I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.

[Norad]

Disclaimer: I agree that every series had people that liked them and people that disliked them in the beginning. But that is by no means the same as to think that people just hate everything new. The absolute majority (even of the mentioned "vocal" minorities) don't just hate it because it is new. It is mostly not even the same people that dislike each of the incarnations in the beginning.

E.g. I really dislike (the early seasons of) DIS, dislike PIC and definitely I find Abrams Trek downright stupid and unworthy of the name "Trek", but I also like LD and SNW and think that PRO and DIS.4 are ok. (and I am happy to give reasons for all of this in the appropriate forums)

Fair point, though I would say that when the criticism boils down to "I just don't like it." then I'll be more skeptical as to the source..

Sure, the ones that don't give reasons for their (dis-)like are quite uninteresting.

There are a lot of people who don't like Discovery for legitimate reasons. Those are not the ones I file under "haters." The ones who repeatedly state that they don't like the show and keep coming back to watch will fall closer to that camp for me.

I would love to understand it more.

Well, I tend to believe that I belong in both groups: I really don't like (the early) DIS seasons and I repeatedly gave my reasons for it (e.g. unlikable characters; unclear motivation and that the plot doesn't make much sense; again thanks to you that you provided your insights for season 1 regarding this in the other thread). But also, I came back to watch the newer seasons and actually like season 4 (although DIS is still not in my TOP 5 Star Trek series).

So maybe I can give some insight on why I kept coming back.
First of all, I am kind of an optimist and a completionist. That means that if I started to watch a series, it has to be quite bad for me to not come back to see how it develops (as long as it is easily available). That doesn't mean that I just continue at any quality. Actually, I think for DIS I would probably have stopped watching after season 1 or season 2, if it wasn't for the main reason: It is part of something bigger - the Star Trek franchise. And as a Star Trek fan I want to stay informed about it and that means for me that I have to check each series (probably even each episode) out myself.
Being part of the Star Trek franchise is "a gift and a burden":
It is a gift, because it draws a lot of people in it just because it is Star Trek. Even if it is absolute crap, you will maintain a base viewership.
It is a burden, because the expectations to it will automatically be a little bit higher. So, e.g. if I would see crap like Stardust City Rag in a series like 24 I would probably think "Yeah, the authors are morally bankrupt, but who cares." But seeing it in a series that calls itself Star Trek, I think it is appalling and betrays everything Star Trek stands for.
Some people say that this is unfair and every new series should be seen completely on its own, but that's naive and inaccurate. The studios build up on getting the mentioned gift above by using the existing IP, therefore it is just and fair, that they also have to carry the burden that comes with it. So much, that there are several idioms reminding you of it: You can't eat and keep the cake! With great power comes great responsibility!

Although, that's my personal reasons, I think that these will be present in varying degrees for many other people that disliked DIS season 1 and/or 2 but still came back. But, obviously, this is not a complete list of all possible reasons.

 

[fireproof78]

First of all, I am kind of an optimist and a completionist. That means that if I started to watch a series, it has to be quite bad for me to not come back to see how it develops (as long as it is easily available). That doesn't mean that I just continue at any quality. Actually, I think for DIS I would probably have stopped watching after season 1 or season 2, if it wasn't for the main reason: It is part of something bigger - the Star Trek franchise. And as a Star Trek fan I want to stay informed about it and that means for me that I have to check each series (probably even each episode) out myself.
Being part of the Star Trek franchise is "a gift and a burden":
It is a gift, because it draws a lot of people in it just because it is Star Trek. Even if it is absolute crap, you will maintain a base viewership.

Which is perhaps the part that I will never quite understand, even if I appreciate the articulation. If it's crap, Star Trek isn't going to draw me in. But, it obviously keeps drawing in others.

I don't think every series should be built completely separately. More my personal thing is that when changes happen I take them in light of a franchise that has fully embraced change as part of it's dynamic. Star Trek is not a static thing, nor would it be something I could say "this betrays all that Trek stands for!" when Trek has shown a large swath of the human experience, and not always the positive. I think being a Trek fan means more than just hitching up your wagon to the stars because "Star Trek." It means being aware of the ups and downs that have come, and that a new show, regardless of the downs, has something to add to the franchise no matter what.

Now, that doesn't mean I accept everything in Star Trek as being good. Certainly I would not say all of the Trek shows have been good, from TOS forward. There are episodes that I just like snippets of, or just certain episodes out of whole series or season. I'm not blind that Trek has parts that don't appeal to me. I just don't jump to the "betrayal" aspect of Trek shows.

That's just me though.

 

[Norad]

To have a simple formulation of it: Consider that if you like a series, you are pretty much drawn to give a critique on each new episode of this series - even the ones you don't like. In the same way, some people that like Star Trek are drawn to give a critique to each Star Trek series - even the ones they don't like.

 

[fireproof78]

To have a simple formulation of it: Consider that if you like a series, you are pretty much drawn to give a critique on each new episode of this series - even the ones you don't like. In the same way, some people that like Star Trek are drawn to give a critique to each Star Trek series - even the ones they don't like.

I guess I don't have that. If I don't like it it's pretty much in the dust bin for me.

 

[Norad]

I guess I don't have that. If I don't like it it's pretty much in the dust bin for me.

So, did you like every single episode of DIS so far or did you stay away from the forum for the episodes you didn't like?

 

[fireproof78]

So, did you like every single episode of DIS so far or did you stay away from the forum for the episodes you didn't like?

If I don't like it I don't really comment beyond saying "I don't like it." It's not something I find much joy in. Either it works, or it doesn't. If push comes to shove I can probably articulate my dislike beyond that but that's difficult. Things work, or they don't.

And, no I don't like every single episode of any Trek.

 

[Norad]

If I don't like it I don't really comment beyond saying "I don't like it."

Wait a moment, didn't we agree that saying "I don't like it" without stating the reason is kind of direction of the hate camp?

 

[fireproof78]

Wait a moment, didn't we agree that saying "I don't like it" without stating the reason is kind of direction of the hate camp?

More that's my knee-jerk reaction to such statements. That doesn't automatically mean a hater but I look more sideways at it if that makes sense.

I guess more my point is that I don't really ruminate on things I don't like. If I don't like it then it takes a lot of prompting for me to filter through the "Why" of things in that moment.

 

[donners22]

It is a burden, because the expectations to it will automatically be a little bit higher.

I'd say more rigid/narrow than higher. Many of the criticisms, including one of yours, are centred around the notion of "X is not Star Trek".

That's a very subjective definition, and one which I always find a bit odd as Trek has been many things over the years. DS9 got plenty of that back in the day for being station-based and having religious themes, but now it's broadly accepted as part of the Trek fabric

 

[ScottJ85]

what's the point of making shows that constantly stomp on what came before?

Because the alternative is a situation where storytelling takes a back seat to ensuring strict compliance with nearly 60 years of continuity.

 

[dupersuper]

Because the alternative is a situation where storytelling takes a back seat to ensuring strict compliance with nearly 60 years of continuity.

Again, it's not a binary situation. A good story can do both.

 

[TedShatner10]

. So, e.g. if I would see crap like Stardust City Rag in a series like 24 I would probably think "Yeah, the authors are morally bankrupt, but who cares." But seeing it in a series that calls itself Star Trek, I think it is appalling and betrays everything Star Trek stands for.

Um, why?! How does it contraduct the ethos of Star Trek?!

"Stardust City Rag" is not set in the Federation, Seven Of Nine is a renegade/freelancer, the city the episode is set on is a neutral free for all planet in the dissolved Neutral Zone, full of criminals, refugees, and Wild West type companies, and if anything, shows how bad things can get without the UFP and Starfleet (with rule of law and fairer enforcement).

You can dislike its violent tone in parts and the nastiness of Icheb's death or Seven relapsing into an a angry rut in her Midlife Crisis, but it does not really contradict what bad stuff was seen in Trek when Roddenberry was alive or when Rick Berman was in charge (Tasha's home planet and that Orion planet seen in DS9).

 

[Steve Roby]

Where were all these canon-is-all-important people all the times '90s Trek violated TOS canon and its own canon? Is it okay to violate canon if the sets and costumes look the way you expect? Or is it just the same old "it's okay when the Trek I like did it, but it's a hanging offence when the Trek I don't like does it" crap again?

 

[Amasov]

Disclaimer: I agree that every series had people that liked them and people that disliked them in the beginning. But that is by no means the same as to think that people just hate everything new. The absolute majority (even of the mentioned "vocal" minorities) don't just hate it because it is new. It is mostly not even the same people that dislike each of the incarnations in the beginning.

E.g. I really dislike (the early seasons of) DIS, dislike PIC and definitely I find Abrams Trek downright stupid and unworthy of the name "Trek", but I also like LD and SNW and think that PRO and DIS.4 are ok. (and I am happy to give reasons for all of this in the appropriate forums)


Sure, the ones that don't give reasons for their (dis-)like are quite uninteresting.


Well, I tend to believe that I belong in both groups: I really don't like (the early) DIS seasons and I repeatedly gave my reasons for it (e.g. unlikable characters; unclear motivation and that the plot doesn't make much sense; again thanks to you that you provided your insights for season 1 regarding this in the other thread). But also, I came back to watch the newer seasons and actually like season 4 (although DIS is still not in my TOP 5 Star Trek series).

So maybe I can give some insight on why I kept coming back.
First of all, I am kind of an optimist and a completionist. That means that if I started to watch a series, it has to be quite bad for me to not come back to see how it develops (as long as it is easily available). That doesn't mean that I just continue at any quality. Actually, I think for DIS I would probably have stopped watching after season 1 or season 2, if it wasn't for the main reason: It is part of something bigger - the Star Trek franchise. And as a Star Trek fan I want to stay informed about it and that means for me that I have to check each series (probably even each episode) out myself.
Being part of the Star Trek franchise is "a gift and a burden":
It is a gift, because it draws a lot of people in it just because it is Star Trek. Even if it is absolute crap, you will maintain a base viewership.
It is a burden, because the expectations to it will automatically be a little bit higher. So, e.g. if I would see crap like Stardust City Rag in a series like 24 I would probably think "Yeah, the authors are morally bankrupt, but who cares." But seeing it in a series that calls itself Star Trek, I think it is appalling and betrays everything Star Trek stands for.
Some people say that this is unfair and every new series should be seen completely on its own, but that's naive and inaccurate. The studios build up on getting the mentioned gift above by using the existing IP, therefore it is just and fair, that they also have to carry the burden that comes with it. So much, that there are several idioms reminding you of it: You can't eat and keep the cake! With great power comes great responsibility!

Although, that's my personal reasons, I think that these will be present in varying degrees for many other people that disliked DIS season 1 and/or 2 but still came back. But, obviously, this is not a complete list of all possible reasons.

This is 100% the same for me. At the moment, I truly believe that Discovery is the weakest series out of them all. I've said it countless times here, but, I think the writing and characterizations are extremely weak. Like, shockingly weak.

Over the years, the show has had more downs than ups, but, there have been some excellent episodes; excellent STAR TREK episodes.

But the series has shown little to no interest in trying to get me invested in these characters. And it's not as if I haven't tried to. Rather than allowing one character to carry an episode, they're given one of the plot threads as Michael essentially carries the rest. Some can defend this by saying, "Yes, but, the show is about Michael," which, sure, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the characters have to take a back seat all the damn time.

Lower Decks has ten full hours available and I'm far more invested in those characters than I am in four years of Discovery. Strange New Worlds has THREE HOURS and I'm already more invested in those characters, too. One of the reasons why I thought the dinner scene in Pike's quarters was a stroke of genius was because it was a perfect opportunity for us, the viewers, to learn a little more about some of the characters. Discovery doesn't want to do these things. A quiet moment on Discovery is a character going through some personal crisis. I'm not suggesting everyone has to be perfect, but, JESUS CHRIST this show seems to think the only way to make a character interesting is to give them a personal crisis. It's exhausting.

Discovery wants to tell these huge, sweeping, stakes on a galactic scale stories while throwing in some melodrama in the hopes it gets the audience invested. And while that isn't necessarily the wrong approach, it's just not what gets me invested in a series. I have to have a reason to care about the characters and Discovery has yet to achieve this.

But will I stop watching? No, of course not. Because, as you said, it's Star Trek. I've just brought my expectations way down. To be clear: I don't hate the show. I want to really enjoy it in the same way some of you do, but, I cannot.

 

[Norad]

Um, why?! How does it contraduct the ethos of Star Trek?!

"Stardust City Rag" is not set in the Federation, Seven Of Nine is a renegade/freelancer, the city the episode is set on is a neutral free for all planet in the dissolved Neutral Zone, full of criminals, refugees, and Wild West type companies, and if anything, shows how bad things can get without the UFP and Starfleet (with rule of law and fairer enforcement).

You can dislike its violent tone in parts and the nastiness of Icheb's death or Seven relapsing into an a angry rut in her Midlife Crisis, but it does not really contradict what bad stuff was seen in Trek when Roddenberry was alive or when Rick Berman was in charge (Tasha's home planet and that Orion planet seen in DS9).

There is a HUGE difference between "Some bad guys do bad stuff." and "A protagonist does bad stuff and we depict it as being the right thing to do."

Tasha Yar was hunted by rape gangs on Turkana IV. The episode clearly depicted the rape gangs as the bad guys and Tasha as the protagonist and hero that managed to evade the rape gang and to build up her own life by joining the welcoming Federation - which again is portraited as the good thing which should be strived for.
The episode makes it clear: "rape = bad, providing society where you can live in peace = good"

1. Seven of Nine murders an innocent victim of a terrible crime (Icheb). The episode depicts this a merciful act - instating the harmful narrative of "crime victims are damaged good, unworthy of life, it's better to kill them"! Obviously Icheb felt very bad after the bad guys raped his body a minute ago and was in pain in this extraordinary situation, he was not in full possession of his mental powers. So, his confused plea is morally not sufficient to change that this is plain murder. The bad guys butchered Icheb, but Seven was the one that robbed him of his future by murdering him!
2. Then, Seven of Nine - after waiting several years - armed herself, went amok and murdered in cold blood. The episode clearly depicts the murderer as the hero and the murder victims as the bad guy and "insignificant" people who you are free to gun down on the way (out). As by statement by the creatives behind the episode, they even added the scene where Icheb is slaughtered to ensure that the audience will root for, embrace and welcome the cold blood murder. And then they even depicts it in a way as if an amok-running person was invincible; all the security guards don't do Seven any harm, she just needs to take two weapons and can safely gun down everyone in the vicinity.
The episode makes it clear: "murder in cold blood = good; running amok = good and easy to do!; murder crime victims while being in shock = good".

Now, if you wanted to have a similar distasteful bullshit (to no. 2 from above) on Turkana IV, then Picard would have been the leader of the rape gang and it would have shown how easy and fun it was to rape people - and even more they would have included scenes to make sure that the audience would embrace the rape and root for the raping protagonist. That would have been some appalling bullshit ... and so is Stardust City Rag.

So, yes, Stardust City Rag is absolutely different from what Star Trek has shown before and it is absolutely distasteful and appaling and it absolutely contradicts the ethos of Star Trek!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The episode depicts this a merciful act - instating the harmful narrative of "crime victims are damaged good, unworthy of life, it's better to kill them"! Obviously Icheb felt very bad after the bad guys raped his body a minute ago and was in pain in this extraordinary situation, he was not in full possession of his mental powers. So, his confused plea is morally not sufficient to change that this is plain murder. The bad guys butchered Icheb, but Seven was the one that robbed him of his future by murdering him!

Bullshit. Icheb was not going to survive. Seven ended his suffering. Every sentence I've quoted of yours is false.

 

[TedShatner10]

Yeah, just stop please.

It reminds of this Major Grin (sadly one of the many YTbers who puts the dumb into Trek fandumb) where he can't differenciate characters dislike for the Borg as a regime/army and not individual Borg as victims, plus the difference between a freed XB who needs help or a Borg drone out to kill people:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And the scene at the end where Seven vapourises a Confederate officer was done in self defence and to avenge a mortally wounded Elnor (and her pained expression is reminiscent of when Miles O'Brien had PTSD over his first kill of a Cardassian soldier).

 

[Norad]

Bullshit. Icheb was not going to survive. Seven ended his suffering. Every sentence I've quoted of yours is false.

It's you that are talking bullshit! Everything YOU are saying is false. Other than you, I have proof. Look at the transcript of the episode and what they say. There is no indication at all that he will actually die - if not by Seven's hand. The assessment of the situation before Seven decides to murder him is:

It's all right. You'll be all right.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's you that are talking bullshit! Everything YOU are saying is false. Other than you, I have proof. Look at the transcript of the episode and what they say. There is no indication at all that he will actually die - if not by Seven's hand.

It's implied. Seven would not have done it otherwise. If not die immediately, then be subjected to more tortures and end up like the hanging Borg parts in the room.

This need for Trekkies to have every little thing explained in detail is so tiresome. That's not how TV works, you extrapolate from what's on-screen.

 

[Norad]

It's implied. Seven would not have done it otherwise. If not die immediately, then be subjected to more tortures and end up like the hanging Borg parts in the room.

That's totally wrong! Seven has killed everyone there. She is there to save Icheb, so she obviously also has made preparation to leave there. And she leaves without any problems.
There is NOTHING that gives your claim that Icheb will be tortured afterwards any credibility. By whom? The torturers are dead! And Seven is there to take him away anyhow. Your statement is just plain untrue!

This need for Trekkies to have every little thing explained in detail is so tiresome. That's not how TV works, you extrapolate from what's on-screen.

It's tiresome that some people just create a phantasy in their head that completely contradicts what is shown on screen and then get angry that other people don't follow the same imaginary delusion.