Jason Isaacs speaks about Star Trek

The most prevalent audience complains from the start regarded the aesthetics of the show. Many proclaiming it looked too much like the JJ Reboot. They claimed the series violated original series canon. It was such a loud and vocal complaint that it had to be addressed by Kurtzman's regime.

There weren't any noteworthy complaints about the series lead being African-American. However, there was significant divisiveness about Burnham's character, and still is today.

 

I guarantee that divisiveness wouldn't be there if Michael Burnham were a white guy. Indeed, were that the case, the character could be written badly and played by an actor who actually is terrible, and there still wouldn't be the amount of complaining there currently is.

 

One just needs to do a google search to see concerns of numerous critics of Disco's 'SJW agenda' and 'forced diversity' and even 'white genocide'. These complaints are easy to google. Again I ask, why do you think these people felt the need to criticize the series in these terms?

 

Agreed. When someone starts using those terms that's when I realize they have absolutely nothing of relevance to add to the conversation and ignore them.

 

My complaints about the show have largely focused on it's set design and in show technology. Some of that was addressed in season 2 (at least as far as technology). And I don't care for the nu-Klingons in season 1.

I can't say I've had any issues with any characters.....well except Tilley in the beginning. When I first saw her I was like "You've got to be kidding me." But I'll admit I've become fond of her character as time has gone by. She tends to grow on you after a while.

Burnham....no problems there. I'll admit for a brief moment I found it hard to believe Spock never mentioned her to Kirk later on (of course the real world answer to that is obvious)….but then I thought of Sybok and some other things Spock didn't discuss with Kirk until he had to (like Pon-Farr) and realized no, it really wasn't out of character for Spock (and they inserted a more concrete reason for that decision as well). But that was just a reconciling with future continuity and had nothing to do with her character, which I like.

As far as critics of the show for perceived SJW elements they may not like....whatever. I pay no attention to those people. I can't be bothered even searching for nonsense like that on the web. There will always be someone out there that will complain about something or bringing up some nonsense conspiracy.

 

Most of what you're referring to came after the series aired.

Youtube has a lot of videos discussing how the show handles feminism. Ethnic diversity wasn't something being debated, since it has been a pillar of Trek from the start.

Discovery is Star Trek's first overtly feminist series, so it not appealing to some is understandable. Picard and Star Trek 4 will probably be more for them. It's good for the franchise to have some variation for all demographics.

Captain Jonathan Archer. Divisive White Male lead saddled with weak writing, just like Burnham.

He was, and still is considered the weakest link of the five Trek captains.

 

Captain Janeway was among the most poorly written characters in the franchise, but the whole "politically correct" attacks didn't come on her (because that alt-right movement hadn't quite taken off yet). That alone shows things are different now.

As for Picard satisfying those haters, let's just say that Patrick Stewart, who is outspoken in his own beliefs, has infused Picard with his own values going by what's been seen in the Star Trek Picard Countdown comic that leads into the series.

 

And yet, still does not stir up quite the level of hate Michael Burnham does. Nor did Archer stir up that much hate while Enterprise was in production.

 

He stirred up apathy instead. A worse outcome.

Audiences didn't care for him, and then Enterprise was cancelled.

 

I suspect that they will play it safe with the Picard series and aim to avoid controversy. There's too much riding on it. The promos certainly push the idea that this is a show to unite the fans. Whether it will do that is to be determined. However, it showcases a lot of promise. The internet is already united in praise over the trailers, and it has a far more talented showrunner than Discovery.

I also suspect the Borg Girl on Picard will be much better received than Michael Burnham. The character starts off quite lost and vulnerable. More endearing to audiences than Burnham's smugness and condescension.

 

Four years later...

 

And much more white...

 

The massive decline in the show's ratings proves it didn't take off with audiences from the start. Archer was a big factor of that. So much so that they tried to completely re-tool him in Season 3, too late to make a difference.

 

Considering how Patrick Stewart has almost total control of the project and how he's openly discussing Brexit at Paris Comic-Con, I think they're letting him have his say and allowing him to use the Picard show to do so. (And I agree with what Patrick's doing, but I think the people who Jason Isaacs is talking about wouldn't, although you seem to think they'll like the Picard show. we'll see.) Also, they already changed canon to suit Patrick (spoilers from Picard Countdown comic) to the point that now Nero's motivation in the 2009 film makes no sense

Spoiler

the Romulan supernova is now something everyone had years of notice for, so that a refugee crisis (to mirror real world Brexit and Trump's wall) develops that Admiral Picard is involved in. This literally contradicts Nero in Trek 2009 who acted like he had no time to evacuate and blamed the Federation and Spock for it. Here, the Federation is helping refugees years in advance, and Romulus is choosing which refugees to help based on species (a stand in for race).

 

We just have to consider Nero an unreliable narrator.

 

Janeway did cop a serious amount of criticism from people who clearly had issues with a woman captain. Janeway did make some questionable decisions but so did Sisko, Picard and probably kirk as well but they didnt receive anywhere near the same level of criticism back in the day.

 

Probably because the internet wasn’t the monster it is now.

 

Audiences will like that storyline. It's subtle. Allegorical. Classic Star Trek.

Janeway seemed praised from the start, but became the topic of jokes in the later seasons, as the show's quality declined.

Today's nostaglic audiences seem to have an appreciation of Janeway, but her popularity pales in comparison to Sisko, Picard and Kirk.

She's actually of Asian descent.

 

I can't speak for a lot of other people, but I am almost positive that my brother, who is literally one of the people Isaacs is talking about and refuses to watch Discovery because of Burnham and the relationship between Culber and Stamets (my brother is anti-gay marriage, pro-Brexit, and sees "political correctness" everywhere--practically the opposite of me in every sense), is going to despise the Picard show.

He thinks he will like it because what he calls "politically correct" elements aren't immediately obvious from the trailers, but he hasn't actually bothered to read what Patrick is actually saying in interviews/appearances or the prequel comic books that came out. I think he's in for a surprise when he watches the show.

 

As stated earlier, the most divisive political element of Discovery, based on Youtube and fan reviews, is it's overt feminism and female-centric pov.

I suspect that will be toned down drastically on Picard and the outcome will be less divisive.

If the Brexit material is handled in a subtle, allegorical manner without being preachy, it should be fine. That's Star Trek at it's core. Chabon can execute something like that well. The millennial CW writers on Discovery...most likely not.