Why the hate for Disco?

So does that mean deep down some Trekkies are conservatives?

 

I quite liked Jellico. He was a man on a time-sensitive mission and wasn't particularly concerned with everyones' feelings - nor should he have been. After all, wouldn't you expect one hell of a disciplined and responsive crew on the Federation flagship?

Instead he got a bunch of whingers upset he'd disrupted their luxury liner MO. Riker was a complete prick in that scene.

And Deanna looked far better in a proper uniform.

 

I agree. Jellico did nothing wrong. Riker on the other hand should have been court-martialled.

 

No, because being conservative doesn't equal racist just like being progressive doesn't make someone an automatically virtuous. And I say this as someone who leans left of centre. A lot of people who dislike Burnham, have no issue with Sisko, who frequently broke rules and told his superior officers what to do, so the issue isn't solely race. If Burnham was a black man, there wouldn't be the same level of criticism. I think some Trek fans regardless of their political leanings have a big problem with women in positions of authority and also have some fetishised and misogynistic beliefs about how women of colour should behave.

 

One thing I'll say here is there was a subtle difference between the defiance shown by Sisko at times and Michael. Basically, Sisko's antagonists within Starflleet were different shades of the "evil admiral" trope. There was never really the suggestion that Starfleet was rotten top to bottom: Only that a particular individual had poor judgement and/or was actively malevolent.

In contrast, at the end of Season 1, Discovery effectively painted everyone within Starfleet - from Admiral Cornwell to Sarek to...all the offscreen leadership basically - as being both stupid and morally compromised in order to make out Michael as being the hero. Stupid because there was no guarantee that even if they blew up Quonos that the Klingon fleet would retreat from Earth (fighting for vengeance seems more the Klingon style), and morally compromised because they accepted genocide as a potential solution to their problems. There was nothing within Seasons 2 or 3 which was anywhere near this bad however, TBH.

 

If everyone would live by this one simple truth, imagine the improvements we'd see in our ability to listen to each other and solve our cultural problems and differences in values and opinions.

Agreed to some extent, but I also think that there are many people who just don't like certain characters, regardless of their gender, skin color or sexual orientation. I think in our current political climate, people are WAAAAY too quick to blame politics or bigotry for reasons that have NOTHING to do with certain opinions. Janeway is not a character I care for, for example. That doesn't make me a sexist misogynist or someone who hates white people. I just....you know....don't really care for the fictional character of Janeway. There isn't anything else to it. But we'll look for reasons to hate and divide at every opportunity.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

Your post is well reasoned and makes alot of sense.

These people will have you for lunch.

 

Exactly. For some reason there's this over the top need to justify disliking a Star Trek show. It's ok to not like a show or character. Has nothing to do with politics.

 

Politics or not, opinions are more intense in the 2020s than they were in the 1990s. In support of something or against it. So the racists and more racist, the sexists are more sexist, and Burnham gets the 2020s (meaning more extreme) version of both at the same time.

Burnham is getting judged more harshly than Sisko or Janeway because it's a different time, and what @Agony_Boothb already said is exactly right. Even some who are okay with a different race or a different gender suddenly react different when it's both. At least subconsciously.

Elephant in the Room: Audiences (in general) like to identify with the main character. We've been psychologically conditioned to think this way all our lives. So if they're not identifying with Burnham -- for reasons that I think are terrible -- then it's going to give them a negative outlook no matter what. I think this says more about the person than it does about the series. Nothing's going to change my mind about that.

Not that you can't dislike Burnham for other reasons, but the above exists out there. And it can't be ignored.

 

While a lot of the stock criticisms of Michael edge into sexist tropes, I can't really think of any which really mirror racial stereotyping.

 

What continually blows my mind is how easily I can identify with characters. Michael is probably one of the easier protagonists in Star Trek for me, vs. Picard or even Sisko. Not sure why but it drives me nuts how quickly Michael gets dismissed for superficial reasons.

And I say that as a more conservative leaning individual. But, then, I like breaking stereotypes.

 

Michael seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way, though personally, I can't imagine why. I hope it's neither race nor misogyny because if it was (even on an unconscious level) it would be very bad.

 

I think the extreme vocal opinions around the Internet (not here) may be based out of such things. The rest I truly think is just due to the cognitive dissonance that comes from not liking a Star Trek show and having to nail it down with specific things to hate, rather than be OK with not liking Star Trek.

 

For a curious and incredible coincidence, being a woman and black are the only two characteristics which differentiate her from other every main character who had did before the exactly same things she did. But I'm sure there is a good and rationale reason for the loathing, but I haven't still read one.

 

There's one other one, that I speculated about a few years ago. Burnham wasn't the Captain, so the fact that the series usually favored her point of view meant it could come across as undercutting the Captain. But now that she is the Captain, going into the fourth season, that's not going to be a reason anymore. So it'll be interesting to see how the people who think this way will respond to Burnham, going forward.

 

I think it's more "not only is it a woman, but a black woman!" They're not saying it, but they're thinking it, subconsciously or not. They might not even be aware of it.

 

I've long felt like part of the issue with Michael is she's frequently both subject and object in the story.

Most other Trek shows have historically been ensembles, while Discovery clearly is not. But the way Discovery treats Michael is different as well. If she was simply a "Kirk" we'd see her save the day every week, and our understanding of the character would be defined by her actions. However, lots of time is spent on her long and tortured backstory (including her complicated family history). The entire second season arc is - literally - all about her. Other Treks had dipped their toes in the water here of course. DS9 the most strongly, given Sisko's personal arc as the Emissary is bound up in both the pilot and the finale, and lots of points in between. However, it was never all Sisko, all the time - and sometimes when it was, the focus was more on lower-stakes stories about fatherhood rather than heavy drama.

I also think that Discovery has been a bit guilty in the past of failing the "show not tell" test with her character. We did get to see cases where she was heroic of course, but we also were simply told on multiple occasions (particularly during Season 1) how brilliant she was. I mean, over the course of that season, you literally had two of the main antagonists (Lorca and Ash) in love with her, and Sarek (who never had a kind word for his son) giving very un-Vulcan-like effusive praise. This aspect of the show has improved much since Michelle Paradise has taken over however, with the show more explicitly lampshading the flaws of Michael rather than simply...shilling her.

 

Traditional Trek, particularly of the Berman era... has taken... baby steps towards being inclusive/progressive. White male. White male. Black (male). (White) female. White male. "PS somebody pls remind Brooks to shave his face and grow some hair; maybe we'll let it slide later on if we get too busy." I wouldn't even be surprised if several early DS9 treatments had "Remember he's 'commander' not captain" red-inked into the margins.

It's entirely possible for a supposedly bigoted individual to have never had problems with Trek until the current wave of programs. (Although I also remember letters-to-the-editor from fans reacting badly to 'Rejoined' on DS9. Now it would take at least another full paragraph to explain why I didn't like that one).

It's also possible to be disgusted or aggravated by STD's (STP's, CBS/Kurtzman Trek's) particular bluntly shallow brand of "wokeness" (god I hate that word!) in ways that have nothing to do with being "offended" by content, or with the question of Should They or Shouldn't They, or even with simply not liking a character (though the latter probably already plays a huge part). And this is something I've avoided bringing up until now.

STD is Kurtzman Trek's worst offender. I think mostly because it's broken right out of the box. The only showrunner who knew what to do with "michaelburhnam" (I already know I'm going to get shit for pronouncing it like that, and I don't even know where I've heard it) is fired. She's everywhere, she's intimately attached to every plot development (no matter what the season or story arc), and there's never any variance to the whispered urgency of her emotions (Does no one remember Meyer telling Montalban to never let an audience see your top?) I was with her and her story arc throughout the first season, minus the finale. I lost her.

I could go on, I won't. Kurtzman Trek (in general) has its execution priorities skewed. It's running Woke Checklist Committee on a front burner. In between trying not to boil that, it's got Fanservice, Reparations and Fan Appeasement constantly switching out fresh pots and pans on the other front burner (Don't forget to always handwave wink-wink within the dialogue whenever you've fixed something fans didn't like).

So where does that leave Story, Outline, Theme and Subtext, Political/Social/Literary Influences, Life Experiences, and In General What To Take Out Of This Thing? All that stuff's not only simmering on a back burner, occasionally getting a stir until "Oh shit, why didn't we notice this was burning??", but it's allocated to the one defective burner that shocks you. Meanwhile Subtlety and Nuance is assigned to the burner not in use because no one wants to move the neglected saucepan with thirty-four years of dust caked into it.

Trekmovie just posted an article about making Gray Tal "truly seen". I had already forgotten that was even a thing... within the sci-fi premise of the show that is, in which Culber explicitly promised as much. What does that even mean? (Would Dax be able to explain it?) It doesn't matter; that's what STD wants to make the magic mushrooms do next. Now, why is this even as issue?

Sure, I at first thought they were being "cute/clever" with Adira's preferred pronouns (I "get" it, they're a Trill... er, joined individual... Hell I don't even know what a Trill is! Human female with a Trill symbiont who's her only link to a deceased lover). Well, she's non-binary... OK I "get" it (Well actually I don't... It's OK to start throwing stones at me right about now). She's (they're) non-binary because... Why?

She's (physically) female, and her only relationship in evidence has been a heterosexual one. (No, you don't need to remind me that a person's present or past relationship isn't his whole story. You just need to make be believe. I think you (Kurtzman Trek) want inexperienced, tone-deaf flat-footed me to believe it, you just aren't willing to do the work instead of checking off boxes.)

It's NOT whether Adira is non-binary, or whether Seven is gay (she's still enough of a blank slate after four years "development" on VOY, that I can more easily accept "pro-tip" lady as a potential partner over bland Chakotay -- Hell I guessed THEY had only been an item for a handful of eps prior to 'Endgame', and it seems to me at least a couple fans confirmed my suspicion; now how would I be able to guess on something like that with such cynical accuracy?) It's not whether you do it, it's... "Why?" Why Adira Tal? And why Seven? You could choose anybody; I wouldn't care. I can't tell you how to make me believe it, YOU have to believe it. You have to do the work.

Why is Picard SO clueless about the people around him that he doesn't even realize he just bamboozled "pro-tip" lady into burning the last of her bridges for him? Why is Boimler so emasculated that it's supposed to be funny when Mariner injures him? Is it because they're stupid white men? Why does michaelburnham seem to clash with white male authority figures (now that someone's mentioned it) when it always turns out later they should be listening to her? You can do interesting stuff with this; I just want to know if that's the only reason. Maybe the figures who underestimate her don't have to be both male and white.

Stamets and Culber... perfect. Completely naturalistic, you blew self-conscious Berman Trek to shame. Then you ruined it with your mycelial network wish-me-back-in-Kansas resurrection mumbo jumbo. (Is Culber even a real person now? Can he behave in ways Stamets wouldn't anticipate? I'm letting my sci-fi get in the way of their fantasy.) Should you just not have killed him? If you couldn't live with the consequences, perhaps not.

Ultimately though what we want is a solid, meaningful story. With hopefully some real science fiction involved. All the supposed "wokeness" issues (god, I hate that word!) would immediately evaporate, at least credibly speaking (If the criticism is not credible you shouldn't gave a damn). The backpedaling fan appeasement would still be as issue. But why after four seasons of STD/STP we still can't get a story that's about something (STP comes the closest) is truly baffling.

 

I do think this is part of it that Burnham cuts against too many grains to accept the differences. Add to the fact that her backstory ties in to one of the more popular Trek characters, while being super important in her own right and it can rub people the wrong way. But, again, because "Star Trek" somehow carries so much weight to it that simply not liking the show is not enough. There must be something "wrong" with how Michael is done, either in character, or backstory, or how she saves the day. It's not logical by any stretch, and possible deeply unconscious.

 

The early seasons of DS9 did have a habit of having Sisko fly off the handle of with Admirals quite frequently. They even made a joke about it once with Dr. Bashir commenting on Sisko's blood pressure saying "you should be fine provided you don't yell at too many Admirals today."