Why the hate for Disco?

[1001001]

There's certainly a difference between "I don't like it" and the gnashing-of-teeth, tearing-of-garments that comes from the "Gene's Vision" crowd, or the "It's not the prime universe" folks.

I remember when I was moderating the Voyager Forum back in the dark ages. We had posters who discussed the technobabble solutions, the never ending shuttle supply, the quick resolution of the Maquis conflict. All reasonable points of debate.

Then we had the "of course they got lost, the captain is a woman driver" types who didn't even bother to try and cover their sexism in reasonable arguments.

Today, we have Michael's speechifying, Spock's "new sibling" (how many does he have anyway?), versus "What about all the poor white people?"

Which school you follow will, generally, dictate the kind of responses you'll get.

 

[SITZKRIEG!]

Then we had the "of course they got lost, the captain is a woman driver" types who didn't even bother to try and cover their sexism in reasonable arguments.

Today, we have Michael's speechifying, Spock's "new sibling" (how many does he have anyway?), versus "What about all the poor white people?"

Which school you follow will, generally, dictate the kind of responses you'll get.

I think you're conflating two VASTLY different types of complaints in this post and that's the problem with modern trek fandom and society at large. Fans of modern trek are constantly looking for a dragon to slay and are vastly overstating what's in front of them to potentially justify a response that is out of proportion. Michael's tone/demeanor/actions towards her superiors are out of line compared with what Trek characters of times before, during, and after her era were allowed in the paramilitary organization that is Starfleet. She'd be more at home in the TNG Klingon Imperial Navy with the insubordiantion she constantly displays up to and including mutiny. What used to be a rare example once every couple of years on shows is her baseline (similar to pointing out that cracks in the utopian view of the Federation exist like in DS9 vs focusing on them and prying them open like in nutrek). Criticism of the sudden appearance of a never before mentioned sibling is as valid for her as it was for Sybok and it has nothing to do with the immutable characteristics the actress was born with since it was a valid point for decades prior to her. And, if representation is important (and I agree that it is), why shouldn't it be also for the single largest demographic of the trek fandom (and an easy majority for decades prior though I don't think that's the case now)? Your go-to examples are inherently flawed if you're equating them to blatantly sexist arguments of years past. Are there blatantly sexist arguments against nutrek? Sure, absolutely... but they're a tiny fraction even on boards and groups more open to criticism. If you insist on seeing dragons everywhere you look then you're sure to find them to slay but you're actually just stepping on tiny lizards in reality.

 

[1001001]

I think you're conflating two VASTLY different types of complaints in this post and that's the problem with modern trek fandom and society at large. Fans of modern trek are constantly looking for a dragon to slay and are vastly overstating what's in front of them to potentially justify a response that is out of proportion. Michael's tone/demeanor/actions towards her superiors are out of line compared with what Trek characters of times before, during, and after her era were allowed in the paramilitary organization that is Starfleet. She'd be more at home in the TNG Klingon Imperial Navy with the insubordiantion she constantly displays up to and including mutiny. What used to be a rare example once every couple of years on shows is her baseline (similar to pointing out that cracks in the utopian view of the Federation exist like in DS9 vs focusing on them and prying them open like in nutrek). Criticism of the sudden appearance of a never before mentioned sibling is as valid for her as it was for Sybok and it has nothing to do with the immutable characteristics the actress was born with since it was a valid point for decades prior to her. And, if representation is important (and I agree that it is), why shouldn't it be also for the single largest demographic of the trek fandom (and an easy majority for decades prior though I don't think that's the case now)? Your go-to examples are inherently flawed if you're equating them to blatantly sexist arguments of years past. Are there blatantly sexist arguments against nutrek? Sure, absolutely... but they're a tiny fraction even on boards and groups more open to criticism. If you insist on seeing dragons everywhere you look then you're sure to find them to slay but you're actually just stepping on tiny lizards in reality.

What you just wrote is the exact opposite of what I said.

 

[SITZKRIEG!]

I misunderstood your post (and, rereading it, I did miss the word "versus") and apologize. I thought you were equating all those arguments together. In any case, I have made those arguments here on this board and been both indirectly labelled objectionable (and incorrect) things and responded to as if I had made the opposite arguments. I'll admit that I fell into the same kind of trap that I was just describing.

 

[fireproof78]

There's certainly a difference between "I don't like it" and the gnashing-of-teeth, tearing-of-garments that comes from the "Gene's Vision" crowd, or the "It's not the prime universe" folks.

Yeah, it's been amazingly repeatable pattern, for a long time.

But, ultimately, it will come down to how the argument is presented. I am a person who loves facial expressions and tone of voice and am completely guilty of misreading tone in a text based format. My boss and I call that "Shitty first draft" in our heads because I assume the worst. She could send me a text that says "Call me when you get the chance." and I immediately panic. It's stupid but that's the way that it is. So, my negative assumption, unfortunately, get in the way.

 

[plynch]

I misunderstood your post (and, rereading it, I did miss the word "versus") and apologize. I thought you were equating all those arguments together. In any case, I have made those arguments here on this board and been both indirectly labelled objectionable (and incorrect) things and responded to as if I had made the opposite arguments. I'll admit that I fell into the same kind of trap that I was just describing.

Yes, there are people here, including a very nasty moderator (NOT 1001001 btw) who paint any criticism of DSC as racism or sexism.

 

[Danja]

Today, we have Michael's speechifying,

How is it any different from PICARD'S speechifying (other than Michael being both female and African-American)?

Michael's tone/demeanor/actions towards her superiors are out of line compared with what Trek characters of times before, during, and after her era were allowed in the paramilitary organization that is Starfleet. She'd be more at home in the TNG Klingon Imperial Navy with the insubordiantion she constantly displays up to and including mutiny. What used to be a rare example once every couple of years on shows is her baseline (similar to pointing out that cracks in the utopian view of the Federation exist like in DS9 vs focusing on them and prying them open like in nutrek).

How often were Kirk and Picard insubordinate?

Criticism of the sudden appearance of a never before mentioned sibling is as valid for her as it was for Sybok and it has nothing to do with the immutable characteristics the actress was born with since it was a valid point for decades prior to her.

Spock's parents could crank out enough kids to field a baseball team -- and there would be nothing wrong with that.

Alex Kurtzman is going to do whatever he wants. He's in charge.

Complaining is not going to accomplish anything.

 

[SITZKRIEG!]

How is it any different from PICARD'S speechifying (other than Michael being both female and African-American)?

Because most of the time Burnham is lecturing her commanding officer(s) whereas Picard is typically lecturing an outside group that is the focus/cause of the episode's conflict? There is a difference. You don't typically see Chief O'brien, Lt. Data, or even Cmdr Riker lecturing Picard in front of others just because they don't agree with his decision.

 

[Danja]

Because most of the time Burnham is lecturing her commanding officer(s) whereas Picard is typically lecturing an outside group that is the focus/cause of the episode's conflict? There is a difference. You don't typically see Chief O'brien, Lt. Data, or even Cmdr Riker lecturing Picard in front of others just because they don't agree with his decision.

Spock and McCoy both took Kirk down a few pegs in their day (often on the bridge).

 

[cooleddie74]

McCoy lectured both Kirk and Spock on the bridge. He didn't care.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Michael's tone/demeanor/actions towards her superiors are out of line compared with what Trek characters of times before, during, and after her era were allowed in the paramilitary organization that is Starfleet.

Oh get real, there are multiple instances in past series of characters acting with far more insubordination and disregard for authority than Burnham. Sisko was pretty confrontational with Nechayev as was Picard. Sisko and Admiral Leyton literally told the Federation President how to do his job. Chakotay frequently questioned Janeway's orders, even disobeying them a couple of times, Riker outright refused to follow Jellico's orders and basically made his commanding officer beg for his help. Kira argued with Sisko, Worf argued with Sisko, Worf threatened to kill Picard when he questioned his bravery. O'brien got into a fight with Worf and Bashir, two superior officers and almost started a fight with Eddington. Sisko poisoned a god damn planet because of a petty vendetta and without clearing it with Starfleet and it's implied 'In the pale moonlight' that he lied to Starfleet about his involvement with Vreenak's assassination.

 

[fireproof78]

Because most of the time Burnham is lecturing her commanding officer(s) whereas Picard is typically lecturing an outside group that is the focus/cause of the episode's conflict? There is a difference. You don't typically see Chief O'brien, Lt. Data, or even Cmdr Riker lecturing Picard in front of others just because they don't agree with his decision.

That's fine. This isn't TNG. This is TOS era. As Janeway would say the whole lot of them would be thrown out of Starlfeet of the 24th century. McCoy regularly questioned Spock, Spock was questioned multiple times in Galieo 7. Kirk was known to bend orders of admirals, including disregarding an admiral to save Spock's life. He was only saved by T'Pau's intervention. But, even Tuvok completely disobeyed Janeway's orders.

So, while I find Burnham's attitude confrontational, I do not find it out of line with past demosntrations.

 

[nightwind1]

People have been retelling stories and putting new spins on them for centuries. Since before television and movies. Just because you like one version of it and hold it sacred doesn't mean everyone should stop doing it.

Exactly. I enjoy Sherlock Holmes whether he's interpreted by Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Peter Cushing, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jonny Lee Miller, or Robert Downey Jr.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

When people go on about Spock’s “unknown” siblings, it’s helpful to ask them if they know the names and career paths of the siblings of all their coworkers.

They do not.

 

[Sci]

I've never liked the idea that Michael is Spock's adopted sister. I prefer the idea that Spock grew up alone and never really felt like he had a sibling connection to anyone until he and Kirk achieved a sense of brotherhood aboard the Enterprise during TOS.

I have also always felt that the characters identified as "Spock," "Sarek," and "Amanda" in DIS behave so differently from their TOS counterparts that they feel to me like entirely different characters who happen to share the same name.

But I also enjoyed those characters and their relationships, and I absolutely do not think that my having subjectively different creative tastes in this regard makes DIS a bad show. An idea I disagree with can still be executed well, and the Sarek Family Drama is executed pretty well. DIS is still a great show even if I don't agree with their idea of Spock or how many siblings he had.

 

[Lord Garth]

I've never liked the idea that Michael is Spock's adopted sister. I prefer the idea that Spock grew up alone and never really felt like he had a sibling connection to anyone until he and Kirk achieved a sense of brotherhood aboard the Enterprise during TOS.

I have also always felt that the characters identified as "Spock," "Sarek," and "Amanda" in DIS behave so differently from their TOS counterparts that they feel to me like entirely different characters who happen to share the same name.

But I also enjoyed those characters and their relationships, and I absolutely do not think that my having subjectively different creative tastes in this regard makes DIS a bad show. An idea I disagree with can still be executed well, and the Sarek Family Drama is executed pretty well. DIS is still a great show even if I don't agree with their idea of Spock or how many siblings he had.

In 2009, I figured when (not if) Star Trek returned to TV, it might pick up on the Prime Timeline end of things, and show what happened after the destruction of Romulus. Star Trek on AMC was my preferred choice, as a serialized slow-burn adult drama. This idea strengthened in my head as the years went on, Star Trek began streaming on Netflix, and we saw Netflix creating its own original series.

So, if anything, Picard is actually closer what I originally wanted and what I thought we'd get, even though I didn't think it would be about Picard. Yet I still ended up becoming a huge fan of Discovery. Because there were other things I wanted besides just that.

Quoting myself on January 1st, 2012:

A Star Trek on AMC would be great, and it would benefit from having a 13-episode season. Varied characters, more challenging material, and being able to take risks, either storywise or artistically, that a family show or expensive blockbusters couldn't.

Quoting myself on July 30th, 2016:

I dare say I think [Discovery] will be the best Star Trek series. I'll put it ahead of DS9. I'll put it ahead of TOS. Yes, I said it.

"Star Trek: Discovery" based on everything I've read about it, feels like it'll be pushing things forward. Regardless of when the time-frame might be. From story structure to social issues to character composition.

I've always liked the design of the ship in question. Geometric, hard lines, very different.

Serialized storyline. Gender-blind. Race-blind. LGBT character (hopefully). Representation from the Roddenberry, Bennett, Berman, and Abrams era. Trying to do things that haven't been done before while looking at the DNA of selective TOS episodes to see what made the spirit of Star Trek work.

The Captain of "Star Trek: Discovery" might be a black woman, inspired by the real life astronaut Mae Jemison.

It'll fit in with the landscape of today's series and what I happen to watch these days. "Star Trek: Discovery" marks off everything on my list. This is what I was looking for all along.

So I've wanted what we have now from pretty far back.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Why the hate for disco? Maybe because it's basically elevator music with a drum track?

Oh. You mean DSC! I don't have any particular hate for it, although I find Section 31 and Mirror Universe stories a bit tiresome, and the spore drive concept a bit preposterous.

 

[1001001]

Oh. You mean DSC! I don't have any particular hate for it, although I find Section 31 and Mirror Universe stories a bit tiresome, and the spore drive concept a bit preposterous.

It's very interesting to me where people draw the line when it comes to the suspension of disbelief.

Mycelial Network? Utterly preposterous!

Time travel by flying really fast around the sun? Sweet!

Anti-Time? You bet!



Now, I make no value judgments. Everyone draws their own line somewhere.

Just...interesting, that's all.

 

[fireproof78]

It's very interesting to me where people draw the line when it comes to the suspension of disbelief.

Mycelial Network? Utterly preposterous!

Time travel by flying really fast around the sun? Sweet!

Anti-Time? You bet!



Now, I make no value judgments. Everyone draws their own line somewhere.

Just...interesting, that's all.

It is always amusing to me that line as well. Though, who am I to judge. Harry Kim's lack of a promotion strains my suspension of disbelief

 

[jaime]

It's very interesting to me where people draw the line when it comes to the suspension of disbelief.

Mycelial Network? Utterly preposterous!

Time travel by flying really fast around the sun? Sweet!

Anti-Time? You bet!



Now, I make no value judgments. Everyone draws their own line somewhere.

Just...interesting, that's all.

Mushrooms. Even allowing for The Caretaker (VOY) and all kinds of TOS and TAS weirdness, the mental stumbling block is mushrooms. The other things may be nonsense, but it’s in that wheelhouse of Treknobabble nonsense. Mushrooms, well, we eat those. Then, even if you went with the seventies flower-child drive system, then they asked to go with Ripper The Giant Bug.

Now, I love me some Farscape, but it’s a different thing to Trek. Crazy stuff like this is more Farscape than Trek.
Throw in some military stuff (again, I like Babylon 5, I like Dark Matter, I laughed hard at Starship Troopers. But these things are not Trek. I didn’t get on with SG1 either.) and war crimes, and it made it very very hard to embrace DSC. Sprinkle in some excessive violence and gore, and yeah... it’s not really worked for me, before we even get to the heap of ‘huh’ that is Michael Burnham and everything around her.