• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand some people not enjoying a show, but damn some people go way out of their way to hate on Discovery and let everyone know they hate Discovery. I just don't get how people have that much time on their hands? Of the 5 new Trek shows, Discovery is 5th for me. But I still enjoy it. I have watched a lot of terrible shows in my day (who remembers Cop Rock?) and Discovery is not one. In fact, IMO it is better than both Voyager and Enterprise. And also for the haters, Discovery got renewed for season 5. That means a lot of people watch it and enjoy it. So get a life!
 
Actors can be exposed too. See, for instance, Stephen Collins, Andy Dick and Jennifer Lien.

With Mr. Collins and Andy Dick, I'm not so sure about the former but I know the latter is a hard to like sleazebag who's a drug taking disaster zone. Jennifer Lien is also a drug taking disaster zone, but it sounds like she's grappling with mental health issues similar to Carrie Fisher's.
 
IMO, Abrams represents the political values of Michelle Paradise and perhaps the other DISCO producers, and ones they think DISCO exemplifies or promotes. That's why including her made more sense than having a famous black actress cameo (even those as notable as Viola Davis or Lupita Nyong'o). It's about Abrams, but it's also not about Abrams. I guess I'm trying to say it's more about Abrams the visionary or her political vision more than the individual politician Abrams. Abrams as an idea, as shorthand for an inclusive, multiracial, intersectional political future. With Abrams' cameo, DISCO was making an explicit political statement (not about electoral politics), but more so their overall vision, which IMO they feel that Abrams also shares, and typifies.

100% this. Paradise hired Abrams for this cameo precisely because Abrams has made the idea of multiracial, multicultural democracy her brand. She responded to Georgia's attempts at voter suppression laws by spearheading a huge movement to register to vote as many members of the marginalized communities targeted for disenfranchisement by those laws as possible. That was the point of Abrams's cameo: to link United Earth's rejection of isolationism and new embrace of multiculturalism (via rejoining the UFP) to Abrams's political vision of multiculturalism.

With Mr. Collins and Andy Dick, I'm not so sure about the former but I know the latter is a hard to like sleazebag who's a drug taking disaster zone. Jennifer Lien is also a drug taking disaster zone, but it sounds like she's grappling with mental health issues similar to Carrie Fisher's.

Stephen Collins is an admitted child molester.
 
Stephen Collins is an admitted child molester.

Jeez, that's disgraceful, no wonder some people get creeped out by Mr. Collins, even if I don't let his suspected actions cloud his Decker alter ego (thankfully his role in the Trek franchise is a footnote and Andy Dick was a guest star).

In comparison there's a lot of dog whistling (comments on passion gaps) and open irrational anger directed at Ms. Abrams' cameo appearance as the Earth President.
 
IMO, Abrams represents the political values of Michelle Paradise and perhaps the other DISCO producers, and ones they think DISCO exemplifies or promotes. That's why including her made more sense than having a famous black actress cameo (even those as notable as Viola Davis or Lupita Nyong'o). It's about Abrams, but it's also not about Abrams. I guess I'm trying to say it's more about Abrams the visionary or her political vision more than the individual politician Abrams. Abrams as an idea, as shorthand for an inclusive, multiracial, intersectional political future. With Abrams' cameo, DISCO was making an explicit political statement (not about electoral politics), but more so their overall vision, which IMO they feel that Abrams also shares, and typifies.

Beautifully put.

100% this. Paradise hired Abrams for this cameo precisely because Abrams has made the idea of multiracial, multicultural democracy her brand. She responded to Georgia's attempts at voter suppression laws by spearheading a huge movement to register to vote as many members of the marginalized communities targeted for disenfranchisement by those laws as possible. That was the point of Abrams's cameo: to link United Earth's rejection of isolationism and new embrace of multiculturalism (via rejoining the UFP) to Abrams's political vision of multiculturalism.

And then some.

Can I just tell the pair of you that your posts are always good to read. I love how goddamned smart you are.
 
Bottom line is that DSC is a deeply flawed show with troubled production history and a tremendous inconsistency in premise and settings. And, it had a LOT of pressure being the first new Star Trek series right out of the gate after 12 years of not having any "televised" Trek. It also had the streaming stigma associated with it (remember all the angry "eYE NevAR PAyD 4 StaR TRacK B4 anD Eye SHurE Won'T PAy NOw!!!1!1!" crew?).

So I can understand why it may come under fire. I don't agree with that fire, but I do understand it.

From my perspective, it sits (very precariously) in 3rd place in terms of my favorite series. The other top two are TOS and DS9. TOS being the original and best product of the franchise, and DS9 being the most original premise of all the series up until DSC premiered. Ultimately, I like DSC a lot for the same reasons I loved TOS and DS9- they were fresh, bold and took risks.

My only issues with DSC right now is that it feels very inconsistent in terms of its established premise, setting, and even characters. For all its flaws, S1 was riveting and drew me in. I loved those characters and I loved the pre-TOS setting. Now, so much has changed from the initial premise, it's barely even the same show any longer.

  • The "lower decks" aspect is gone, with Saru and Burnham both having been captains at this point
  • Burnham's "Vulcan upbringing" element to her character has been almost completely dropped and forgotten
  • Saru's primary character trait as an alien character is gone
  • The show now takes place 900+ years in the future from where it started
  • The importance of the spore drive has declined significantly
  • Key / foundational characters have departed (Georgiou, Tilly...just happened to be 2 of my favorites)

So, while I still love DSC and watch it religiously....I look at PIC and SNW and their trajectory is "up" while I have to admit (to be fair and honset) that I view DSC's trajectory as "downward." That doesn't mean I "don't like it." Quite the contrary. It just means that I'm able to be honest in my assessment of the show's current state against my own tastes. I enjoyed S1 and S2 far more than S3 and S4. I can't pretend that isn't true. I'm hoping / expecting that S5 will rock, though!
 
One thing I don't forget that if it wasn't for Discovery having success there wouldn't be Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, or any future star. I love Trek so much more on TV than the movies. And while I don't have any of the current shows ranked as high as TNG or DS9, I truly believe all 5 are better than Voyager or Enterprise IMO. I enjoy them all. This is a wonderful time to be a fan of Trek. Yet, some people just bitch and moan about everything. Get a life. I take Trek seriously, but some take it to a new level.
 
One thing I don't forget that if it wasn't for Discovery having success there wouldn't be Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, or any future star. I love Trek so much more on TV than the movies. And while I don't have any of the current shows ranked as high as TNG or DS9, I truly believe all 5 are better than Voyager or Enterprise IMO. I enjoy them all. This is a wonderful time to be a fan of Trek. Yet, some people just bitch and moan about everything. Get a life. I take Trek seriously, but some take it to a new level.
I think the most interesting observation with the Trek fan reaction is the response that reminds me a lot of elitism. Basically, the idea that Star Trek is this very special thing and that only those who understand it are worthy of participating with it. Unfortunately, what that does is create a lot of barriers to new things because they don't meet the standard of what has been deemed "Star Trek."

Please note, none of this is directed at anyone here. It's more a general observation of patterns of behavior and attitudes.
 
I think the most interesting observation with the Trek fan reaction is the response that reminds me a lot of elitism. Basically, the idea that Star Trek is this very special thing and that only those who understand it are worthy of participating with it. Unfortunately, what that does is create a lot of barriers to new things because they don't meet the standard of what has been deemed "Star Trek."

Please note, none of this is directed at anyone here. It's more a general observation of patterns of behavior and attitudes.

I think some would call that gatekeeping. I've seen it more out there on other forums like Reddit where deviations from the general consensus get you flagged as some kind of "other" for daring to have your own opinion.
 
One thing I don't forget that if it wasn't for Discovery having success there wouldn't be Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, or any future star. I love Trek so much more on TV than the movies. And while I don't have any of the current shows ranked as high as TNG or DS9, I truly believe all 5 are better than Voyager or Enterprise IMO. I enjoy them all. This is a wonderful time to be a fan of Trek. Yet, some people just bitch and moan about everything. Get a life. I take Trek seriously, but some take it to a new level.

Good post. We should remember as well that there has been more diversification in the kind of shows we have than Star Trek has ever managed before. There’s been a conscious effort not to reach for the cookie cutter, resulting in a TNG Legacy show, an animated comedy, a kids show and now Strange New Worlds.

I think with the arrival of the latter we finally are at a point where there’s at least some Trek that suits everyone. Each show plays to the general audience, then a general Star Trek audience and then goes on to cater to various niches within that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top