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

[Michael]

I have to say as well, this isn't in relation to your post, but - I went looking last night and I noticed a lot of criticism seems to focus around Kerrice Brooks. Not her character, but literally her; you'll often find thumbnails of, uh, critiques on YouTube which just have a picture of her, not even in-character. That's fucking weird, since her character and performance have had absolutely no progressive/"woke"/whatever aspect so far.

And any of that surprises you? These people are blatant racists and misogynists. I think they are abhorrent, but I’m personally at a point where I can’t be surprised by any of this shit anymore.

Tell me you didnt watch the episode without telling me you didnt watch the episide.

I suspect this might be a case of ChatGPT not having watched the episode.

 

[Dukhat]

As of today, SFA is currently the second lowest rated official Star Trek animated series/film/TV show on IMDb (4.2 on IMDb based on 15k reviews), ranking only above Section 31 (3.8 on IMDb based on 18k reviews). Most opinions in online forums attribute this situation to attacks from conservative groups, citing reasons such as “a Black protagonist,” “body shaming,” “woke elements,” “not meeting the expectations of long-time fans,” and “the portrayal of the main characters not aligning with the image of Starfleet officers.”

Based on my observations of the IMDb review section as well as the discussion threads in our forum regarding the controversies surrounding this show, I would like to outline several reasons why SFA has generated significant controversy and received such a low rating：

1. Attacks from conservative groups are not the sole reason for the extremely low rating of this show. I do believe that there are cases of malicious review-bombing against Starfleet Academy by conservative audiences, but more importantly, the show itself suffers from serious quality issues.

In my view, the series contains a number of narrative choices that can reasonably be described as disrespectful to the audience. For example, a holographic character who is explicitly described as “experiencing human emotions and life” is shown being teleported into a swimming pool due to a prank at the War College around the ten-minute mark of Episode 3 yet she is clearly depicted exhaling bubbles underwater, despite being a hologram.

In Episode 1, if Caleb Mir had not happened to be aboard the starship, the ship carrying the first class of Starfleet Academy cadets in over a century and would have been destroyed by the enemy. A major crisis that neither the entire crew nor the entire first cohort of cadets could resolve is instead effortlessly solved by a protagonist who has never received any formal or systematic training. At the end of episode 1 the antagonist escapes effortlessly via an escape pod, while the supposedly powerful starship remains inexplicably passive. From a screenwriting perspective, this represents an extremely cheap form of conflict construction, which is then resolved in an equally cheap and simplistic manner.

Additionally, Caleb Mir is able to hack into the starship’s security systems with ease, without any narrative explanation or justification. There are numerous plot points throughout the series that lack even basic internal logic. When the construction of conflict and narrative logic is weak, any character growth or thematic elevation that is meant to result from resolving those conflicts is inevitably undermined.

2. The controversies surrounding the show’s tone and the characterization of its female captain.
A starship is, by definition, a military vessel, and members of Starfleet are military personnel. A significant portion of the audience believes that the characterization of Captain Nahla Ake conflicts with the identity of a captain as a military officer. For example, in episode 1 she is shown reclining casually in the captain’s chair, and in Episode 3 she appears barefoot for a considerable amount of her screen time. In her interactions with both the cadets and the head of the War College, she remains reclined, while the War College director is depicted sitting upright.

This series of body-language choices has led some viewers to conclude that her physical demeanor is fundamentally inconsistent with her role as the head of Starfleet Academy, a military institution.

By contrast, a portion of the audience that defends SFA argues that the captain’s casualness is precisely the highlight of her character, reflecting a relaxed, progressive, and unconventional leadership style. Supporters of the show further claim that criticism directed at the female captain largely stems from patriarchal resistance to a female protagonist. I do believe that such dynamics do exist to some extent. However, it is also true that Captain Nahla Ake’s characterization differs substantially from what one would typically associate with a military officer.

She is portrayed as cheerful, free-spirited, intelligent, and kind but she does not come across as a soldier, nor as the head of a military academy. Even if one were to set aside the military-academy context entirely, it is difficult to imagine a university president conducting conversations with enrolled students while remaining reclined throughout. The character design itself therefore carries an inherent degree of controversy.

By contrast, in earlier Star Trek series such as DS9 and TNG, conversations among officers on the bridge during duty hours more clearly reflected their professionalism as senior officers, as well as the rigor of their dialogue.

3. A Star Trek series presented in a lighthearted, humorous, coming of age campus style feels fundamentally distant from the Star Trek that many long time fans recognize.
Over the past 40 to 50 years since the franchise’s inception, a significant portion of its most highly regarded stories have been rooted in discussions of moral dilemmas and real world issues. For example, DS9 produced and aired in the 1990s, featured a same sex kiss between two women, and VOY introduced the franchise’s first female captain both of which are key reasons Star Trek has long been viewed as a progressive series.

Star Trek became a classic by combining space exploration and adventure with thoughtful engagement with serious social and ethical questions. In contrast, SFA offers little in the way of meaningful exploration of social issues or other profound themes. Even space adventure itself is largely reduced to everyday life within a comfortable, lighthearted campus setting. This represents a major shift in the direction of the Star Trek franchise, and while it is undeniably a significant change, it is not one that all Star Trek fans welcome.

4. Many comments on YouTube and IMDb suggest that the show’s presentation of progressive themes feels forced and overly explicit rather than organic.

You should post a chart for all this information.

 

[Michael]

You should post a chart for all this information.

Cheeky!

Looks like we’re getting an influx of these kind of drive-by, burner accounts right now. Every day a new face hitting us over the head with the same crap they found on Reddit. Oh joy.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Do they? You speak for all people with disabilities now?

You haven't even asked why this person is in a wheelchair. Just assumed it's a flaw. That's ridiculous. People are not just problems to be cured.

I don't give a damn about representation. I care about asking the human questions of what does this person want, instead of assuming the absolute worst about the writers. There's no room for just doing, "Eh, just fix them, just cure them." That's so flippant it hurts.

Do you speak for all disabled people? No. At this point we might as well bring back widespread severe mental health issues in the star trek universe even though they were mostly cured in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

@Final Spark, I merged your post into the existing thread about these early points of criticism the show is facing. We don’t need multiple threads about basically the same topics.

Setting aside that some of that seems to be cobbled together from AI generated text, my reaction to all three points would be: Just ignore the noise. Either watch the show and try to make up your own mind or don’t. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about it.

In terms of the substance in these points of criticism usually lobbed against the show (what little there is), I don't think Starfleet Academy is facing fundamentally different criticism compared to the earlier streaming Trek shows. Only this time it’s amplified by several factors: (A) the show being more overtly made for an audience open to “teen drama“ and not primarily male, white, middle-aged, straight and conservative, (B) it being yet another entry in a line of shows that viewers were disappointed by (“accumulated frustration”), (C) a general proclivity of the online discourse leaning towards negative criticism, because it generates clicks and drives engagement, and last but not least (D) “culture war nonsense“: The tendency to treat the show as yet another battlefield of the ongoing culture war, where everything from that show — real or imagined — is treated with reactive hostility and dismissed as “woke”.

So yeah, basically the same stuff these fragile anti-woke snowflakes bring up every time a new Trek show premieres and they feel it doesn’t cater to them anymore. Only this time it’s amplified by the fact that the culture war is at an all-time high, and these self-appointed “soldiers” feel emboldened by government officials, conservative news organisations and rightwing billionaires who will even tweet in support of their flimsy criticism.

Frankly, I don’t even understand what these people’s problem is: For all intents and purposes this is likely to be the last “woke” Trek show we’re getting, considering the new more conservative direction Paramount is headed after the merger with Skydance and the proverbial knee-bending to authoritarianism. I’m sure before long Trek will return to straight, white captains imbued with manly manliness, who behave like real world military hardliners, hot skinny officers in tight catsuits and the stilted dialog of the Trek of your childhood.

Woke. So you think its that? You really think that shows like std, academy have comparable writing and stories that TOS did? TOS while having a few stinkers like any show had mostly great episodes. Even the bad ones had a lot of good ideas in them. They used actual sci fi writers. Writers that understood how to put a story together and make it fun, adventurous and thought provoking. Now its soap opera melodramatic with relationships. If I want a soap opera I'll watch those. When I want to watch star trek I want star trek. I want sci fi. When I feel like watching a random episode of star trek I pick TOS or a Berman era episode. Not kurtzman. The writing is horrid in the kurtzman productions.

TOS is the gold standard for Trek. Academy will never reach the status that TOS did.

 

[Starflight]

And any of that surprises you? These people are blatant racists and misogynists. I think they are abhorrent, but I’m personally at a point where I can’t be surprised by any of this shit anymore.

It does surprise me in how blatant it is and the utter lack of any kind of fig leaf. It's doubly staggering because I'd single Brooks' performance out for special praise in actually trying to portray a non-human lifeform in an interesting way; to people who aren't gripped by the CW or YA drama aspect and want more "classic" Star Trek, her character ought to be one of the most promising so far.

 

[Lord Garth]

Somehow I get the feeling that Conservative Trek would be closer to Section 31 than to TNG or Voyager

Enterprise Season 3 is what I think of as the most politically conservative Star Trek. My nickname for it is "Bush Trek".

As of today, SFA is currently the second lowest rated official Star Trek animated series/film/TV show on IMDb (4.2 on IMDb based on 15k reviews), ranking only above Section 31 (3.8 on IMDb based on 18k reviews). Most opinions in online forums attribute this situation to attacks from conservative groups, citing reasons such as “a Black protagonist,” “body shaming,” “woke elements,” “not meeting the expectations of long-time fans,” and “the portrayal of the main characters not aligning with the image of Starfleet officers.”

That 4.2 rating is meaningless. I admit that I don't like SFA as much as DSC, but it's not three points worse. That many people voting 1 is foul play. If they're rating it a 1, then I submit that they don't know what something that's truly a 1 really is.

I voted the first episode an 8, and the second a 9. But let's take off a point for each because we can say I rated it too high since I was so surprised SFA was better than I was led to believe. So, let's make them a 7 and an 8. I didn't watch the last two episodes. I didn't get to them yet. But fuck it. Let's say I think they're bad. We'll just go with it. In my DS9 and VOY Re-Watch Threads, I've never given anything below a 3. So, let's say I give the next two episodes a 3. Just for the sake of argument.

7+8+3+3 = 21. Divided by 4 gives me a 5.25. Still not a 4.2. And that's going as low as I'd realistically go. And while I might not end up liking the third episode, I seriously doubt I'll go that low with the fourth.

So, I reject the IMDB Rating. It's not consistent with how everything else has been scored, the activity looks suspicious, and the show has been rated by people who spend a lot more time watching FOX News than Star Trek and feel like they have to make everything political.

If Star Trek can show different types of Aliens, it can show different types of Humans. And it can have different types of Humans play Aliens.

 

[XCV330]

there's always some asshole who can't be content with not liking something but wants to shit all over it to try to make sure no one else will, either. that, and welcoming annoying dicks to the party are about their only real function.

 

[TRON JA307020]

there's always some asshole who can't be content with not liking something but wants to shit all over it to try to make sure no one else will, either. that, and welcoming annoying dicks to the party are about their only real function.

People have thr right to complain if they think something stinks. Why should someone's criticism ruin it for you? Youre at home watching it by yourself not with a person online that hates it. That shouldnt affect your enjoyment at all. The internet is a place for people to discuss things and television is one of them. You really cant expect that only people that love a show should have a right to discuss it and shower it with praise and keep out the negstive opinions. If people dont like it they are not going to shower it with praise. People who have been supporting star trek their whole lives have a right to discuss and not shower it with praise. Just dont let it bother you. Its not changing the content youre watching.

 

[Michael]

Woke. So you think its that?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Do I think Starfleet Academy is woke? Not overly so, no. I generally agree with @Starflight in that there haven’t really been any big progressive themes been presented in the show (yet).

Do I think anti-woke snowflakes consider Starfleet Academy woke? Yes, absolutely I’m sure they do. All a show needs for these people to make that insult is stuff like women in leadership positions, non-heteronormative characters, characters in wheelchairs, POC characters, and — that’s a new one — women without shoes.

You really think that shows like std, academy have comparable writing and stories that TOS did?

It’s comparable, sure. Do I think the writing is as good as it’s typically been on the original Star Trek? No, definitely not (yet). Have I been entertained so far? You bet I have been.

[TOS] Writers that understood how to put a story together and make it fun, adventurous and thought provoking.

Well, the current one’s definitely know how to make the episodes fun as well. But I agree in that I would wish for more thought-provoking material as well. I’ll remain confident that they will deliver that from time to time.

Now its soap opera melodramatic with relationships.

I don’t find this kind of stuff really soap-y, but ultimately I like “relationship stuff” in the fiction I’m watching. Some of that has been my favorite parts in the Trek shows of the Berman era.

TOS is the gold standard for Trek. Academy will never reach the status that TOS did.

I’m not sure anyone is genuinely expecting it to. Why do you feel the need to compare it to the original show?

It does surprise me in how blatant it is and the utter lack of any kind of fig leaf. It's doubly staggering because I'd single Brooks' performance out for special praise in actually trying to portray a non-human lifeform in an interesting way; to people who aren't gripped by the CW or YA drama aspect and want more "classic" Star Trek, her character ought to be one of the most promising so far.

Yeah, I guess I have seen too much, I don’t know. Once you put your ear to that kind of sphere you’ll get a pretty good picture of what their codes and dogwhistles are. And the creators in that sphere know this and will always placate their thumbnails with obvious dogwhistles. Just take an image of Kerrice Brooks smiling, add a text saying “TREK’S WOKE, GONE BROKE” and you safely got your thousands of clicks of narrow-minded culture war warriors.

 

[fireproof78]

Do you speak for all disabled people? No. At this point we might as well bring back widespread severe mental health issues in the star trek universe even though they were mostly cured in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

They were?


Non sequitur statement is a non sequitur.

Having representation is a non issue to me. I don't find it distracting.

TOS is the gold standard for Trek. Academy will never reach the status that TOS did.

Ok.

I don't watch Academy because I like TOS and want it rehashed.

 

[tenmei]

Do you speak for all disabled people? No. At this point we might as well bring back widespread severe mental health issues in the star trek universe even though they were mostly cured in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

I have a mental health condition and, yes, sometimes, it makes my life truly absolutely fucking awful, but do i want to be cured? No. Because that means saying there is something wrong with me - this is why many people you would consider "disabled" prefer the term "differently abled" because on the days when I am functional, I'm a bloody wizard at the job I do, and even on a bad day, I'm above average. How very dare you say we - all of us - need to be cured.

 

[SatrianiRules]

I find that reviews and critiques fall into two different categories...the bashing of things based on metrics (identities) and what I call the 'mechanical' criticisms...

I have no problem with mechanical criticism, wherein things like plot/character inconsistencies, even individual performances are critiqued as problematic. This might even include inconsistencies with the world itself....

This is not unique to ST...even in SW we've seen this, for example....like in SW: Episode One being impaled by a lightsaber meant certain death, but in a recent series, it seemed to be a minor inconvenience only.

I sometimes watch a you tube channel by a guy named Brandon McNulty who has some great videos about characters, structure and story telling; good examples and bad examples. He is a NYT list author who is a novelist

I like that he uses the mechanical approach to explain his perspective as it makes sense

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

 

[Aragorn]

The Running Man remake, I felt like there was a great world there to be explored that was more interesting than the actual plot, but since it's a movie there was no time for it.

 

[tenmei]

The Running Man remake, I felt like there was a great world there to be explored that was more interesting than the actual plot, but since it's a movie there was no time for it.

It did however have Glen Powell in a towel, so comme ci comme ca.