Star Trek: Discovery

[peter]

On 5/15/2019 at 10:50 AM, Seto Kaiba said:

Ah, yes... that was an unfortunate consequence of Star Trek: Discovery coming under fire from the genuine bigots and incels back when CBS first started promoting it heavily.  Fans who actually like Discovery got so accustomed to dealing with criticism from racists, misogynists, etc. that assuming anyone criticizing the show is one seems to have become a conditioned response. 

On many Star Trek Facebook groups, it's basically impossible to have a mature discussion about the series because of it.  

In some groups it's so bad that it's become a bit nonsensical.  I've seen fans attack other fans who belong to the minorities the characters on Discovery are meant to provide proper representation for for saying those characters are kinda sh*t.

Lol, virtue signalers everywhere.  I've been called a Nazi by someone who clearly did not know my ethnicity.

[Seto Kaiba]

On 10/5/2019 at 11:33 AM, UN Spacy said:

 

Well, that's a hard pass for me... Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners seem like they won't be happy until they've shat all over every part of Star Trek's legacy and message.  After the sh*t-awful mess that was the second half of season two, I can't begin to guess what madness could have possessed Netflix to agree to continue sponsoring this train wreck already-in-progress.

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

Lol, virtue signalers everywhere.  I've been called a Nazi by someone who clearly did not know my ethnicity.

Eh... from what I've seen, it's not virtue signalers so much as it is a conditioned response to the actual racist, misogynists, and so on who inundated every mention of Star Trek: Discovery before it'd ever aired whining about the black main character, the racially-diverse cast (as if that wasn't SOP for Star Trek), and Star Trek's social progressive politics.  Star Trek fans who were enthusiastic about the series before it aired were inundated with that kind of crap, so they started to assume everyone who bashed the series was a bigoted neanderthal.  It's not all that different from how we've been conditioned by long experience to expect any vocal R-word fan to be an ignorant cretin.

There are plenty of Star Trek fans who can be completely reasonable about the series and discuss it fairly on its own merits, but there are equally as many who've been so overexposed to the actual racist, sexist trolls that they assume everyone who speaks ill of the series is one until proven otherwise.  (Unfortunately, since many of the completely legitimate complaints about the series revolve around Sonequa Martin-Green's character and her Mary Sue effect on the story, it's often nearly impossible to convince them that there isn't a racist or sexist motive for the complaints.)

In a way, it's painfully ironic given that Star Trek: Discovery itself is probably the most unwittingly bigoted Star Trek series ever put to film thanks to all the stereotyping going on.

[Kanedas Bike]

5 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Well, that's a hard pass for me... Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners seem like they won't be happy until they've shat all over every part of Star Trek's legacy and message.  After the sh*t-awful mess that was the second half of season two, I can't begin to guess what madness could have possessed Netflix to agree to continue sponsoring this train wreck already-in-progress.

 

Eh... from what I've seen, it's not virtue signalers so much as it is a conditioned response to the actual racist, misogynists, and so on who inundated every mention of Star Trek: Discovery before it'd ever aired whining about the black main character, the racially-diverse cast (as if that wasn't SOP for Star Trek), and Star Trek's social progressive politics.  Star Trek fans who were enthusiastic about the series before it aired were inundated with that kind of crap, so they started to assume everyone who bashed the series was a bigoted neanderthal.  It's not all that different from how we've been conditioned by long experience to expect any vocal R-word fan to be an ignorant cretin.

There are plenty of Star Trek fans who can be completely reasonable about the series and discuss it fairly on its own merits, but there are equally as many who've been so overexposed to the actual racist, sexist trolls that they assume everyone who speaks ill of the series is one until proven otherwise.  (Unfortunately, since many of the completely legitimate complaints about the series revolve around Sonequa Martin-Green's character and her Mary Sue effect on the story, it's often nearly impossible to convince them that there isn't a racist or sexist motive for the complaints.)

In a way, it's painfully ironic given that Star Trek: Discovery itself is probably the most unwittingly bigoted Star Trek series ever put to film thanks to all the stereotyping going on.

This truly and legitimately makes me feel bad for Gene Roddenberry's legacy and all of the time I spent growing up watching the original Star Trek as a kid.

To have the fundamental ideals of a Utopian future and everything that it represented argued over because of inclusivity and diversity just makes me;

It's like they don't understand the core principles of Trek at all.

-b. 

[peter]

The diverse ethnicity and gender stuff never even phased me since it's been the norm since TOS, TNG and other previous series, but yeah, I get it.

I guess my dissatisfaction with the series, without even watching it, is more primitive in nature, nothing to do with current politics. 

First, I don't want to have to pay to watch it, and second, I can't get past the designs.  The redesign of the Klingons was a bit wtf moment for me.  I don't mind updated modern-day special effects, but the ship designs (interior and exterior) are too Kelvin-timeline than Prime, even though it's my understanding that this is supposed to be in the prime universe. 

At least with every series that came before this, they respected the general appearance TOS whenever they visited that timeline (flashbacks, mirror episodes etc), almost to a fault, in terms of aesthetics.  My dislike for STD has nothing to do with race or genders, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were accused of misogyny.  I was dissatisfied with GB 2016 for similar reasons, but accusations of misogyny were being thrown here like it was going out of style.

Edited October 7, 2019 by peter

[Kanedas Bike]

39 minutes ago, peter said:

 

First, I don't want to have to pay to watch it, and second, I can't get past the designs.  The redesign of the Klingons was a bit wtf moment for me.  I don't mind updated modern-day special effects, but the ship designs (interior and exterior) are too Kelvin-timeline than Prime, even though it's my understanding that this is supposed to be in the prime universe. 

 

Extremely fair, especially the bit about having to pay for yet another streaming service that has no other content to justify any cost. If this was an Amazon Prime exclusive, or Netflix, something that had more content to entice the subscription cost, sure. But CBS All Access? Please.

-b.

[azrael]

 

 

Looks like a young captain vs Tribbles. Angry tribbles.

[Seto Kaiba]

25 minutes ago, azrael said:

Angry tribbles.

Angry tribbles?

What're they going to do, stop up the drains in the showers?

[Chronocidal]

Just now, Seto Kaiba said:

Angry tribbles?

What're they going to do, stop up the drains in the showers?

I mean.. you gotta admit, we've never seen whether tribbles have a molting season.  Could get pretty hairy.  

[pengbuzz]

They could get their revenge during a Super Bowl Party by eating every snack in sight....

[Seto Kaiba]

1 minute ago, pengbuzz said:

They could get their revenge during a Super Bowl Party by eating every snack in sight....

Perhaps, but it's not every day you find your home beset by self-replicating buffalo wings.  

[Dobber]

Wasn’t Kirk supposed to be the youngest Captain in Star Fleet history? Still, looks like fun.

Edit: Rosa Salazar is 34 so I guess that still leaves Kirk as the youngest at 32.

Chris

Edited October 9, 2019 by Dobber

[Tking22]

3 hours ago, azrael said:

 

Looks like a young captain vs Tribbles. Angry tribbles.

I don't even watch Stark Trek in any real capacity and I'll be watching this, H. Jon Benjamin is hilarious, he's THE VOICE. Sterling Malory Archer vs tribbles? I'm in. 

[Knight26]

It's Archer vs Tribbles, I'm onboard.

[Mazinger]

Maybe the tribbles can have evolved into the Critters. You know, since we're re-imagining stuff or perhaps Picard feeds them after midnight on accident.

[Sandman]

On 10/7/2019 at 12:04 PM, peter said:

The diverse ethnicity and gender stuff never even phased me since it's been the norm since TOS, TNG and other previous series, but yeah, I get it.

I guess my dissatisfaction with the series, without even watching it, is more primitive in nature, nothing to do with current politics. 

First, I don't want to have to pay to watch it, and second, I can't get past the designs.  The redesign of the Klingons was a bit wtf moment for me.  I don't mind updated modern-day special effects, but the ship designs (interior and exterior) are too Kelvin-timeline than Prime, even though it's my understanding that this is supposed to be in the prime universe. 

At least with every series that came before this, they respected the general appearance TOS whenever they visited that timeline (flashbacks, mirror episodes etc), almost to a fault, in terms of aesthetics.  My dislike for STD has nothing to do with race or genders, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were accused of misogyny.  I was dissatisfied with GB 2016 for similar reasons, but accusations of misogyny were being thrown here like it was going out of style.

What is GB 2016?

[Mommar]

15 minutes ago, Sandman said:

What is GB 2016?

Ghost Busters 2016.

[Seto Kaiba]

12 minutes ago, Sandman said:

What is GB 2016?

The 2016 Ghostbusters movie, which relied heavily on the same "accuse its critics of racism and/or sexism" strategy Star Trek: Discovery currently uses to deter legitimate criticism... but with even less success, finishing somewhere between $75 million and $125 million (US) in the red.

 

Speaking of Discovery's failures, I've heard that the second season of Short Treks has apparently had difficulty gaining a foothold in markets outside the US.  Apparently a number of its intended markets opted not to carry it due to insufficient demand.  I'm rather surprised that CBS managed to convince Netflix to open its wallet for a third season of Discovery given its lackluster performance as a streaming series and accusations CBS's admission of massively overstating its viewership numbers on its own service to its stockholders (which is a crime, btw).

Also newsworthy, I suppose, is that the first round of Anas Abdin's lawsuit against CBS ended a bit ago... the court found in CBS's favor, so they're appealing.  The guy from Nerdrotic apparently set up a GoFundMe to help Anas with legal fees for the appeal.

[sh9000]

 

[Seto Kaiba]

46 minutes ago, sh9000 said:

 

Well I won't be watching.

[Thom]

I liked season two, except for a few stupid moments (such as Pike being berated by Bernham - or Pike saying the Discovery crew was his family rather than the Enterprise crew...) I'm intrigued by the story line, and though I still think Discovery's design is uninspiring and bland (hoping it will get a future refit), I do hope they keep the AI that was introduced in the Trek Shorts.

[Seto Kaiba]

Facing a lean season due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on production, the brain trust at CBS decided to pad their lineup with a broadcast run of the CBS All Access "no you can't see the viewership numbers" darling Star Trek: Discovery... and it went EXACTLY as badly as the show's critics (AKA much of the Star Trek fandom) said it would.

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/big-brother-abc-game-shows-star-trek-discovery-tv-ratings-1234783699/

Star Trek: Discovery's broadcast debut garnered 1.7 million viewers and a rating of 0.2, making it far and away the worst-ever broadcast debut of a new Star Trek live-action sequel series and the worst-rated episode of a live-action Star Trek sequel series so far by a considerable margin.  Fans everywhere immediately chorused "Well, we told you so... idiots."

To put the magnitude of this failure in perspective, the previous title-holder for worst broadcast debut of a new Star Trek live-action sequel/spinoff series was Star Trek: Enterprise with "Broken Bow" earning 12.5 million viewers.  This poor performance isn't just the worst-ever broadcast debut for a live-action Star Trek sequel/spinoff series by an enormous margin, it's also the worst-ever ratings performance for a Star Trek sequel/spinoff episode by a fairly significant margin.  ENT's "Babel One" was the previous holder of that title with 2.53 million viewers in its broadcast debut, and the final season of Enterprise averaged 2.9 million viewers.  "The Vulcan Hello" couldn't even perform at the level that got Star Trek cancelled with prejudice at peak sequel fatigue in the 2000s.  If this isn't a wakeup call for CBS, I don't know what is... since they didn't take notice when Netflix cut their budget twice and threatened to back out of funding the series entirely, and shrugged off Amazon Prime's buyers remorse over Picard.  

[Chronocidal]

I think the most stinging fact here is that it couldn't even outperform gameshows.  It scored slightly lower than a re-run of "The Masked Singer." 

[Dynaman]

Part of that is anyone who wanted to see it already has.  It is not in any way a debut, even half of the first episode had already been on broadcast TV.  Still a lousy number but not in the same league if it had not been shown in another medium already.

[mikeszekely]

To be fair, though, the "television broadcast debut" is still essentially a re-run.  I'd assume that a lot of the people who wanted to watch it already did in one form or another.  Myself, I wasn't going to add another monthly subscription over it but I did wind up buying the Blu-rays.

[Seto Kaiba]

Yeah, it's technically a rerun... but they're marketing it as a broadcast debut.  

Normally, the fans would come out in numbers for even a rerun or to support a show's launch on a new channel/platform, and a lot of Star Trek fans were put off by locking Discovery behind a paywall on CBS All Access for North American viewers.  You'd think they'd be able to drum up an actual audience, but this just shows how much damage they've done to their own brand.

[Kanedas Bike]

For sure Discovery isn't the success that CBS wanted and I assume that the fans of Star Trek as a whole wanted.

This, despite the constant bitching, complaining and shitting on all things Trek the high-minded internet brings, but talking about how poorly it did on a throw-away Thursday night going against the NFL and whatever else was on TV seems just a smidge disingenuous. No?

It's just more "I told you Trek sucks because reasons" that killed this thread and saps the energy out of Star Trek, Star Wars and just about everything else these days.

And it's PERFECTLY fine to criticize but when it's ALL that's ever tossed around it's exhausting. 

For me, I want to watch the new Trek shows because I grew up with Star Trek, and even if it truly is as terrible as this thread would have me believe I'm sure there's something positive worth chatting about. But why do so because the conversations are just connnnsttannnntttt negativity. FFS

-b.

[Seto Kaiba]

13 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

For sure Discovery isn't the success that CBS wanted and I assume that the fans of Star Trek as a whole wanted.

Yeah, Star Trek fans were pretty emphatic about wanting Star Trek back on television again.

 

13 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

This, despite the constant bitching, complaining and shitting on all things Trek the high-minded internet brings, but talking about how poorly it did on a throw-away Thursday night going against the NFL and whatever else was on TV seems just a smidge disingenuous. No?

No, for several reasons.

First and foremost, ViacomCBS trotted Star Trek: Discovery's premiere on broadcast television not as an idle "well, this garbage'll fill some airtime" move... this was their streaming service's - and network's - flagship series going to broadcast, and they treated it like it was a major event.

Secondly, what was it actually up against?  The kind of people who usually watch Star Trek are usually not the same demographic rabidly watching professional or collegiate sports.  Looking at the schedule, they weren't up against the NFL... all they had to contend with outside of a NBA playoff game was reruns.  Years-old reruns of crime shows like Law & Order: SVU and Chicago P.D., of reality TV like Dr. Pimple Popper and Deadliest Catch, and of cartoons like Bob's Burgers and Rick and Morty.  The flagship not only of the "revived" Star Trek franchise, but of ViacomCBS itself, flopped when all it had to compete with was reruns in a late Thursday prime time timeslot.

That's not being disingenuous, that's being baffled and slightly amused at how they keep failing after putting not-inconsiderable effort into stacking the deck in their favor.

 

13 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

It's just more "I told you Trek sucks because reasons" that killed this thread and saps the energy out of Star Trek, Star Wars and just about everything else these days.

No, Star Trek: Discovery killed this thread by... well... being just a really badly written TV show in general.

People gave it a fair shake and the vast majority were disgusted by it.  What more do you want from us? 

 

13 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

And it's PERFECTLY fine to criticize but when it's ALL that's ever tossed around it's exhausting. 

My good chum, when the feedback for a product is overwhelmingly negative... that is not indicative of a problem with the consumer base, that is indicative of a problem with the product.

Like the O'Jay's once sang. "You got to give the people what they want".  (And much like in the song, what we want is the return of that future that had freedom, justice, and equality.)

 

13 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

For me, I want to watch the new Trek shows because I grew up with Star Trek, and even if it truly is as terrible as this thread would have me believe I'm sure there's something positive worth chatting about. But why do so because the conversations are just connnnsttannnntttt negativity. FFS

Do you honestly think we're any different in that regard?  Star Trek fans WANT to see more Star Trek.  We grew up with it too and want to see it thrive... but it's NOT thriving.  It's failing.  Miserably.  Because the people in charge of it are idiots who refuse to acknowledge that their... spin... on it isn't something that fans or general audiences want.  They refused to acknowledge that it was demonstrably something fans and general audiences didn't want before they even started making it, because the prototype for it was a box office flop.  They've forgotten the cardinal rule of developing for television: "remember your audience".  

Ironically, we're actually sick of the constant negativity too... IN THE STORY.  That's a big part of the problem.  Discovery is so relentlessly and uniformly negative that there's no joy in it.  There is no thrill of discovery, no high adventure, no bright future for humanity among the stars.  Everything has to be dragged down and degraded so that the show's horrible main character can appear heroic despite being an objectively awful person.  Every new discovery is a reason for fear and paranoia.  Every new alien a resource to be exploited or a threat to be evaluated and potentially destroyed.  I'd say this is like Warhammer 40,000... but that at least is tongue-in-cheek about it and does plenty to laugh at itself.  Picard has the same problem.  It's all grim business and no fun.  No joy.  No dignity.  A great principled hero and diplomat was pointlessly torn down to become a manipulative old man crying crocodile tears over something that was never his fault.

When Star Trek is positive again, fans will be positive again.

Until then, we're just kind of watching this train wreck play out and hoping Star Trek survives this mismanagement to thrive again.

[sketchley]

43 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

(snip)

I think you missed his point.  Responding with a wall of text breaking down and categorically responding to each one of the poster's sentences in a sea of negativity is what he's complaining about.  (Is it all negative?  I don't know.  TLDR.  Overkill has a way of killing the conversation.)

 

Maybe it's time for a different tack—what we liked about the show?  I'll go first:

Getting to see Michelle Yeoh kicking but on a (semi-regular) basis.

[tekering]

The effects work is way beyond anything seen in the previous 50 years of Trek on television -- or most of the films, even.

And I would say the same of the main cast, a very powerful ensemble of top-notch acting talent.  

[Dynaman]

I had fun watching it.  I forgot it pretty much as soon as the final episode ran.  That is a positive not a negative, just not a ringing endorsement.  

Tilly is annoying but nowhere near as bad as Wesley or Tasha or Worf (before they figured out how to write for his character after 4 or 5 seasons)

[Seto Kaiba]

5 hours ago, sketchley said:

I think you missed his point.  Responding with a wall of text breaking down and categorically responding to each one of the poster's sentences in a sea of negativity is what he's complaining about.  (Is it all negative?  I don't know.  TLDR.  Overkill has a way of killing the conversation.)

Eh... I don't think even he knew what his point was.

TBH.  Yeah, he doesn't like the negativity and I get that.  The problem is that he's taking the same deeply disingenuous, gaslighting approach CBS uses by trying to argue about the "negativity" (read: "criticism and dissatisfaction") as though it somehow came into being independently rather than as a direct result of the show's content.  Essentially, he's got his cause and effect backwards for his entire argument.  The "negativity" isn't the cause of Discovery's problems and the lack of enthusiasm for it, it's a symptom of them.

I did throw him a bone by making a point about how the negativity in the show is the leading cause of the "negativity" about the show... so, y'know, right for the wrong reasons.  It felt more polite and professional to respond to his points individually than simply dismissing his post as white-knighting for CBS.

 

5 hours ago, sketchley said:

Maybe it's time for a different tack—what we liked about the show?  I'll go first:

As I've said on a number of previous occasions in this very thread, Anson Mount was an absolute treasure as Captain Christopher Pike.  

Straight-up stole the show for the first half of season two, which is probably why they tentatively offered him his own show.

[technoblue]

Discovery had a solid pilot episode. I really enjoyed the diversity of the bridge crew and yeah Anson Mount’s Pike was brilliant. Even Number One and Disco’s version of Spock were refreshing. My only wish, if I could turn back the clock on this, would be to have the show build more on the promise of camaraderie and exploration that was introduced in the pilot. The writers too quickly tossed out Star Trek precepts with the Disco crew in order to create a show that focused on dystopia and broken characters.

This flavor of Sci-Fi works elsewhere and became really popular with the rise of Moore’s Galactica reboot (which is fantastic in its own right). For Star Trek, though, sticking to these themes creates something of an uncanny valley, especially since Discovery is meant to be playing out within the original series timeline (and not the Kelvin reboot). At least, that’s my take on it.

[mikeszekely]

7 hours ago, sketchley said:

Maybe it's time for a different tack—what we liked about the show?  I'll go first:

Season 1 was a mess, and Burnham sucks as a character. But I liked most of the other characters and I enjoyed Season 2.

[pengbuzz]

10 hours ago, Kanedas Bike said:

For sure Discovery isn't the success that CBS wanted and I assume that the fans of Star Trek as a whole wanted.

This, despite the constant bitching, complaining and shitting on all things Trek the high-minded internet brings, but talking about how poorly it did on a throw-away Thursday night going against the NFL and whatever else was on TV seems just a smidge disingenuous. No?

It's just more "I told you Trek sucks because reasons" that killed this thread and saps the energy out of Star Trek, Star Wars and just about everything else these days.

And it's PERFECTLY fine to criticize but when it's ALL that's ever tossed around it's exhausting. 

For me, I want to watch the new Trek shows because I grew up with Star Trek, and even if it truly is as terrible as this thread would have me believe I'm sure there's something positive worth chatting about. But why do so because the conversations are just connnnsttannnntttt negativity. FFS

-b.

Because the series sucks.

I've watched more than a few Discovery and Picard episodes, and they aren't Trek. Everything that makes Trek enjoyable has been drained from them and replaced with abominable people in an abominable time and place.  Did you honestly expect praise and adulation for a show that is supposed to be set in a world and era of optimism and exploration to deliver the exact opposite?

Is that the kind of thing we're supposed to praise in a Trek series?

Then there is the complaint of "the covnersations are just connnnsttannnntttt negativity. FFS" Wow. So now it's "love the show or be accused of constant negativity"?

And yet we're all "constantly negative" for feeling that way and calling these two series on completely going against the entire point of Star Trek?

Here's a little something for free: the problem with both Picard and Discovery is that they constantly portray everything as never ending suck. Disco's issue is that it drowns in it; Picard's is that it does that AND drowns the viewer in it as well. The only bright spot in Discovery was Pike and his crew aboard the Enterprise; in Picard,  it was Hugh (whom they decided to kill just to be sucky). But what you don't seem to get it: real life is bad enough without the entertainment we watch ramming suckiness down our throats to boot. If folks wanted that, they would just pay attention to real life 24/7!!!!

So the lesson here then is this: if a bunch of people are being negative about something continuously, chances are, there is something WRONG WITH THE THING THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

You want positive?  Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has that potential, if the showrunners pull their heads out of their posteriors and actually make the series about being bold explorers, instead of whiny people who cannot accept responsibility for their bad decisions or dark parodies of beloved classic characters who inexplicably betray a lifetime of moral integrity, duty and honor to become a twisted simulacrum that mocks and cruelly destroys the character in sadistic steps before the aghast viewer.

And perhaps when we stop embracing continual darkness and grittiness in our shows, real life may start resembling something that is brighter and more optimistic itself.

What we feed feeds us.

 

-pb.

[Dynaman]

That is exactly the attitude that is stifling Trek.  The first three seasons of TNG force fed the "Federation is utopia" meme on is and it was easily the worst Trek ever.