• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is Discovery the most polarizing Trek property ever?

Ah, Enterprise on TrekBBS. Has anyone mentioned "The Interregnum" yet?

I adored that show, and I was always so upset with the haters. There was, indeed, a much richer diversity among Enterprise haters than among Disco haters... and even the fans (who were very numerous, at least on this board) were deeply divided about what made the show good (particularly if you were fool enough to cross a shipper).

My gut sense, though, is that Disco is just as polarizing (in the sense that both its haters and fans are passionate, vocal, and numerous), but we see less diversity on both sides because there just aren't as many Disco viewers. Not as many people care about it as cared about Enterprise in its heyday, so it's just not possible for Discovery to be as polarizing. We know without a doubt that Discovery's first season viewer averages are well under half of Enterprise's. (ENT S1 averaged 6 million viewers, and CBSAA only was 2 million subscribers at last report, so a more realistic estimate would be 20-30% of ENT's audience.) And, just going back and looking at the board archives from the old days -- even deep into Enterprise's decline -- it just looks a lot more lively in there. Their review threads are a lot smaller than the Disco review threads, but the range of things people want to discuss in a zillion other threads is... well, it strikes me as more energetic than the Disco boards are. Some of that's just because threads on the old board were less consolidated than they are today, but I think some is just because there were more fans and haters coming at it from more perspectives.

(And, honestly, looking at those thread titles, it sure looks to me like there's more positivity about the show in that forum than in this one.)

But other posters are right that this pretty much happens every single time anything new happens in Star Trek, and we somehow forget it as soon as the next polarizing installment comes along. Something I wrote a while back when someone asked me if Trek fandom had become less "welcoming" since the Abrams movies:

The Internet is a terrible place, where the fights are always elevated above the inclusiveness. Go to a convention, or get involved in a dedicated fan project like Farragut or Excelsior, and you will (probably) have a very different experience.

That said, yes, there's always been an element of the fandom that's like this, at least as long as there has been a fandom. A brief timeline:

2009: "Abramstrek is just Star Wars with a Trek label slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

2005: "'These Are The Voyages' never happened. Period. We will never speak of it again, and, if you speak of it, I will never speak of you again. "

2003: "The Xindi Arc is just 24 with a Star Trek label slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong.*

2001: "Enterprise NX-01 is just an upside-down Akira-class with a terrible theme song slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1998: "Recent Voyager is just TNG with Seven's tits slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1997: "Recent Deep Space Nine has turned Gene Roddenberry's vision on its head: religion? A war? The Great Bird must be spinning in his grave! And it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1995: "This new Voyager show is just a Battlestar Galactica rehash with Neelix's terrifying warthog-head slapped on. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1993: "This new DS9 show is just Babylon 5 with literally nothing slapped on. It's just B5 on a different network, guys. All hail J Michael Stracynzki! ...but if you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1992: "Now that Gene Roddenberry is dead, TNG can't claim to be true Trek anymore."

1987: "NextGen is like Fred Freiburger's Star Trek with a cheese-eating French surrender monkey slapped on (as captain!), and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong!"

1982: "Did you hear they kicked Gene Roddenberry off production of the new movie? And now The Wrath of Khan is just Moby Dick with murdering Spock in cold blood slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place! If you think that's real Star Trek, you're EVIL!"

1979: "The new movie is an embarrassment. It's just Star Wars with a Trek label slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place. If you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1977: "Xon? XON? If you think that could ever be real Star Trek, without Spock on the bridge, you are WRONNNG."

1973: "The Filmation animated series is just a Saturday morning adventure show with the Trek label slapped on, and it breaks canon all over the place (have you seen the Larry Niven crossover yet?!). Gene Roddenberry may want to sell merch, but if you think that's real Star Trek, you're wrong."

1968: "'Spock's Brain' was the season premiere. If you think the third season of Star Trek is real Star Trek, you're just wrong."

Basically, there's a certain kind of fan who accepts everything that existed when they joined the fandom as Sacred and Canonical and Wonderful, and then rejects everything that comes after.

Don't be that fan.

(Of course, you don't have to accept everything. "These Are The Voyages" is an abomination that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and, while I liked the first AbramsTrek movie, Into Darkness was terrible. You just have to be open to everything -- and you have to accept that you're going to love some stuff and hate other stuff, but it's all still real Star Trek whether you like it or not. And you have GOT to accept that canon is more flexible than you think.)

I stand by that. I can't stand Discovery ("and it breaks canon all over the place!") but it's still Star Trek as long as CBS deems it so, and the people who love it are still just as much "real" Star Trek fans as anyone else.

It's like I've said before though, the people who keep watching and relentlessly complain at every given opportunity are usually driven by 1 or 2 big things:

1. They like conflict, especially (most likely exclusively) the conflict that the anonymity and safety of a message board gives you. Why otherwise does it make any sense to torture yourself with what you don't like and then compound that by going on to a message board filled with people that have opposing opinions, and bang away at them as if you're going to change their minds?
2. They genuinely feel that someone from the "studio" or the "production team" is there, taking notes, and will see their loud and vocal minority complaints, and certainly change the show to be more to their liking in the coming seasons.
2a. They actually believe that if they are loud and vocal enough...the show will fail and they will get something more to their liking as a result of the vacuum that is created.

I used to believe this about haters as well. Now, contrary to all my hopes, I have become a hater of Discovery, and I find (on self-reflection) that these explanations do not ring true for me. I have no love for conflict -- not for its own sake. I know the production team isn't reading the BBS. And I know my Internet rants aren't going to end the show, nor even measurably harm it.

Yet I've never seriously considered dropping the show. And then I watch it, and it makes me upset, and I feel compelled to vent about it to someone.

Why? I don't know. I could drop the show. I could watch it and then just not get upset about it, like a normal functioning human. Or I could vent my outrage about a silly TV show into my pillow rather than putting it up online. This whole pattern of behavior strikes me as completely irrational. Yet I keep doing it, I don't really understand why, and, on several levels, I am genuinely concerned about that.

My current working theory is that this impulse is the mirror counterpart of that urge you get after you watch something really good: you want to share that feeling with other people, you want them to say to you, "Man, I loved that!" and thank you for helping them find it, you want to shout from the rooftops about how X is great -- even though that, too, is pretty irrational when you get right down to it. Many people, on a deep level, (apparently including me!) don't want to just have feelings; they want to share their opinions, validate their opinions, and build communities around shared opinions. Maybe that impulse is what builds fandom, why we have things like conventions and the TrekBBS at all.

But now I have these strongly negative feelings, and my desire to share, validate, and community-build with them isn't going away. So I don't just go away like a sensible person, repeat the MST3K mantra to myself, and find the next season of The Expanse. I turn into a full-blown anti-fan who goes on boards and tries to convince people their enjoyment of the show is wrong, and I keep watching because my anti-fandom is now one of my communities.

I dunno. I could be wrong. I still don't like haters (even though I am one now) but I am starting to understand them a bit better. I'll keep you posted.
 
If you want a Star Trek fan production done amazingly well, it's all about Star Trek Axanar:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Prelude was cool. Almost everyone involved, from the director on down, has disavowed the project due to the actions of it's lead, Alec Peters.
You can tell the people behind it knew what they were doing:
Yeah, trying to build a business on someone else's IP. Using fan donations to pay yourself a salary and pay your personal expenses. Great stuff.
Essentially Paramount shut this production down to launch a far inferior take on the story of the Klingon war with STD.

Imagine the Axanar storyline done on an 8 Mil per episode budget, as opposed to the 80K they had.
Have you actually read their "best Star Trek script ever"? Because you're not allowed to say things like that unless you actually have.

THIS is the most entertainment you're going to get out of that story.
 
there just aren't as many Disco viewers. Not as many people care about it as cared about Enterprise in its heyday, so it's just not possible for Discovery to be as polarizing. We know without a doubt that Discovery's first season viewer averages are well under half of Enterprise's. (ENT S1 averaged 6 million viewers, and CBSAA only was 2 million subscribers at last report, so a more realistic estimate would be 20-30% of ENT's audience.)
Discovery is on Netflix everywhere but the US and Canada. Only counting US viewers gives you an extremely poor idea of how many people are actually watching the show.
 
We have no real idea how many people outside the U.S. watched any of the Trek shows. Enough to make Paramount a metric fuckton of money in the 90s.
 
I really don't see much "fanwank" in the show... and as another poster indicated, there's a balancing act there; the alternative is to do as the first couple seasons of TNG did and pretend there was no previous Trek continuity to tie in with. DSC's creators obviously ruled that out from the start, so it makes sense to make references to existing aspects of the fictional universe. What bits in particular have seemed gratuitous or annoying to you?
I'm enjoying Discovery a lot, but the constant returning to the well of existing Trek lore is a little silly - it was my main reservation when all we had were spoilers, and it ended up even worse!

- Of all the people to have a connection to in the whole universe, Burnham is Spock's adopted sister.
- She has a deep personal relationship with Sarek, who happens to be plot relevant too.
- Burnhams childhood flashbacks just happen to be in the Vulcan Learning Centre we've seen before
- Of all the people in all the galaxy, we run into Harry Mudd. In his opening line he name-drops Stella and the "boldly go" tagline. Then of all the things that could happen to Harry Mudd, we actually meet Stella and setup his TOS appearance. A nonsensical episode ending forced by the fact they'd use an established character.
- The set dressing with callbacks. Tribble, Horta, Gorn, Chateau Picard
- The list of 'great captains' made up entirely of names we know (in fact fully half by captains of the Enterprise). This may be the most egregious example of pure, artificially sweetened, accept no substitutes, fanwank so far, in fact.
- The MU appears again and the Defiant gets constantly name dropped.

I don't care about 'canon violation' at all, but I do care about Small Universe Syndrome - the Trek universe is massive and can handle new people, races and things. Not everything has to be connected to something we've already seen. It doesn't have to be sterile of previous Trek stuff, a clever and subtle callback can be fun (as an example, Lorca choosing a Scottish engineer's voice) but when it is so blatant it takes you out of the moment with a LOOK! STAR TREK! it is just small universe syndrome - that's something Star Wars is bad at but, at least pre Enterprise, Trek wasn't too awful at. ENT season 4 went full frontal on the continuity porn, and I'm concerned that Discovery will go that way if the nods and coincidences become plot points and arcs.
Discovery is on Netflix everywhere but the US and Canada. Only counting US viewers gives you an extremely poor idea of how many people are actually watching the show.
Whereas in Enterprise's heyday, it was hidden on satellite channels and few if any foreign viewers could watch at the same time as the US, legally. Netflix has ~6 million subscribers in the UK alone, and it's released on the same day (ish). That's nearly three times as many potential viewers in the UK as in the US by the metric used by Wowbagger.
Ultimately though, because of the streaming model, we will never find out how many people are watching. They simply don't release that data; the only indication of success will be continuing renewal or not.
 
Star Trek Continues had the right heart behind it, but the end result in execution was really cheesy.

If you want a Star Trek fan production done amazingly well, it's all about Star Trek Axanar:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

You can tell the people behind it knew what they were doing:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Essentially Paramount shut this production down to launch a far inferior take on the story of the Klingon war with STD.

Imagine the Axanar storyline done on an 8 Mil per episode budget, as opposed to the 80K they had.
:guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:

Nope...
 
Most of the mainstream reviews I've seen have been largely positive. As BIllJ said, never confuse angry voices on the internet with the real world.
Indeed, but unfortunately the current tendency is for people to place themselves in bubbles where they mostly only hear people who agree with them, and then become outraged on those rare occasions when they encounter someone with a different opinion.

There is now a sizable subculture that seemingly believes that they have a right to never be offended. Especially with the way that our social media tends to work (people can block on Facebook anything that they disagree with, forums can enforce ideological conformity, and so on) it reaches the point where for many in their little internet bubbles that they genuinely believe that pretty much everyone agrees with them. And when reality occasionally intrudes, they tend to have meltdowns. ;)
 
Well, a lot of people just use FB to socialize with friends. If I'm hanging around a coffee shop or a party and someone starts screaming bigoted and racist stuff, I'm not interested in "engaging" them - why the fuck would I be?

Same for Facebook.

But then, I block as much of the "news" and ads on FB as I can. I don't rely on social media for important news.
 
Well, a lot of people just use FB to socialize with friends. If I'm hanging around a coffee shop or a party and someone starts screaming bigoted and racist stuff, I'm not interested in "engaging" them - why the fuck would I be?

Same for Facebook.

But then, I block as much of the "news" and ads on FB as I can. I don't rely on social media for important news.
Yes, but Facebook and other social media have changed the very nature of socialization.

All too often, a group of people in a room together are not engaging with the people actually physically present, they are all glued to their phones reading people that they've selected who mostly all think what they think.

In my younger days, something like a bus ride usually meant that you met a few new people, quite often folks who had very different viewpoints than yourself. Today, the same bus ride will have almost everyone glued to their social media talking only to people that they have preselected who agree with them.
 
Not everyone.

Which is a big reason that I breakfast out in coffee shops most days.
 
Now, contrary to all my hopes, I have become a hater of Discovery, and I find (on self-reflection) that these explanations do not ring true for me. I have no love for conflict -- not for its own sake. I know the production team isn't reading the BBS. And I know my Internet rants aren't going to end the show, nor even measurably harm it.

Yet I've never seriously considered dropping the show. And then I watch it, and it makes me upset, and I feel compelled to vent about it to someone.

Why? I don't know. I could drop the show. I could watch it and then just not get upset about it, like a normal functioning human. Or I could vent my outrage about a silly TV show into my pillow rather than putting it up online. This whole pattern of behavior strikes me as completely irrational. Yet I keep doing it, I don't really understand why, and, on several levels, I am genuinely concerned about that.

I probably won't be much help as an example there because I stopped watching ENT after six episodes and largely stayed out of the forum.

But here's another perspective. Maybe you just want to see what they'll do next? It could be morbid curiosity on your part. I don't know, maybe DSC is a Crazy Celebrity to you and it's like "What did they do now?!"

But now I have these strongly negative feelings, and my desire to share, validate, and community-build with them isn't going away. So I don't just go away like a sensible person, repeat the MST3K mantra to myself, and find the next season of The Expanse. I turn into a full-blown anti-fan who goes on boards and tries to convince people their enjoyment of the show is wrong, and I keep watching because my anti-fandom is now one of my communities.

I dunno. I could be wrong. I still don't like haters (even though I am one now) but I am starting to understand them a bit better. I'll keep you posted.

Yes, it's interesting how some people have switched places. I was never a "hater" -- and definitely not in the sense of some people from the Old Days whose names I won't mention (I think we know who they were) -- but while I was looking forward to DSC, I never thought I'd get this into it.

I'm on here defending DSC hardcore in ways I haven't done here since with TOS in the Early-2000s. I'm vehemently defending the latest, newest version of Star Trek. I honestly didn't see that coming.

In these situations where our positions reversed with some people, I've thought sometimes but haven't posted "What would you think of you right now, 15 years ago? How would you have responded to you?"
 
Last edited:
In 1999, my first year here, I posted a thread about "Unity in the Quadrant", in reference to how the major Alpha Quadrant powers united at the end of DS9 to fight the Dominion. The way the discussion went, it turned into anything but unity. :D
 
I'm enjoying Discovery a lot, but the constant returning to the well of existing Trek lore is a little silly ... I don't care about 'canon violation' at all, but I do care about Small Universe Syndrome.
Hmm. I can see what you're getting at here... but I don't think the show has actually succumbed to that.

The examples you cite seem to me to fall into multiple categories. First, there are the Easter eggs... background details that are not plot-relevant and basically harmless. For instance, "the set dressing with callbacks. Tribble, Horta, Gorn, Chateau Picard"... that's the sort of thing that can easily escape notice (I never saw the wine, for instance), and even if it doesn't, makes no real difference.

Then there are the things affecting character backstory. For instance, Burnham's relationship to Sarek (and implicitly to Spock, although he hasn't been named). I don't think this was strictly necessary, but it also doesn't bother me. There aren't a whole lot of known Trek characters who were active a decade before TOS, and even fewer who weren't on the Enterprise at the time, so if the show wants to have some sort of character-based connection, Sarek is a reasonable character to use for it... and it's equally reasonable to have it based in an actual relationship with a new character, rather than some random plot machination. Granted, having a character-based connection between series was purely optional, but it doesn't really bother me. If they did it with every crew member (Stamets served under Pike! Lorca worked alongside Scotty! Tilly took a class from Lt. Kirk at the Academy! and so on), that would be a whole different matter.

Then there are the things that are really plot-critical, to either a single episode or an ongoing arc. The Harry Mudd story is one of these, and the use of the Mirror Universe is another. (Personally, I think the use of the Klingons as antagonists, even as changed as they are, is yet another.) I think the strongest "small universe" argument rests here. I don't have any principled objection to using these story elements, but I do think it may have been unwise to use them so early in the show. It would be more interesting to see the Discovery involved in adventures that don't have any sort of connection to anything the Enterprise was involved with.

Honestly, the thing from your list that bothered me the most was this:
The list of 'great captains' made up entirely of names we know (in fact fully half by captains of the Enterprise). This may be the most egregious example of pure, artificially sweetened, accept no substitutes, fanwank so far
IMHO it was nice to see Robert April get canonized (even if fairly few fans still harbor doubts about the status of TAS). But the fact that entire rest of the list (Archer, Decker, Georgiou, and Pike) of most decorated captains consists entirely of characters we've encountered before does seem to me to strain credulity.

On the whole, though, I don't think the show has overdone it with these elements. To some extent, it's inherent in the nature of any prequel to set up things the audience is already familiar with. The most important part of playing with those toys is not to break them in the process (and while the storytelling constraints that come with that mean it also makes sense to throw some new and different toys into the sandbox, that doesn't mean you should play with the existing ones at all.) FWIW I don't think DSC is doing nearly as bad a job of prequeling as, say, Lucas's SW prequel trilogy, or for that matter ENT (of which, c'mon, S4 really was the best one).

The show is going through some growing pains, but I remain cautiously optimistic. To my mind the worst thing about it is the Klingon war plotline... but that would be (almost) as problematic even if they'd called the aliens involved something other than Klingons (which they appear to be in all but name anyway).
 
It's Discovery's job to make them care if they didn't know anything about it or had no particular investment going in. Whether or not it makes someone who actually is new care, that depends on the individual in question.

For what it's worth, and of course this is only one person, I sit next to a co-worker who's super into DSC and was not really much of a Star Trek fan before now. We've ended up having long conversations every Monday about the latest episode, most of which is me filling in context for him on stuff like the Mirror Universe or interphasic space or want have you. Like, yeah he doesn't get all the references but they sure as shit haven't stopped him from being invested in the story. (In fact, I think it helps because he doesn't realize just how much of what we're getting is derivative of prior Trek. He didn't see Tyler-is-Voq or MU Lorca coming, for example.)

It's one example but these people exist, despite protests to the contrary.

I could drop the show. I could watch it and then just not get upset about it, like a normal functioning human. Or I could vent my outrage about a silly TV show into my pillow rather than putting it up online. This whole pattern of behavior strikes me as completely irrational. Yet I keep doing it, I don't really understand why, and, on several levels, I am genuinely concerned about that.

On the other hand, you have the sense to be worried about this and feel it deserves further examination. You're doing yourself a disservice with the label irrational.

Now, some of the other people around here... :crazy:
 
Ah, Enterprise on TrekBBS. Has anyone mentioned "The Interregnum" yet?

I adored that show, and I was always so upset with the haters. There was, indeed, a much richer diversity among Enterprise haters than among Disco haters... and even the fans (who were very numerous, at least on this board) were deeply divided about what made the show good (particularly if you were fool enough to cross a shipper).

My gut sense, though, is that Disco is just as polarizing (in the sense that both its haters and fans are passionate, vocal, and numerous), but we see less diversity on both sides because there just aren't as many Disco viewers. Not as many people care about it as cared about Enterprise in its heyday, so it's just not possible for Discovery to be as polarizing. We know without a doubt that Discovery's first season viewer averages are well under half of Enterprise's. (ENT S1 averaged 6 million viewers, and CBSAA only was 2 million subscribers at last report, so a more realistic estimate would be 20-30% of ENT's audience.) And, just going back and looking at the board archives from the old days -- even deep into Enterprise's decline -- it just looks a lot more lively in there. Their review threads are a lot smaller than the Disco review threads, but the range of things people want to discuss in a zillion other threads is... well, it strikes me as more energetic than the Disco boards are. Some of that's just because threads on the old board were less consolidated than they are today, but I think some is just because there were more fans and haters coming at it from more perspectives.

(And, honestly, looking at those thread titles, it sure looks to me like there's more positivity about the show in that forum than in this one.)

But other posters are right that this pretty much happens every single time anything new happens in Star Trek, and we somehow forget it as soon as the next polarizing installment comes along. Something I wrote a while back when someone asked me if Trek fandom had become less "welcoming" since the Abrams movies:



I stand by that. I can't stand Discovery ("and it breaks canon all over the place!") but it's still Star Trek as long as CBS deems it so, and the people who love it are still just as much "real" Star Trek fans as anyone else.



I used to believe this about haters as well. Now, contrary to all my hopes, I have become a hater of Discovery, and I find (on self-reflection) that these explanations do not ring true for me. I have no love for conflict -- not for its own sake. I know the production team isn't reading the BBS. And I know my Internet rants aren't going to end the show, nor even measurably harm it.

Yet I've never seriously considered dropping the show. And then I watch it, and it makes me upset, and I feel compelled to vent about it to someone.

Why? I don't know. I could drop the show. I could watch it and then just not get upset about it, like a normal functioning human. Or I could vent my outrage about a silly TV show into my pillow rather than putting it up online. This whole pattern of behavior strikes me as completely irrational. Yet I keep doing it, I don't really understand why, and, on several levels, I am genuinely concerned about that.

My current working theory is that this impulse is the mirror counterpart of that urge you get after you watch something really good: you want to share that feeling with other people, you want them to say to you, "Man, I loved that!" and thank you for helping them find it, you want to shout from the rooftops about how X is great -- even though that, too, is pretty irrational when you get right down to it. Many people, on a deep level, (apparently including me!) don't want to just have feelings; they want to share their opinions, validate their opinions, and build communities around shared opinions. Maybe that impulse is what builds fandom, why we have things like conventions and the TrekBBS at all.

But now I have these strongly negative feelings, and my desire to share, validate, and community-build with them isn't going away. So I don't just go away like a sensible person, repeat the MST3K mantra to myself, and find the next season of The Expanse. I turn into a full-blown anti-fan who goes on boards and tries to convince people their enjoyment of the show is wrong, and I keep watching because my anti-fandom is now one of my communities.

I dunno. I could be wrong. I still don't like haters (even though I am one now) but I am starting to understand them a bit better. I'll keep you posted.

Since I have hardly and rarely ever seen you just relentlessly harp on something over and over again without any particular cause...I wouldn't have though of you as a "hater." I simply would have thought of you as someone who doesn't like DSC and tends to want to express that every now and again.

There is a huge difference.

I can't stand Star Trek : Insurrection. But, I don't post about that daily. If someone puts up a topic that says "Hey what do y'all think about INS?", I will generally chime in. But I don't go out of my way to interrupt people talking about stuff they really enjoy to just say "HEY U GUYZ!!!1!!11! INZEREKSHUN IZ TEH SUX AND STOOPID AND PIZZ ON ALL U EDEITS WHO LIKE IT LOL! STOOPID WRITING STOOPID BOOB AND ZIT JOKZ! BAH-KOO LAME AND HOO CARZ NE-WAI BECUZ NOT REEL STAR TRAK!! LOLZZZ!!!" I generally feel that if I don't like something, there's no need for me to exert energy on it (watching it or talking about it). Case-and-point...go count how many posts I have in the Voyager or Enterprise boards. I don't need to post there and complain because:
1. It's a waste of time to talk about things I don't necessarily care about or like- particularly every day like some do here.
2. I have no desire to antagonize fans of those things or to marginalize elements of the franchise others really get joy out of.

There are a lot of people who don't like DSC who attempt to debate it's shortcomings in a constructive and thoughtful manner.

There are others who don't.

Like I said, I think there's a tremendous difference.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top