I watched it for porthos.
Why is it that when I'm thinking I'll have another dull night, now I'm over here wondering if a Porthos love interest would have been more fun than Trip/T'Pol, Archer/Hernandez or any of the other entanglements?Porthos needed a girlfriend.
Or Girlfriends?
Maybe a Boyfriend?
South Park had a gay dog, was Enterprise less progressive than South Park?
A bunch of things (some of them I agree and some I completely disagree with) mostly from the first two seasons:
Star Trek fatigue.
The showrunners.
The ship design.
The cast, in regards to how young they were, good looking, acting abilities, how white they were, how the minorities were relegated to minor roles.
Lazy recycled plots and plots that seemed stretched out.
Decon chamber scenes.
Lack of edge, like nobody died. Playing it safe.
Use of races like Klingons that had been explored extensively, and the Ferengi and Borg that were well before their First Contacts.
I have to mention the lack of Romulans because I know there was a segment annoyed at introducing the Xindi instead of using the Romulans.
Portrayal of Vulcans.
Lack of adherence to "canon" and fanon.
It doesn't look like a prequel to the 1960s show.
It airing on UPN.
Competition from other sci-fi shows like Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape (?)
Being a prequel.
Temporal Cold War.
No real secondary characters.
Changing television landscape.
Set before the founding of the Federation.
First impressions are important. The show pulled in 12.54 million people for "Broken Bow", up from the 8.8m of "Endgame" but more realistically the 5.5m of "Renaissance Man." That's extraordinary. But they let those ratings erode until they were forced by the network to innovate and do some interesting stuff and by then it was too late. I have some respect for the guys making it because the guys in charge were told it was being made whether they stayed on or not, so that's not the ideal position to be creating something straight after nonstop work on Voyager and TNG, and Brannon did try a new writer's room for Season 1 and that fell to bits, but I also wonder what it would have looked like if Bermaga had fucked off and we'd got a new showrunner from the beginning.
I don't think it being a prequel was a bad idea because I came up with the same idea in the 90s. I think the show had some interesting ideas but it was just too clean and often boring. I legit like the idea of the TCW and "Cold Front" to me is the one great episode of the season and I actually think Season 2 had at least half a dozen great ones too. People will often say Season 3 or 4 is the show we should have got from the beginning but to me, I think it should have been Season 1 and 2 with the grit and reverence for the franchise of 3 and 4.
And this is why I both laugh and cringe at claims that criticisms of Discovery are motivated by bigotry. To believe that I would have to believe we became less racially tolerant in 2019 than in 2001.
I'm not sure who "we" is in that sentence -- Americans in general? White Americans?
But either way, you don't need to believe that white Americans generally or Americans generally were more racist in 2017 than in 2001, in order to believe that a significant percentage of people who hate DIS are motivated by bigotry.
It's a well-established fact of history that moments of racial progress can be followed by racist backlash. The emancipation of enslaved persons and the election of black people to political office in the 1860s and early 1870s was followed by decades of Jim Crow. The breakthroughs of the civil rights movement in the 1960s were followed by coded anti-black backlash in the form the racially-motivated "war on drugs."
The election of the first black U.S. president in 2008 has pretty obviously led to a backlash in the form of Donald Trump's white nationalism. The racist reaction to DIS is pretty obviously part of a pop culture manifestation of the widespread anti-progressive backlash against the progress represented by the Obama era. (DIS also receives that backlash because it is so good in its representation of queer people and women.)
That's a fancy way of saying "I'm a grievance monger who thinks white people need to apologize for existing."
That's a fancy way of saying "I'm a grievance monger who thinks white people need to apologize for existing."
The cast of ENT being primarily white had nothing to do with anything. Because every Star Trek series since TOS has had a primarily white cast, with usually one African-American and one Asian-American, or two African-American cast members.
Where am I going with this? For ENT (which is what this topic is about), the problem wasn’t that most of the cast were white. The problem was that most of the cast were Americans, when a show about a united Earth should have had a cast made up of people from diverse countries (other than the US and England.) Even Hoshi Sato came across as an American of Japanese descent rather than an actual person from Japan (although Linda Park is actually of South Korean descent, but that’s not really important to this discussion.) And that this sort of thing was not limited to just ENT, although it stuck out far more with that show than it did with the previous Trek series.
The difference, though, is that ENT was the first since TOS to sideline all of its non-white actors so completely. Montgomery and Park might as well have been recurring characters for how little screen time they got across four seasons.
I have, previously, mentioned how American Hoshi’s behavior is so I do definitely see why Enterprise felt so American. Characters behaved in a very American manner but didn’t they actually have only two expressly American main characters? Archer and Trip? And isn’t that exactly the same as the original series? Two expressly American characters? Kirk and Bones?
Merriweather was born IN SPACE!
I think we should be cautious before saying that even a significant portion of DIS haters hate DIS for diversity, or because they're bigots. This approaches Godwin's Law. The majority of Americans are not MAGAts (read: maggots), and Star Trek has historically been cutting edge on the diversity front, (theoretically) meaning even less Trek fans are racist than the general population.I'm not sure who "we" is in that sentence -- Americans in general? White Americans?
But either way, you don't need to believe that white Americans generally or Americans generally were more racist in 2017 than in 2001, in order to believe that a significant percentage of people who hate DIS are motivated by bigotry.
It's a well-established fact of history that moments of racial progress can be followed by racist backlash. The emancipation of enslaved persons and the election of black people to political office in the 1860s and early 1870s was followed by decades of Jim Crow. The breakthroughs of the civil rights movement in the 1960s were followed by coded anti-black backlash in the form the racially-motivated "war on drugs."
The election of the first black U.S. president in 2008 has pretty obviously led to a backlash in the form of Donald Trump's white nationalism. The racist reaction to DIS is pretty obviously part of a pop culture manifestation of the widespread anti-progressive backlash against the progress represented by the Obama era. (DIS also receives that backlash because it is so good in its representation of queer people and women.)
Mayweather.
I think we should be cautious before saying that even a significant portion of DIS haters hate DIS for diversity, or because they're bigots.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.