You'd think that they would canonize a skewed version of the 4 years war, to shit on Axanar's cornflakes.
Last edited:
Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
In ST6, Spock mentioned "almost seventy years of unremitting hostility" from the Klingons in the briefing scene.
That he did. But, as my father says, sometimes you should take an alternate route to get to the same destination. Makes you familiar with all the different paths.
One of the higher ups confirmed Georgiou would be in Season 3 a few months back, before the show had been renewed.
I can very safely say I think TNG Season 2 is better than TNG Season 1. I was able to get through the second season. Whereas with the first season, I tried three times since 2011 and each time I gave up part-way through S1. Skipping it and going straight to S2 to begin preparing for the Picard Series -- presumably called Destiny -- was the right move. Overall, I gave the entire season a 7.18 out of 10.
In contrast, I don't think -- on average -- the quality between the first and second season of Discovery will be that different, just that S2 will have less fluctuation. S2 of DSC seems more dependent on the mystery of it all and where it's all going. We'll see how it holds up to repeat viewing once the season ends. I ended up re-watching the first season five times and still loved it, even if I knew where it was going.
I gave the first season of DSC an 8.43. The second season seems to be tracking in the mid-8s so far too, even if it's going about it differently.
In contrast, I don't think -- on average -- the quality between the first and second season of Discovery will be that different, just that S2 will have less fluctuation. S2 of DSC seems more dependent on the mystery of it all and where it's all going. We'll see how it holds up to repeat viewing once the season ends. I ended up re-watching the first season five times and still loved it, even if I knew where it was going.
I gave the first season of DSC an 8.43. The second season seems to be tracking in the mid-8s so far too, even if it's going about it differently.
Last edited:
Alternatively:
RPG = Rocket-Propelled Grenade
Wolverines!!!
Points to those who know that reference.
RED DAWN?Alternatively:
RPG = Rocket-Propelled Grenade
Wolverines!!!
Points to those who know that reference.
(though I can't remember if it from the original or the remake)
I've noticed on Social media, facebook specifically, 'likes' and 'love' reactions on DSC related posts on TrekCore and the official Star Trek Facebook page always out number and negative reactions, though the actual comments on some articles, the negative comments out number positive comments.
Also over on Ex Astris Scientia, the individual episode polls, on most episodes (Season 1 and 2) votes are mostly 7 or above, with '8' usually having the most votes. Which clashes completely with the facebook comments on the site's Facebook page, which are almost always negative.
In contrast, on Reddit, in Star Trek focused subreddits, negative posts are usually downvoted to hell.
Also over on Ex Astris Scientia, the individual episode polls, on most episodes (Season 1 and 2) votes are mostly 7 or above, with '8' usually having the most votes. Which clashes completely with the facebook comments on the site's Facebook page, which are almost always negative.
In contrast, on Reddit, in Star Trek focused subreddits, negative posts are usually downvoted to hell.
Last edited:
If you like an episode, you might not comment about it that much other than "it was good." If you disliked an episode you are more likely to go on a rant about it. Hence, why negative comments sometimes outweigh positive ones even though the reactions are more positive. It's not a good barometer of how well a show is liked.
With that said, this site and others the comments are overwhelmingly positive. Maybe it's because the negative ones are so outnumbered they don't feel comfortable commenting? Safety in numbers.
Yeah, the Silent Majority seems to like the show very much, hence the polls, negative comment downvotes, and the good ratings overall that has secured a third season and, like, seven spinoffs.
Reddit's downvote system is unique, as even if there are an equal number of negative comments as I see on Youtube or Twitter, they are crowded out and pushed away by this majority. And the karma system leads to less comments of that nature.
I disregard "This is the worst ever!" comments because I know full well that 10 years from now those seem people will be holding up Disco as a Gold Standard. Or, at the very least, they'll be pining for it compared to whatever's out then.
"Discovery was better than I remembered!" And suddenly what they're criticizing the show for now will be complemented. "At least they were trying to further develop what we knew about Star Trek and were willing to uncover hidden corners! What are they doing now? I don't care about any of this stuff!"
"Discovery was better than I remembered!" And suddenly what they're criticizing the show for now will be complemented. "At least they were trying to further develop what we knew about Star Trek and were willing to uncover hidden corners! What are they doing now? I don't care about any of this stuff!"
Youtube and Facebook seem like the anti-Discovery cesspool. Even the STC group in facebook, though the moderators try hard, is filled with anti DISCO garbage. And by that, I don't mean just not likeing Discovery but this nonsense of going out of one's way to bash it at every opportunity.
Memory-Alpha can't decide if Culber and Stamets are married or not.
Wilson Cruz, who plays Culber says they are not married, but Burnham in a log entry calls Stamets a Windower
While in Season 1 they referred to themselves as partners
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for 'Widower' says it can be applied to partners, not only a married couple, while a bunch of other dictionaries just say a married couple.
I personally don't care if they were married or not. I just find the argument interesting
Wilson Cruz, who plays Culber says they are not married, but Burnham in a log entry calls Stamets a Windower
While in Season 1 they referred to themselves as partners
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for 'Widower' says it can be applied to partners, not only a married couple, while a bunch of other dictionaries just say a married couple.
I personally don't care if they were married or not. I just find the argument interesting
About tomorrow's episode... I have a feeling some big stuff might be revealed/happen. We're only 2 episodes away from the episode named "The Red Angel" and based on the preview we might be getting a glimpse of a battle with what could be the main villains of this season (possibly series)?
I've never quite been sure what marriage means in the Trekverse.
I mean, most humans are secular during this time period. Furthermore, many of the legal benefits of state recognition of marriage have probably gone away - especially if we presume the Federation is a mostly post-money culture. No one seems to file taxes, have to fill out health insurance forms, or leave monetary inheritance to their next of kin.
Seems like a tradition that would continue even though the original purpose of the tradition no longer exists. Someone will say "I want to get married!" And if the partner replies with, "I no longer see the purpose", then the person who wants to get married will exclaim, "So you don't love me?!"
Something like that could actually work in the Lower Decks series they want to make.
Without diving into the money debate, we have recently learned that there is a "Federation taxman" and people still have stuff, if not money, that would need to be inherited somehow.
My point is if most people no longer get religious marriages (which is accurate) and if there really isn't any particular legal recognition/framework for marriage any longer, then it might be the case that two people just announce "hey, we're married!" and that is that.
Similar threads
