Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t

[Rahul]

It reminds me a bit of this scene:

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

Here the writers need to make sure the "bad guys" execute one of their own -but not even an innocent guy-, just to make clear to the viewers they are actually bad guys.
Because up to this point, they are just the legitimate security force on this planet, and our "heroes" just kill them all next scene. Even though they actually didn't DO anything evil until this point - only having Booker at gunpoint, who, well, broke their laws in this moment.

Of course later we find out they were all part of the evil syndicate and thus deserves to die (??). But in this introductory moment? Quite dubious.
Which, your know, I'm even somewhat fine in dumb action schlock. Heroes kill tons of mooks. Whatever.
But then please don't have a speech afterwards about the sanctity of life and how morally upstanding we have to be.

 

[StarMan]

My own opinion on the show is...I like it.

Like Strange New Worlds, the episodic format is the best possible choice for Star Trek and just by having it, the show has won major points for me.

It's a show that isn't Star Trek like some shows but it's a show set in the academy with younger audiences.

Some people say, "It's very CW" as if that's an insult and I was like, "Supernatural lasted 15 seasons, dude."

Is the younger audience in the room with us now?

There's a deluge of toxic positivity defending against the usual anti-woke brigade, which ends up creating far more energy and attention this dumb show deserves.

And the bulk of this discussion is generated by the show's primary demographic, which - coincidentally - is the same demographic that dominates every single other Trek product: 40+ males.

Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of fair criticism to level at SFA. All I can add is it took me three attempts to watch the pilot, and I still didn't make it to "origami chicken" before tapping out.

 

[CT_Phipps]

Is the younger audience in the room with us now?

I mean are you telling me it's marketed at 40 year olds?

 

[fireproof78]

It's the same for me in reverse, at least the Republic of Nassau. It's hard to take pirates as the enemies of civilization as the British tried to portray them as when they were engaging in the slave trade (long before their apology tour regarding it).

Yes, they're thieves but the ones we saw weren't engaging in atrocities and there's only one crime that warrants the death penalty in the Federation anyway.

So, really, it's not that it was a huge betrayal of Star Trek but I wish we'd got, "Disable their warp core. Let Starfleet take them prisoner."

If they are a hostile government or agency then defense is a reasonable right of Starfleet against current and future hostilities.

 

[StarTrek1701]

My criticism I guess would stem for two things:
Future = Bigger and no 'new' species/aliens.

Yes I know they got a Khainonian, but they could have done away with Klingon / Romulan / other species we have seen.
TNG gave us Q, Ferengi, Borg, Cardassians and a whole host of new aliens.
DS9 gave us Founders, Jem'Hadar, Morn etc.
Voyager moe so, and ENT got criticised for introducing new aliens that were supposedly breaking canon, and also got Ferengi / Borg involved.
DSC, for all it's faults, at least did new stuff regarding aliens.

Now for the other part: we know from canon 31st century has absolute magical Treknology.
"Swallowed my combadge" - combadge could be smart enough to reappear out of her body automatically.
"Making bed" - beds should make themselves or better yet, programmable mattered.
"Medical ticorder?!" - Doctor should have upgraded himself to apply batch scans by just looking at the cadets.
"Rubbish bin playing Trek theme" - overhead scanners should identify rubbish and beam it away for other purposes.
And finally, huge fucking ship Athena - could easily be a shuttle sized ship that everyone beams in/out of, but inside it's 2 miles in all directions.

 

[Fateor]

It's the same for me in reverse, at least the Republic of Nassau. It's hard to take pirates as the enemies of civilization as the British tried to portray them as when they were engaging in the slave trade (long before their apology tour regarding it).

Yes, they're thieves but the ones we saw weren't engaging in atrocities and there's only one crime that warrants the death penalty in the Federation anyway.

So, really, it's not that it was a huge betrayal of Star Trek but I wish we'd got, "Disable their warp core. Let Starfleet take them prisoner."

That brings up an important point about all this that hasn't been brought up yet.

Restrained response exists because it encourages the other side to practice restraint in turn.

So if Pirates attacking Starfleet ships can expect to be killed with no quarter given, why would they give any quarter to the crews of Starfleet ships that they attack?

The Venari Ral could have absolutely beamed the entire crew of the Athena into space if they wanted to since there was nothing blocking them from using transporters. But they showed restraint and were planning to leave the crew alive, just without their warp drive.

 

[fireproof78]

"Making bed" - beds should make themselves or better yet, programmable mattered.

It's called discipline.

 

[Mudd]

I mean are you telling me it's marketed at 40 year olds?

The premiere marketing was rather schizophrenic, yes:

• Lots of social media with the young actors doing BTS stuff about what a blast it was to be on set and on the show - presumably aimed at younger viewers, but...
• ...The single extended clip circulated was of two old actors hamming it up on the bridge of the Athena - straight-down-the-middle, generic Star Trek pitched at long-time fans.

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

I mean, that there can't be anything but an effort to reassure and draw in the middle-aged and older viewers. It's composed of precisely the beats and character behavior Trek's been recycling since at least TWOK.

 

[The Wormhole]

but they could have done away with Klingon / Romulan / other species we have seen.

Really? Since Disco moved to the 32nd century one of the most frequently asked questions was "where are the Klingons?" despite spending the previous two season of Disco complaining of being sick of the Klingons. Now we have a Klingon in the 32nd century and it's "ditch the Klingons, bring us new aliens."

What is it about Klingons that seem to trigger Trek fandom's contrarian tendencies?

 

[fireproof78]

What is it about Klingons that seem to trigger Trek fandom's contrarian tendencies?

Klingons suck.

 

[Mudd]

That brings up an important point about all this that hasn't been brought up yet.

Restrained response exists because it encourages the other side to practice restraint in turn.

So if Pirates attacking Starfleet ships can expect to be killed with no quarter given, why would they give any quarter to the crews of Starfleet ships that they attack?

The Venari Ral could have absolutely beamed the entire crew of the Athena into space if they wanted to since there was nothing blocking them from using transporters. But they showed restraint and were planning to leave the crew alive, just without their warp drive.

You're suggesting that space pirates do anything out of a sense of moral restraint or fear of authority?

Pirates attacking a Starfleet ship should be blown to dust. Only way to be sure.

 

[Fateor]

You're suggesting that space pirates do anything out of a sense of moral restraint or fear of authority?

Pirates attacking a Starfleet ship should be blown to dust. Only way to be sure.

To reiterate what I said before.

Under that logic Nus Braka should have just beamed everyone onboard the Athena into space the moment he knocked down it's shields.

You see the problem here?

 

[The Wormhole]

Klingons suck.

[JOKE]Yeah, but if I were dissing Klingons, you'd be the first to say they rule, right?[/JOKE]

You're suggesting that space pirates do anything out of a sense of moral restraint or fear of authority?

Pirates attacking a Starfleet ship should be blown to dust. Only way to be sure.

I am noticing there's a trend amongst Trek fandom to rage against our heroes killing characters, even though the decision to kill is one based on a legitimate necessity of self defense or at least a rational reaction to the situation as seen from their perspective.
"Oh my god! Ake killed the space pirates! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! La'an killed Ortegas's Gorn friend! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! Burnham killed Osyraa and destroyed her ship! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! Burnham killed T'Kuvma! You bastard!"
But really, there was no real alternative in any of these situations.

 

[fireproof78]

JOKE]Yeah, but if I were dissing Klingons, you'd be the first to say they rule, right?[/JOKE]

That's goddamn right

 

[Fateor]

"Oh my god! Ake killed the space pirates! You bastard!"
But really, there was no real alternative in any of these situations.

That's not really true with what was shown on screen for that one though, because Ake could have said "take out their weapons and engines".

 

[StarTrek1701]

It's called discipline.

Useless chore.

Really? Since Disco moved to the 32nd century one of the most frequently asked questions was "where are the Klingons?" despite spending the previous two season of Disco complaining of being sick of the Klingons. Now we have a Klingon in the 32nd century and it's "ditch the Klingons, bring us new aliens."

What is it about Klingons that seem to trigger Trek fandom's contrarian tendencies?

If you're talking about me, personally, I've been bored of Klingons since the days of DS9.
Romulans are my fav but I was happy with the JJ movie lore in 2009.

 

[fireproof78]

Useless chore.

No.

Demonstrate responsibility with small things.

 

[Mudd]

[JOKE]Yeah, but if I were dissing Klingons, you'd be the first to say they rule, right?[/JOKE]


I am noticing there's a trend amongst Trek fandom to rage against our heroes killing characters, even though the decision to kill is one based on a legitimate necessity of self defense or at least a rational reaction to the situation as seen from their perspective.
"Oh my god! Ake killed the space pirates! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! La'an killed Ortegas's Gorn friend! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! Burnham killed Osyraa and destroyed her ship! You bastard!"
"Oh my god! Burnham killed T'Kuvma! You bastard!"
But really, there was no real alternative in any of these situations.

It's the goddamn Utopian delusion. No conflict, no misbehavior, etc., etc...

 

[The Wormhole]

If you're talking about me, personally,

I wasn't. I was speaking of fandom in general.

 

[StarTrek1701]

No.

Demonstrate responsibility with small things.

Could be done with other tasks.