded in reality. No longer does Star Trek present its allegories to today's problems in a neutral way that makes the viewer consider both sides of the issue in a way they might not have before and decide which position is right, wrong, or best. Now we are beaten over the head with hamfisted lectures that amount to:
  • Women are better than men.
  • Orange Man Bad
  • White men are the root of all evil and all of the problems on Earth.
Granted, these aren't the lessons you actually learn by watching the show but these are essentialy the crux of the shows message.

Did we watch the same show?

I thought Discovery had a little bit weak writing, and I don't really identify with the lead characters, but I sensed absolutely no political agendas in it (or in the new Star Wars for that matter)

Couldn't be that maybe your own life and experiences are so far from the norm now that just to watch any interaction on TV appears to you like a political message?

I get the impression that some people were so prepared to hate it that they never gave it an honest chance and we're picking it apart from day one looking for inane or irrelevant details that could be twisted in political statements that just aren't there.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Did we watch the same show?

I thought Discovery had a little bit weak writing, and I don't really identify with the lead characters, but I sensed absolutely no political agendas in it (or in the new Star Wars for that matter)

Couldn't be that maybe your own life and experiences are so far from the norm now that just to watch any interaction on TV appears to you like a political message?

I get the impression that some people were so prepared to hate it that they never gave it an honest chance and we're picking it apart from day one looking for inane or irrelevant details that could be twisted in political statements that just aren't there.

I didn't notice the agenda on Discovery, maybe because I couldn't see past the abysmal writing, and horrible acting from the actress who plays Burnham. I find her more annoying that Wesley Crusher, but at least his parts were usually small.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
It was a piss poor decision to use Patrick Stewart for a new Star Trek series. The guy's almost 80 and he really does seem elderly -- especially when they put him in a French vineyard.

I kind of Agree. It's sad they didn't do this a decade ago, when he was a young man of 70. Now he really does seem very frail and elderly, and has lost powerful voice.

I really don't want to watch one of my favorite characters and mainly feel sorry for him, which is what I did when watching Picard.

He carried TNG on his back IMO, but his time has clearly passed, and they need to develop some new characters.

Frail and old as he appeared, he was still just about the only thing of worth, in Ep 1 of Picard.

We are better served by watching reruns of the best episodes of the old shows, or watching new properties, like "The Expanse", than these attempts to milk the nostalgia.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,896
I kind of Agree. It's sad they didn't do this a decade ago, when he was a young man of 70. Now he really does seem very frail and elderly, and has lost powerful voice.

I really don't want to watch one of my favorite characters and mainly feel sorry for him, which is what I did when watching Picard.

He carried TNG on his back IMO, but his time has clearly passed, and they need to develop some new characters.

Frail and old as he appeared, he was still just about the only thing of worth, in Ep 1 of Picard.

We are better served by watching reruns of the best episodes of the old shows, or watching new properties, like "The Expanse", than these attempts to milk the nostalgia.


I felt a little of this too, especially when he was running with that girl robot and had to stop to catch his breath, but I couldn't help but wonder if it was played up a bit, and if there is going to be a pivot when he goes out there and gets back in the saddle again (if that is what happens)
 

mlcarson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
362
We have two of the main male characters (engineer and medical officer) in the show as homosexual lovers. I don't need to see that in a Sci-fi show; it's Hollywood's attempt to normalize homosexuality in every way possible. Our lead character is a black woman -- checks two of the criteria in the left's hierarchy of needs and just in case it wasn't clear -- let's give her a traditionally male name. Burnham has to always be the smartest/most competent person in the room and everybody else has to be a moron. The Spock character that most people loved is shown with a learning disability. Saru's whole character is shown as somebody who is basically a coward (corrected later in season 2). Tilly is the new Wesley. The only characters that I kind of like in the show are from the mirror universe and one was killed off. I guess I like Pike but I'm not sure how long he will last.

Did we watch the same show?

I thought Discovery had a little bit weak writing, and I don't really identify with the lead characters, but I sensed absolutely no political agendas in it (or in the new Star Wars for that matter)

Couldn't be that maybe your own life and experiences are so far from the norm now that just to watch any interaction on TV appears to you like a political message?

I get the impression that some people were so prepared to hate it that they never gave it an honest chance and we're picking it apart from day one looking for inane or irrelevant details that could be twisted in political statements that just aren't there.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Saru's whole character is shown as somebody who is basically a coward (corrected later in season 2). Tilly is the new Wesley. The only characters that I kind of like in the show are from the mirror universe and one was killed off. I guess I like Pike but I'm not sure how long he will last.

Lorca was my favorite character,then we find out he was from the mirror universe where they make interesting Star Trek. ;)
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,896
We have two of the main male characters (engineer and medical officer) in the show as homosexual lovers. I don't need to see that in a Sci-fi show; it's Hollywood's attempt to normalize homosexuality in every way possible.

It's 2020.

Homosexuality IS normal. This is not an agenda. It's just fact. If you find it bothersome or indicative of an agenda, I suggest maybe you look inward.

Our lead character is a black woman -- checks two of the criteria in the left's hierarchy of needs and just in case it wasn't clear -- let's give her a traditionally male name. Burnham has to always be the smartest/most competent person in the room and everybody else has to be a moron. The Spock character that most people loved is shown with a learning disability. Saru's whole character is shown as somebody who is basically a coward (corrected later in season 2). Tilly is the new Wesley. The only characters that I kind of like in the show are from the mirror universe and one was killed off. I guess I like Pike but I'm not sure how long he will last.

Again, Star Trek was always a show featuring diversity.

star-trek-original-cast.jpg


Besides, the captain (Pike) is still a white male.

I'll agree, Burnham's status as a wunderkind is a little bit annoying but I chuck that up to poor writing more than an agenda of any kind.

I mean, if you had a wunderkind written into the script, and just took a random race/gender generator of world population, chances are that character would be female and not white. Why not? These are people supposedly representing the planet. Most of the planet is not white, and males are a slight minority.

Tilly is annoying as fuck. I'm not sure they are doing women any favors by casting her in that role.

I just dont see it.

I mean, if this crew were to be an accurate representation of world population as it looks today, it would look something like this:

main-qimg-fd5c8a559e1f3279519664facbbd7bb3.png


So, even as it stands, the cast of the show overrepresents white characters, compared to a world demographic breakdown. That's not some sort of agenda. It's just demographics.

Claiming the show has a liberal agenda just because it happens to feature a strong black woman as a lead, is just as silly as those who call shows with strong white male leads chauvinistic and anti-woman.

I suggest stop trying to see some sort of conspiracy everywhere, chill the fuck out and just enjoy a show.

The makers of this and many other shows have to make them believable to the audience. A modern audience doesn't find a show believable if it does not match the world they are in, which is multiracial, contains gay people, and women in leadership roles. If that's not what your life and world are like where you live, then you are increasingly in the minority, and you can't expect them to make a show to cater to your flawed perception of what the world looks like.
 
Last edited:

Sweetleader

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
164
It took you one paragraph to make yourself look like a homophobe, racist, and a sexist.

It appears you’ve been living in the distant past because homosexuality is normal. It doesn’t take Hollywood putting a homosexual couple in a show to normalize it. If it bothers you to watch two men kissing but not a man and a woman then you need to re-evaluate your priorities about how you judge individuals.

Star Trek has always had a diverse cast. Why is it suddenly a problem that a black woman is in a leading role instead of a small side role?

It’s not even the first time a woman has had a lead role in Star Trek. Voyager had female lead many years ago.

You blame it on the left for adding in things that you consider taboo but maybe you should blame the far right for considering inconsequential stuff to be taboo.

We have two of the main male characters (engineer and medical officer) in the show as homosexual lovers. I don't need to see that in a Sci-fi show; it's Hollywood's attempt to normalize homosexuality in every way possible. Our lead character is a black woman -- checks two of the criteria in the left's hierarchy of needs and just in case it wasn't clear -- let's give her a traditionally male name. Burnham has to always be the smartest/most competent person in the room and everybody else has to be a moron. The Spock character that most people loved is shown with a learning disability. Saru's whole character is shown as somebody who is basically a coward (corrected later in season 2). Tilly is the new Wesley. The only characters that I kind of like in the show are from the mirror universe and one was killed off. I guess I like Pike but I'm not sure how long he will last.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,437
It took you one paragraph to make yourself look like a homophobe, racist, and a sexist.

It appears you’ve been living in the distant past because homosexuality is normal. It doesn’t take Hollywood putting a homosexual couple in a show to normalize it. If it bothers you to watch two men kissing but not a man and a woman then you need to re-evaluate your priorities about how you judge individuals.

Star Trek has always had a diverse cast. Why is it suddenly a problem that a black woman is in a leading role instead of a small side role?

It’s not even the first time a woman has had a lead role in Star Trek. Voyager had female lead many years ago.

You blame it on the left for adding in things that you consider taboo but maybe you should blame the far right for considering inconsequential stuff to be taboo.

His post was a bit extreme.

In general I think people were put off because, say, in Voyager Janeway was a strong captain that just happened to be female; which was great. Some of these new shows are more over the top in your face with some of it and it appears to be more about strongly pushing a message that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, universe, or show in general.

Overall I liked Discovery. I am not very picky though. I think only one episode annoyed me which was the one with Tilly winning a half marathon.... on the flipside I thought the bromance was one of the better acted parts. I really liked Lt. Stamets. Stamets and Pike saved that show for me. I am looking forward to Picard.
 
Top