IIRC, you're exactly the same age as me - 39. I originally became a vegetarian at 13. I became a vegan when I was 17. It was originally just a New Year's resolution - a test of willpower for a single year, since I knew so many people in high school who tried it and "broke edge" after only a few months. But once I became a vegan, my whole diet - my whole relationship with food - began to change. Even after I became a vegetarian there were lots of vegetables I didn't like, and I subsisted a lot on pizza and veggie burgers. But pretty soon after becoming a vegan I learned to love just about every vegetable (except celery, which I still detest to this day). After a year of it I felt healthier and was enjoying being a vegan, and saw no particular reason to stop. And I have not to this day. I've accidentally eaten things with dairy in them a few times, but never knowingly ate anything non-vegan in 22 years.
New interview over at The Hollywood Reporter with Ethan Peck about playing Spock, his journey and meeting with the Nimoy family. Good read... https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-ethan-peck-spock-interview-1191319 Q2
I admire this a great deal. I stopped being vegan after my blood pressure dropped so badly (from lack of iron and vitamin B12, which I have great trouble absorbing from vegetables due to a hereditary condition), my heart conked out for a moment. That was a bummer. But I'm mostly vegetarian and try to buy lots of organic food that is not wrapped in plastic.
How about we try a little experiment? People who like DSC aren't "Discovery Fanboys" and people like you aren't "angry, obsessive, closed-minded haters looking for an internet fight?" Then, we can move to phase two, where we recognize (and GASP even accept) that different people like / want / expect / value different things from a highly diversified 53-year old franchise. I know...I know, it seems like a lot of work. But, let's give that a shot for a day or two and see what kind of effect it has on our blood pressure and psychological well being. Seems like a reasonable thing to give a whirl to, no?
I think it would be nice in general if we didn't judge people just by the shows we like. It's ridiculous. I only seriously have a problem with one poster on this entire board. We all know who it is. And it's not because of Discovery. If it wasn't DSC, I guarantee you it would've been about something else. We don't get along and I want nothing further to do with him. As far as everyone else, I don't have a serious problem or issue with anyone.
Sadly Bonnie Tyler's quest to find a hero ran into difficulties when her sensors were blocked by a total eclipse of the heart. It is said her ship still travels around, faster than the speed of the night, searching for the forbidden fire to get her home. Fine. I admit it. I stole all the golden gormaganders. And I would have gotten away with it. If it hadn't been for you trekkers.
The TOS stuff I can excuse, they were feeling their way, building a universe that didn't exist, and certainly had no idea they were creating a multi-decade multi-media empire. The change in Klingons was made canon by both DS9 and ENT (for good or bad). That leaves the Trill stuff. OK. In creating something from nothing, and you make some tweaks to make a good story, I'm OK with that (same for Borg babies). I remember when I saw STII I was like "really, another uniform change?" but it was improvement from the aweful TMP uniforms so it was OK. I'm not some hard-line EVERYTHING MUST LINE UP EXACTLY OR ITS NO GOOD type. I was actually OK with the updated Enterprise in Discovery, at least it wasn't Abrams-ized. But here's my difference with Discovery, they made conscious decisions to deliberately introduce glaring inconsistencies when they didn't have to and didn't necessarily contribute to the story: those stupid Klingon ships instead of the the D7 (or even a recognizable variation), the look of the Klingons even, and the uniforms - I would have even been OK with modernized TOS-style uniforms instead of a complete departure. Those don't have ANYTHING to do with good storytelling, it's just says "I don't give a flip about what came before." Foundation's Friends Hopefully my explanation above helps. I refuse to believe that you can't "update and translate into new ages and for new generations" and still be consistent with what came before.
The reason I use fanboys here is frankly because, this forum has a bizarre fanboyish attitude towards Discovery that I don't even find on boards like /r/Startrekdiscovery where you find far more reasonable discussion and criticism of the show being discussed. There is a need for Discovery fans here to constantly shit over the rest of Star Trek and Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, mock and deride people who think that vision is important to the series which happens constantly (and don't tell me it doesn't, I've seen countless posts of people posting "But Genes utopian vision!" with rolling eyes and laughter emojis), constantly strawman and ignore actual legitimate criticisms of the show and then just brush everything away with "It's not 1960 anymore it's 2019, stop living under a rock! why would you want sets made of cardboard" like those of us critical of the show have not seen serialised television before, rather than we've all watched serialised TV and Discovery being serialised and in 2019 doesn't excuse it for being a poorly written mess. And just like I pointed out a few weeks ago, taking the moral high ground than instantly resorting to ad homenim attacks. Another thing that constantly happens here. Been saying this here for literally a year dude. Still just get "ITS 2019 PEOPLE DON'T WANT CARDBOARD SETS" thrown in my face.
Here's the thing. In order for this type of discussion to happen the rhetoric needs to calm down on both sides. Thus far, @Vger23 is the only one I have seen calling for such in that specific way. I hear a lot about ad hominin, and apparently this board is full of straw men, and the like, but actually discussion also happens. So, let's focus on that and ignore the rest. Thus far, calling people out results in more arguments not less.
Well, to each their own. But you basically seem to be using a pretty arbitrary set of rules that boils down to - this set of inconsistencies I'm ok with, and this set I am not ok with. Plus, since you brought up the uniforms - haven't they made reference to and even shown the "new uniforms" in Starfleet, which are an updated version of the TOS uniforms? Yes, and there's Foundation's Triumph, and many other examples of other authors taking on universes they didn't create, but that does not really equate to what I'm talking about. Trek, from the very beginning, as almost all film and theater productions are, was the result of numerous people working together. From the beginning Trek had numerous writers and a not wholly consistent vision. It's simply a characteristic of collaborative art forms. Except you just mentioned a half dozen things that weren't consistent with what came before that you don't mind. But, hey, we've all got stuff about Trek that bugs us or simply rubs us the wrong way.