Is Discovery the most polarizing Trek property ever?

OH SNAP...there it is! Bitter about the Axanar thing = "Discovery IZ TEH sux!"

Damn...that's about as stereotypical as it gets.

Man, all the fun people are out in full force this week. It's funny, y'all were so quiet for about 3 weeks...I was actually starting to think that people were working their way back toward sanity (meaning you finally asked yourselves "why the fuck would I keep watching and complaining about something I find so offensive"), but I should have know that would deprive you of some bizarre need...so what caused everyone to come out of the woodwork at once?

 

It was theft. Also, the script was terrible and everyone who made Prelude walked when they wised up.

 

Well, that's nice and all, but they were trying to make money off of someone else's work. That was the real problem.

 

It's not stealing if you're a "true fan" (trademark pending). /s

Seriously, this blows my mind. Fan made products are "better made" because they repeat the same things that are safe, and familiar and explore the things that matter to fans, but are completely unappealing to a larger audience.

It's great comfort food, but I would like a meal.

 

You can't seriously say that how Discovery handled the Klingon war was better than the potential story from the Axanar prelude....

Axanar certainly didn't have the 8 Mil per episode budget, or the spectacle, but it had a good handle on the source material.

Discovery's handling of the Klingon war thus far as been really convoluted and messy. It almost feels like an afterthought, despite the death toll being so massive.

That's fine, but I wasn't talking about the economic incentive behind the series.

Just the creative direction and story ideas. The minds behind it were fans and got it.

The same way Kevin Feige gets Marvel, and the MCU is so successful as a result.

 

That's war. Axanar would have been safe, familiar and adhere to fan expectations of irrelevant canon, whether it made sense or not.

I would prefer messy-life is messy. War is messy. Let Star Trek be messy and feel more like real people than neat little packages that can be wrapped up by episodes end.

 

I meant messy as introducing the Spore drive, the magic mushroom network, the Mirror stuff, the Voq/L'Rell nonsense and all the other awkward tangets.

Reminded me of Enterprise trying to be a prequel in S1, but still trying to do the awkward Temporal Cold War storyline.

 

Mirror universe is fun and over the top. It always has been. Voq and L'Rell are interesting look in to Klingon psyche. Spore drive doesn't bother me.

Anything else?

 

Well obviously it doesn't bother you. If you can support the controversial Michael Burnham character, you have a better threshold for this material than many.

 

It's a desire to see Star Trek change. I don't want the same thing. I want it to branch out, take risks, and maybe screw up. I don't want it to be safe, or secure or familiar.

DISCO may fail, and that's fine by me. Because it failed trying something new.

 

As a woman who's half Asian (Thai), you know what's friggin' forced? Having to endure over 50 years of straight white male characters being the dominant lead protagonists in entertainment media. From novels to TV to film to comics to videogames. Sorry, but it's about time we told different stories with different leads and different points of reference.

Being more inclusive in terms of representation is only forced if you subscribed to the idea that the above is the 'norm', the 'default'. Since when have people had to justify why a straight, white male protagonist is front in center in a story? Why does it have to be justified why a protagonist is a woman, or a person of color, or gay or whatever other 'otherness' people have an issue with.

Perhaps some circumspection is order in terms of expectations, assumptions and privilege.

 

This. As a straight white male, I would rather have Burnham than Issacs. I've seen Issacs story before in some fashion.

 

That's fair, but I wish they didn't do this with a supposedly Prime Universe series set a few years before Kirk's adventures...

 

Michael Burnham is no more “controversial” than Ensign Ro Laren. The only difference between the two being that we the audience never say the events that led to Ro’s court martial.

 

And I wish TMP didn't exist.

 

Lol no it isn't, Copyright laws are ridiculous, Trek should have gone public domain decades ago. It's no more of a problem than Trek's own Sherlock Holmes episodes. The literally last thing I could give a crap about is CBS's "Rights" to Star Trek.

Star Trek Continues is better than Discovery because it's legitimately a better written show that far more captures the feel of Star Trek than Discovery does.

Seriously, explain why Discovery is a good Star Trek show? Why is it Star Trek when it has NOTHING to do with the rest of Trek beyond aesthetics and it's name?
What amazing social themes have we explored? What philosophical concepts beyond the level of a childrens show? What worldbuilding have we had?
Explain the Star Trek Discovery characters beyond just what they are to the plot.
This show is bad, it's badly written, it's terribly paced, it's all over the place, the characters are bad and it has nothing to do with Star Trek beyond the name. None of this is even getting into the canon and how it fits in with the Prime Timeline.
Again, stop eating shit, demand better.

 

You're talking about equity. Giving a mediocre actress like Sonequa the lead role instead of someone far more talented and compelling (Isaacs). It is forced diversity if it negatively impacts the quality of the series, just for the sake of representation.

This is why I loved the producers behind Deep Space Nine. They auditioned White actors for the role of the Commander but ultimately went with Avery Brooks because he was the best actor for the role, and incredibly talented. He commanded the screen, even in the early years. Strong lead presence;




So I'm all for diversity, I just don't care for the forced SJW 'check your privilege' approach to it.

Star Trek has handled diverse casting much better before.

No you haven't.

You've seen a White Male Captain before... but not Isaacs' character or performance from an ST Captain.

 

Ensign Ro was a fan favourite though, just like Lorca is now.

Burnham.... haha, definitely not. That's what I meant by 'controversial'

 

Yeah, I have, in some form. I prefer SMG if I have to choose. I'd rather not. I'd rather have both.

 

Well TMP came after TOS, and was an upgraded evolution of TOS some years later... so different scenario.