Corgana @ Corgana @startrek.website

/r/StarTrek founder and primary steward from 2008-2021

---

Read more

Posts

114

Comments

1,476

Joined

2 yr. ago

It just feels awfully weird to me that your list of criteria that makes a show "hateable" only applies to this particular show. And when another show checks off the items, the list suddenly stops being "hateable items" and instead becomes a list of minor nitpicks.

I just can't figure out what the difference is, what could it be about Discovery in particular that would cause you to hold this list of criteria with such gravitas, but when the listed items appear on a different show, you don't seem to mind? What could the difference be?

Why is it when those things you listed show up on other Star Trek series you consider them to be "flaws" on an "overall quality" show, but on Discovery they become "reasons to hate"? Why the double standard?

You didn't say Discovery villains didn't "have nuance and development". So no, I didn't say that either.

I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!

I'm sorry, but if you truly watched the entire season, you'd know that your description of the events is incongruous with the events as presented on screen.

everyone else fawning over how great she is

Did we watch the same show? She is literally demoted and sent to prison in the first episode.

If I can present examples to you of those things happening in other Star Trek series would it change your mind about those other series?

Or does this list of criteria selectively apply specifically to Discovery?

I absolutely loved that look for the Klingons. I was so sad to see it meekly watered down in later episodes. It's what they should have done in The Motion Picture!

Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise

• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future

Do you have any examples of the Nihilism? I'm struggling to think of any... In fact Season 3 was about maintaining optimism and faith in the strength of the Federation against unbelievable odds.

• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions

Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?

• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode

I agree that there was a main character, but I also enjoy a lot of media with a main character so I don't see that as a bad thing.

• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of science

I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!

Discovery gets a lot of selective criticisms in online spaces. I don't want to say it has anything to do with being the first Star Trek show with a Black female as a central main character, but Burhnam does seem to be more frequently criticized for behaviors that are celebrated when done by someone like Kirk or Riker.

There’s no doubt reactions to Discovery have been mixed.

I feel it's important to note that a lot of the "reactions" we see today are the result of coordinated review-bombing campaigns by "anti-woke" outrage-peddling youtubers.

That's not to say it's universally beloved among Trekkies online, just that for someone trying to suss out the "reception" is going to have a difficult time separating authentic reviews from inauthentic ones.

Protip: "STD" is not the official abbreviation for Discovery, it's "DSC". If you call it "STD" people are going to assume you watch those outrage bait youtubers who complained about how Discovery was "too woke".

She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.

For clarity's sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it's described on TVTropes:

[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.

I'm curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam's many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.

Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn't actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.

Semi-related but I lost count of the number of times someone on Reddit described Adira's coming out (a ten second moment in a larger unrelated scene) as a "huge story arc" or being comprised of "multiple episodes" being "shoved in the audiences faces". I felt like I was taking crazy pills until I learned that's exactly how the outrage-tubers were presenting it. If you'd never watched the season you'd have no idea it was such an inconsequential moment.

It's also important to separate what you're seeing online from the leftovers of a manufactured "opposition campaign" orchestrated by a handful of reactionary influencers.

Personally speaking I did not like the early two seasons, but I thought three is ok, and seasons four and five I consider to be some of Trek's best!

Well said, there's criticism and then there's jumping in to give an opinion.

I was about to make the joke "They get splinters very well, thank you" but then I realized what community this is, so I won't make the joke.

Agreed!

I liked that moment too. This episode fell a bit flat for me overall, but I appreciated what they were trying to get at.