(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[TheDestinatus]

I watched exactly a minute of that review before rolling my eyes and shutting it off. ST isn't good, but when you use the terms SJW, third-wave feminism, and misandry within the thesis statement of your video, you lose all credibility.

Have you ever actually watched any ST? Any series except perhaps the first, those 3 terms would be sufficient to explain what the TV show is about. Its a TV show almost entirely about the exploration of "social issues", has next to nothing to do with Science fiction outside of body suits and lasers.

[Independent voter]

He'll be relieved to know the captain of the Discovery is a man.

[Solomodex]

As someone who has never watched anything Star Trek before i think its a good show, probably gonna stick with it all season to see where it goes.

Last episode was actually really good in my opinion, held my attention the entire episode.

[s_bushido]

I watched exactly a minute of that review before rolling my eyes and shutting it off. ST isn't good, but when you use the terms SJW, third-wave feminism, and misandry within the thesis statement of your video, you lose all credibility.

Hey now. Maybe he actually believes that complaining about pervasive SJWism in media is any different than people on the other side of the aisle complaining about pervasive sexism in media. Who are you to question his deeply held beliefs?!

[kojinshugi]

ITT:

Trekkies: "This show is grimdark, cynical, visually inconsistent with the franchise, and Starfleet officers act like reactionary militarists and unprofessional douches. The Federation now condones life imprisonment as a punitive measure instead of rehabilitation, and casually dehumanizing prisoners by calling them garbage. This goes against the spirit of Trek."

JJTrekkies: "You are clearly a racist Trump voter who can't handle a woman of color on your Star Trek."

Trekkies: *breathe a sigh of relief that Nichelle Nichols is still alive and doesn't have to spin in her grave*

Yes, just like with ANYTHING that stars a woman or a non-white person, there's a guaranteed cohort of alt-right degenerates crying "SJW agenda!". This is unavoidable and should at this point be treated like background static on the Internet. This doesn't mean that the majority of criticism a show receives contains some kind of reactionary subtext. It means extremists of all sides like to hijack any prominent topic and distort it to match their rhetoric. This is a recruitment tool for both the far left and the far right.

Most of the actual criticism of Discovery is that it's *not progressive enough*.

If you like it, more power to you, but that's clearly because you don't care about Trek being a humanist, post-capitalist utopia. So don't strawman people who agree with Roddenberry's vision of the future into butthurt Trump fans.

No Trekkie would ever complain about racial diversity in Star Trek. It's like Batman fans complaining about vigilantism - an absolute contradiction in terms.

[s_bushido]

JJTrekkies: "You are clearly a racist Trump voter who can't handle a woman of color on your Star Trek."

You do realize that the people bringing up Trump in this thread are those who are butthurt that someone compared the Klingons to his campaign in an interview...right? No? Of course not. That wouldn't fit your convenient narrative.

[Nynax]

If you like it, more power to you, but that's clearly because you don't care about Trek being a humanist, post-capitalist utopia. So don't strawman people who agree with Roddenberry's vision of the future into butthurt Trump fans.

But...if you are going to explore the time period of the Federations war with the Klingons, especially if the characters are going to be on the front lines....wouldn't it HAVE to be dark? This war is a part Trek history, they only argument I can really accept for not portraying this time period within the darker light of war...is if the argument was for this story to never be told in the first place.

[Deleted]

But...if you are going to explore the time period of the Federations war with the Klingons, especially if the characters are going to be on the front lines....wouldn't it HAVE to be dark?

No. You're conflating dark times and dark circumstances with a dark style in making the show. Two completely different things. You think there hasn't been dark stuff, world-ending stuff in ToS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise? Of course there has.

It's not about the circumstances. It's about the style of the show. And, of course, how the people in the show respond to their circumstances, which is completely unlike how any crew has done so in the past. It's like the crew of the Discovery was plucked out from 2017 onto the ship, and never lived through the years that made the Star Trek universe into what it is, and they act like their 2017 contemporaries. Which means shitty research, bad actor choices and horrible directing, if they're trying to make it into a Star Trek.

Which I doubt, to be quite honest. I think they're trying to make it into something completely new.

[Ivanstone]

JJTrekkies: "You are clearly a racist Trump voter who can't handle a woman of color on your Star Trek."

I'm pretty sure a JJTrekkie would be:
"OOOOOOO! BRIGHT LIGHTS AND EXPLOSIONS!! THAT WAS AWESOME!!!"

[baskev]

Is it really that bad? I have just seen the first episode yet but it seems ok to me.

Its okay.....1 actor ( sadly the main) its bugging me...she is acting a bit stale....just do not like her acting.
And the space cgi ( when they battle ) is not that great.

Other then that its nice.

[Aggrophobic]

Its okay.....1 actor ( sadly the main) its bugging me...she is acting a bit stale....just do not like her acting.
And the space cgi ( when they battle ) is not that great.

Other then that its nice.

Sure, that might be true.
Some people act like it's the worst series ever created though. I just don't get that.

[Ivanstone]

No. You're conflating dark times and dark circumstances with a dark style in making the show. Two completely different things. You think there hasn't been dark stuff, world-ending stuff in ToS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise? Of course there has.

Let's see:
TOS: Mind control or salt monster.
TNG: A nice look at 21st century "justice" and the enslavement of an alien for its power.
DS9: Wolf 359
VOY: Hunting terrorists.
ENT: First contact with those peaceniks the Klingons. Also time war!

Clearly a ST series has never, never started off with dark stuff before. Nope.

[s_bushido]

Sure, that might be true.
Some people act like it's the worst series ever created though. I just don't get that.

It was inevitable. Had it not been called Star Trek, it would have probably been as well received as something like the Battlestar Galactica reboot. But since it is part of a pre-existing franchise, every fan brings along their own baggage and pet issues to declare why it's literally worse than Hitler.

[Hammerfest]

He'll be relieved to know the captain of the Discovery is a man.

Yeah, he already covered that in the video. Which means you didn't watch the whole thing.

[Elim Garak]

Its okay.....1 actor ( sadly the main) its bugging me...she is acting a bit stale....just do not like her acting.
And the space cgi ( when they battle ) is not that great.

Other then that its nice.

Her acting is awesome, because she's playing a human raised by vulcans and she does a GREAT job at that. You just don't like or understand the character.

[RadasNoir]

It was inevitable. Had it not been called Star Trek, it would have probably been as well received as something like the Battlestar Galactica reboot.

Or, perhaps people would have still perceived it as a dark and edgy show attempting to cash in on the current popularity of such dark and edgy shows, featuring characters of questionable judgement, morals, and/or overall likeability, and with villains that have makeup and costumes that seem to limit their actors' range of movement and capabilities to emote properly.

And perhaps the fact that the name "Star Trek" is attached to all that only serves to exacerbate such criticisms.

[s_bushido]

Or, perhaps people would have still perceived it as a dark and edgy show attempting to cash in on the current popularity of such dark and edgy shows, featuring characters of questionable judgement, morals, and/or overall likeability, and with villains that have makeup and costumes that seem to limit their actors' range of movement and capabilities to emote properly.

And perhaps the fact that the name "Star Trek" is attached to all that only serves to exacerbate such criticisms.

So today I learned that studios aren't expected to try and make money off their pre-existing properties, that having morally ambiguous characters is somehow a bad thing in fiction, and that actors being limited by their prosthetics is somehow a unique problem. And I'm expected to believe that stellar "criticisms" like this aren't being levied at the show by people desperate to find fault in it? Please.

[I Push Buttons]

So today I learned that studios aren't expected to try and make money off their pre-existing properties, that having morally ambiguous characters is somehow a bad thing in fiction, and that actors being limited by their prosthetics is somehow a unique problem. And I'm expected to believe that stellar "criticisms" like this aren't being levied at the show by people desperate to find fault in it? Please.

In a setting a guy created specifically to not have those kind of characters... Yeah it fucking is.

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY WILL CHANGE A KEY RODDENBERRY MANDATE

When Gene Roddenberry dreamed up the series Star Trek over 50 years ago, it was with a very specific, very Utopian vision for the future. In the United Federation of Planets, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and pretty much all prejudice had been eradicated and the problems of the characters were always external rather than internal. This was a mandate from Roddenberry to his writers: the conflict can never be between our main characters (with the exception of the occasional alien possession, or whatever), because in Starfleet, petty squabbles are a thing of the past. Or, the future-past, seeing as Star Trek: Discovery will repeal and replace this doctrine.

It is perfectly fine for them to do their own thing, have their own vision... They aren't doing that though. They are mutilating someone else's vision into something entirely different and calling everyone who objects racists, sexists, misogynists, etc.

[s_bushido]

Yeah, except for...you know...that time Worf was going to let a Romulan die because he was the only one on board with the blood necessary to save him. Or does he not count because he's a Klingon raised by humans after his family was murdered by Romulans? And if that's the case, why doesn't Burnham get a pass for being a human raised by Vulcans after her family was murdered by Klingons? To say nothing of:

[I Push Buttons]

Yeah, except for...you know...that time Worf was going to let a Romulan die because he was the only one on board with the blood necessary to save him. Or does he not count because he's a Klingon raised by humans after his family was murdered by Romulans? And if that's the case, why doesn't Burnham get a pass for being a human raised by Vulcans after her family was murdered by Klingons? To say nothing of:
[video=youtube;hiH1Bk6WmvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiH1Bk6WmvI[video]

Woah! You can cherry pick TWO WHOLE examples of the ideals of Starfleet not being held up by the protagonists of Star Trek from hundreds of episodes and a dozen films!?!?!??!?

That Gene Roddenberry! What a hypocrite! Obviously we should just shit all over his legacy!

Thanks for enlightening me.