Why the hate for Disco?

[Amasov]

There is an in-universe reason for Burnham's bizarre emotional outbursts though. She's a human who was raised as a Vulcan to repress emotions, which is completely unhealthy for a human. Once the trauma trigger of a Klingon attack hit in the series premiere along with the death of her mother figure Georgiou, Burnham completely lost control of emotions and has been processing them as someone basically a decade or so behind every other human.

It's like Anakin and Dooku in the Star Wars prequels. By forcing them into a non-emotional non-attachment state, they go over the edge once they are faced with heavy emotions and can't control them, and it's because of the repressed environment they were raised in, not unlike Burnham.

I don't even have any issue with the perceived "Michael is constantly crying" aspect of the show. The problem for me is that a lot of it just rings hollow because I'm not emotionally invested in what's happening to her a lot of the time.

 

[fireproof78]

The complaints about Burnham can be made about Kelvin Timeline Kirk and Picard in the Picard show. It seems that starting with the Kelvin Timeline movies, the Trek producers felt the need to turn their protagonists into jerks. Kelvin Kirk only became somewhat likable and sympathetic in Star Trek Beyond--the previous movies he was an outright jerk who just happened to be correct because everyone else was written as morons or evil (like Admiral Marcus).

It seems to be the trend these days to turn characters into jerks now, as substitute for actual character development of a protagonist who is a decent hearted person. In regards to the other star franchise again, note the change of Poe Dameron from all around decent guy in movie 7 to a mutineering jerk in 8 who somehow gets rewarded for being a jerk into movie 9.

I completely disagree with this analysis but it's covering topics not Discovery so I'll just say these characters do grow. Not just jerks, but have a reason behind what they do.

There is an in-universe reason for Burnham's bizarre emotional outbursts though. She's a human who was raised as a Vulcan to repress emotions, which is completely unhealthy for a human. Once the trauma trigger of a Klingon attack hit in the series premiere along with the death of her mother figure Georgiou, Burnham completely lost control of emotions and has been processing them as someone basically a decade or so behind every other human.

It's like Anakin and Dooku in the Star Wars prequels. By forcing them into a non-emotional non-attachment state, they go over the edge once they are faced with heavy emotions and can't control them, and it's because of the repressed environment they were raised in, not unlike Burnham.

All the characters claimed to be jerks have reasons too. But, spot on on Michael.

It was almost as if the writers just felt that the only way to make the character interesting was to put her through emotional torment.

Possibly. Maybe because that is interesting to people. I'm not saying it interested for everyone but certainly it is a style I have seen multiple times.

 

[Swedish Borg]

If she were a male the term would be confident.

Exactly, characterizing female assertiveness as arrogance is sexism right there.

How dare she be so sure of herself when she's just a black female!!!

Everything that is deemed a positive attribute in a white male like Kirk or Picard, is frowned upon for someone who's either not white like Sisko or not a male like Janeway but if it's a black female then all hell breaks loose!!!

How can people not see that?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

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.

Indeed, I'm not disputing that. I feel that I was pretty specific in saying that I don't think ALL people who dislike Burnham are doing it for the reasons I stated, but that there is that aspect to SOME of the hate/dislike whether conscious or not.

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.

Personally, I think some of the criticism or moreso, the feeling behind the criticisms fall into uppity negro territory. Particularly when it comes to how forthright and opinionated Burnham is.

 

[eschaton]

The complaints about Burnham can be made about Kelvin Timeline Kirk and Picard in the Picard show. It seems that starting with the Kelvin Timeline movies, the Trek producers felt the need to turn their protagonists into jerks. Kelvin Kirk only became somewhat likable and sympathetic in Star Trek Beyond--the previous movies he was an outright jerk who just happened to be correct because everyone else was written as morons or evil (like Admiral Marcus).

It seems to be the trend these days to turn characters into jerks now, as substitute for actual character development of a protagonist who is a decent hearted person. In regards to the other star franchise again, note the change of Poe Dameron from all around decent guy in movie 7 to a mutineering jerk in 8 who somehow gets rewarded for being a jerk into movie 9.

IMHO the problem isn't that you show a character as a jerk. Plenty of shows have focused on flawed protagonists. The problem is wanting to both show your character as a jerk and to show their judgement as always being correct. I think Discovery did this early on because they wanted to portray Michael as a strong female lead. Which is the exact same way they screwed up Janeway in VOY. By making the lead always right, it by definition means that other characters need to be always wrong (which in the case of Voyager, ruined Chakotay, because his role was to disagree with Janeway and then meekly give in by the end of the episode).

Again, the opening two-parter was indicative, because everything was teed up for the Klingon War to be her fault - but it wasn't, not really. The Shenzhou never actually fired on the Klingons, and T'Kuvma's dialogue suggests that if a "Vulcan hello" was given it's possible that they would have backed down. Aside from perhaps killing T'Kuvma in a fit of rage, Michael didn't do anything which actively made things worse for the Federation.

And yes, I realize that by the end of the season she somehow realized that her earlier bellicosity wasn't warranted. But it was an...odd conclusion...because nothing we saw onscreen actually suggested her actions in the prologue were the wrong ones. It seemed to be more a conclusion which was aimed at the audience than flowing out of the characters - a writer's cop out to justify a season which felt very grimdark and militaristic. And in the end she makes a random-ass decision to trust Georgiou and L'Rell and both pay off, just because. Again, she might be flawed, but her judgement is perfect, due to the writers needing to railroad the plot to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Char Kais]

Michael didn't do anything which actively made things worse for the Federation.

Why do people always forget that, against orders from Georgiou, she landed on the Beacon and killed the Torchbearer.
That is what started the conflict. This happened in the first 20 minutes of episode 1.

That she killed T'Kuvma, instead of capturing him, which was the plan, is the second issue.

 

[Lord Garth]

Talk about not being able to let things go... That was three seasons ago. The show has moved on since then, and so have most of the rest of us.

But for those who want to stay stuck in the past, the Klingons were itching to go to war no matter what. If it wasn't something Burnham did, it would've been something else.

 

[fireproof78]

That is what started the conflict. This happened in the first 20 minutes of episode 1.

The Klingons wanted a war. This was just an excuse. War still would have happened regardless of Michael's choice.

 

[Char Kais]

Talk about not being able to let things go... That was three seasons ago.

The show has moved on since then, and so have most of the rest of us.

Why don't you say that to the people who argue that "Burnham did nothing wrong in the pilot episode".
I didn't bring up the pilot episode, I just replied.

 

[Yistaan]

Dr. Piper: Mr. Spock, wasn't your stepsister the infamous mutineer who started the Klingon War around a decade ago? For some reason everyone stopped talking about it.

Kirk: ...

Spock: Doctor Mark Piper, you are hereby relieved from Starfleet and guilty of treason. You are to be beamed directly to Section 31 headquarters where you will be dealt with.

Dr. Piper: No--what? How does this make sense? What's with all the secrecy? Why are you helping Section 31 cover up things? I heard they tried to attack you back in the day!

Kirk: Computer, energize!

Piper: No---nooo! NOOOOOO!!!!

Kirk: 31, do you have him?

Section 31: Enterprise, what we got back won't live long...

Kirk: Have new medical officer Dr. McCoy dispose of the bones and tell him it was a transporter accident.

(Thus McCoy gained his nickname and a fear of transporters all in one day)

 

[fireproof78]

Well, you know I was short of things to cause me to wake up screaming. This should do for at least a week.

 

[Vger23]

Indeed, I'm not disputing that. I feel that I was pretty specific in saying that I don't think ALL people who dislike Burnham are doing it for the reasons I stated, but that there is that aspect to SOME of the hate/dislike whether conscious or not.

No worries at all! I know that wasn't your intent. I was talking in more general terms than directing anything specific at you. I think there are all kinds out there.

I just want to caution fans in general to not immediately suspect bigotry when someone says "I don't like Sisko" or "Stamets is my least favorite character." I think we're conditioned to see bigotry and racism everywhere, unfortunately. Sometimes, it's really just that people don't like a particular character.

I can understand why, for example, people might not like Burnham. I totally get it. I don't share that opinion (she's still one of my favorites), but I can see how the people who (for example) expect their leads to be Picard or Sisko would find her unappealing and grating. I'm the opposite. I'm glad she's cut from a completely different mold.

 

[fireproof78]

I just want to caution fans in general to not immediately suspect bigotry when someone says "I don't like Sisko" or "Stamets is my least favorite character." I think we're conditioned to see bigotry and racism everywhere, unfortunately. Sometimes, it's really just that people don't like a particular character.

This is a fair point. Good reminder.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Some of the arguments are so transparent though. Like when someone says that he likes Owo better than Michael because she is less arrogant, what they really mean is that Owo knows her place and Michael doesn't.

 

[Vger23]

Some of the arguments are so transparent though. Like when someone says that he likes Owo better than Michael because she is less arrogant, what they really mean is that Owo knows her place and Michael doesn't.

I think that’s a dangerous and irresponsible assumption to make about someone, based solely on their opinions of fictional characters.

 

[RandyS]

I think that’s a dangerous and irresponsible assumption to make about someone, based solely on their opinions of fictional characters.

Yep. It implies bigotry where there is nothing more than honest critisim.

 

[Yistaan]

Some of the arguments are so transparent though. Like when someone says that he likes Owo better than Michael because she is less arrogant, what they really mean is that Owo knows her place and Michael doesn't.

I think that’s a dangerous and irresponsible assumption to make about someone, based solely on their opinions of fictional characters.

Yep, @Vger23 is completely right on this. I actually know how bad this can get from the infamous toxicity of that other Star franchise. At worst people end up defaming an innocent person over something said about a fictional character.

Over at theforce net Jedi Council Forums, I made an offhand comment on a thread that Luke's fantasy dream with Camie in the Last Jedi novelization (someone who had bullied him and called him Wormie) seemed out of character (out of character that his dream would be with someone like her instead of any other women he'd met who were kinder to him).

Immediately, a moderator and another poster (both of whom were male) teamed up against me, said I was a sexist "nice guy" who hated women in publicly accessible forum posts (none of this is remotely true just to be clear) in regards to this post about Camie (a fictional character) and banned me on the spot. In shock, I messaged the moderator and said if my post about Camie (I didn't say anything bad about her at all, just that it seemed unrealistic she'd marry Luke even in a fantasy dream) was off they can delete it, but that his and the other poster's posts declaring me sexist (all publicly accessible) were false and defamatory and should be removed.

In reply, the moderator wrote a taunt "Lawyer up", which I then had to spend an inordinate amount of money to get a law firm to look over theforce net forums, only for my attorney to find that the defamatory content was removed (the moderator must have realized I was taking this very seriously by that point).

My lawyer then saw the mod's message to me that the ban was for 48 hours and we felt the matter was resolved. However, after 48 hours passed, the ban was still there and I asked the mod what happened. He said for daring to ask and not "apologizing" for sexism (about a fictional character keep in mind, and over comments about her history of calling Luke Wormie not her gender), the ban was extended to 96 hours. This was almost a year ago, and it's clear my ban is permanent unless I "confess" to their accusation of sexism.

I really don't want to see that kind of thing here in Trek fandom. While combating sexism/racism etc. is important, outright accusing someone of being sexist/racist/etc. solely on opinions about fictional characters without evidence of real life wrongdoing is just outright defamation and can seriously damage someone's life.

 

[cooleddie74]

I just want to caution fans in general to not immediately suspect bigotry when someone says "I don't like Sisko" or "Stamets is my least favorite character." I think we're conditioned to see bigotry and racism everywhere, unfortunately. Sometimes, it's really just that people don't like a particular character.

This. Troi in TNG was largely considered useless and not exactly the most popular member of the lead cast because she was written poorly or underwritten or both, not necessarily because Marina Sirtis is a woman. She just wasn't a very good character for significant stretches of the series and it had nothing to do with her gender nor that of the actor portraying her.

 

[johnjm22]

This. Troi in TNG was largely considered useless and not exactly the most popular member of the lead cast because she was written poorly or underwritten or both, not necessarily because Marina Sirtis is a woman. She just wasn't a very good character for significant stretches of the series and it had nothing to do with her gender nor that of the actor portraying her.

It seems like Star Trek episodes centered around a female leads have largely gotten sub-par writing. That's not to say there weren't some decent Troi/Crusher episodes; there was, but not many.

Kira episodes were always great. Her and Janeway seem to be the exceptions.

I don't think many people ever looked forward to Keiko or Lwaxana episodes. Quark's mom was a fun character though.

Discovery is continuing the tradition of poorly written female leads.

 

[Captain_Nick]

... In reply, the moderator wrote a taunt "Lawyer up", which I then had to spend an inordinate amount of money to get a law firm to look over theforce net forums, only for my attorney to find that the defamatory content was removed (the moderator must have realized I was taking this very seriously by that point)...

Agree with what you're saying, it's very very easy to self radicalise on the internet etc etc, but I'm dying to know - did you pursue the matter? I'm not sure I would have been able to restrain myself, tampered evidence or no.