People have to be motivated first. If someone's enjoying a series they'll often find justifications for things that didn't quite work. If they're not, they'll nitpick.
Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t
- Thread starter trekfan_1
- Start date
Everyone seems to be hating on this guy. His review has more views than the actual pilot episode of this series, and the pilot wasn't bad. This vitriol comes across like what I saw for Doctor Who's run on Disney+. Granted the guy does use woke, which seems like a trigger word these days. But a lot of his criticism seems valid. The show needs to cater the majority.of P+ subscribers. I know folks will say that it doesn't. But if you really want to see it get more than two seasons, then the show needs an audience big enough so that the powers that be keep it around.
I am having a hard time finding any good reviews for the show. They're either give it a try, or they say how terrible the show is and pick it apart. I haven't found any glowing reviews.
As you say, disregarding the type of people who should be ignored (aggressively anti-"woke" people, canon-maniacs who will literally attack any new thing as "canon-violating", and so on):
I think a lot of people in fandom are on the defensive over recent years because several long-running franchises have been resurrected in ways people often find disappointing, cynical, or even deliberately antagonistic. There's an attitude toward any new Kurtzman Trek show of "alright, let's see how they fuck it up this time", which is obviously completely toxic to enjoyment and sets impossible and unfair standards for any new show to meet, but it's an inevitable result of spreading a franchise thin, trying to appeal to everyone at once, and putting out a lot of stuff that's frankly bad-to-mediocre (see also: Tomb Raider, Star Wars, etc).
I just take every show as a standalone thing and I'm liking SFA so far, but a lot of my friends are just exhausted by the franchise's many twists and turns at this point (though many find SFA tolerable, if not superb). I think it's a sort of end-of-Berman era feeling again of "god, it'd be better if they just stopped making Star Trek at this point", exacerbated by many people's perception that this era either never produced anything enjoyable at all, or just about scraped into mediocrity at best. It's not about canon, it's just about fatigue from nearly a decade of shows that many have found disappointing and alienating.
You could of course say "just stop watching", but studios use the Star Trek license for a reason - they're banking on long-time fans showing up due to emotional investment, even if those fans end up disappointed again.
When did canon become the master and not a tool we mastered and made work for us? Can we pinpoint the exact moment it rose up and enslaved so many of the populace?
Something has to be released first and then watched by these people in order for them to nitpick. Over analysing and nitpicking and debating are nerd heritage but so many today are letting others tell them how to feel and the nerdish nitpickery is just mean spirited.
Our culture has lost its way.
Writing new things that fit within an established framework actually requires more creativity then just doing whatever.
That's a big part of why there are so many failed adaptations.
Correct. Check boxes abound within any established franchise, while anything new is simultaneously derided as unoriginal yet praised for being better at Star Trek than Star Trek.
There's no way through right now.
ST has been fine with showing disabled people. Pike, Geordi, Miranda Jones and Riva. All without allegory We also have Gem, who was mute and Hemmer who was blind.
Star Trek is not about escaping into a fantasy world were no problems exist. It's about commenting on the present through the lens of Science Fiction. It's not set in a different universe. it's set in an approximation of ours. The idea that SF ( and Trek in particular) should somehow be exempt "profanity, silly jokes and humor and teen angst" because its Sci-Fi is patently absurd. Science Fiction doesn't play by a different set of rules that other forms of fiction. As Roddenberry said "Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate field of literature with rules of its own, but, indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story -- including a jeopardy of some type to someonewe learn to care about, climactic build, sound "motivitation, you know the list.
Nope."Dude, WTF" would naturally be part of the linguistic history of a SF property set in Earth's future, Not so much in Middle Earth.
Last edited:
The crew at Trek culture liked it as well...
Treksploration, with special guest Steve Shives (for the first two episodes), calls it "much watch"...
Same for episode 3 with special guest Larry Nemecek...
Sean Ferrick at Trek Culture, Steve Shives and Jesse Gender are pretty much my three go-to's as far as Star Trek YouTube reviewers go, and they all like it.
Last edited:
Well said.
I always love the "just stop watching" retort. As if people actually need to be told to stop watching what they think is bad television.
I was certainly feeling the fatigue by the time Voyager came around. By Enterprise it was obvious the franchise either needed a new showrunner or be put out to pasture.
So far the only nu trek that I would actually go back and watch again is SNW. I didn't make it past season 2 of DISCO, only liked S3 of Picard, did a quick exit on the juvenile Lower Decks and didn't bother with Prodigy.
DS9 has always been my favorite of the Trek shows, so obviously it doesn't have to be a ship show for me to enjoy it. It just has to be well written with good characters. So far,SNW is the only new show for me that has done that.
Last edited:
They do, judging by reading online comments for Star Trek shows that are supposedly hated and reviled and bad.I always love the "just stop watching" retort. As if people actually need to be told to stop watching what they think is bad television.
I'd suggest giving Lower Decks another try as it quickly moved past the Rick and Morty levels of the first 3 episodes.Well said.
I always love the "just stop watching" retort. As if people actually need to be told to stop watching what they think is bad television.
I was certainly feeling the fatigue by the time Voyager came around. By Enterprise it was obvious the franchise either needed a new showrunner or be put out to pasture.
So far the only nu trek that I would actually go back and watch again is SNW. I didn't make it past season 2 of DISCO, only liked S3 of Picard, did a quick exit on the juvenile Lower Decks and didn't bother with Prodigy.
DS9 has always been my favorite of the Trek shows, so obviously it doesn't have to be a ship show for me to enjoy it. It just has to be well written with good characters. So far,SNW is the only new show for me that has done that.
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.
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.
Who cares?
@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.
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.
Somehow I get the feeling that Conservative Trek would be closer to Section 31 than to TNG or VoyagerFor 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.
If I were writing Star Trek as a conservative then it would be like TOS.Somehow I get the feeling that Conservative Trek would be closer to Section 31 than to TNG or Voyager
Which progressive themes?! I'm so baffled by this repeated criticism because, thus far, the show has had nothing to say and no message to deliver, beyond dopey "uhh the future is about uhhh hope" stuff.
The only thing I can even identify as being something people would pick out as a "progressive theme" is every other character being bisexual, which obviously there's no inherent issue with but which I'd agree feels very forced and like writer wish fulfilment, like the writers came up through BioWare RPGs and third-rate fanfiction or something... but aside from that, where are the progressive themes or messages?
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.
Tell me you didnt watch the episode without telling me you didnt watch the episide.
If Caleb hadn't been on the Athena then Nus Braka and his friends wouldnt have even been able to track the Athena, so its a falsehood to say if he hadn't have been onboard the ship would have destroyed.
Similar threads
- Poll
