Life's too short to watch things for entertainment that make you that upset.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
I hope there's some payoff, some reason they're so rude. I think they're trying to show Bernham is a pariah for her mutiny. I'm unclear why since she turned out to be correct about the hostile intent of the Klingons and she fought loyally afterwards.
I wish someone like the engineer who acts like snide little twerp would dial in back and explain if he's just against her on principle for attacking her captain or if he thinks her actions caused the war.
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it goes against "Gene's vision" - only that it's antithetical to what was otherwise portrayed across the whole of the Trek franchise. Starting in the original series with the Talosians, antagonists were not presented as "evil." Khan, Trelane, Nomad, the Gorn - none of them were monsters. The same thread continues for the most part across the later series as well. Was Q evil? Were the borg? No, they were just beyond what we would understand conventional morality to be.
It isn't worth watching something that makes you upset, Star Trek or no.
There is a reason why I don't watch TNG.
There is a reason why I don't watch TNG.
In episode one the main character comes across as quite an unlikeable Mary Sue type character and none of the others make much of an impact.
Tastes differ dude. I mean, the show has potential, and arguably is off to a better start than any post TOS first season of Trek, and I'll continue to watch it and pay for it in hopes I start enjoying it more. But I haven't seen a single episode which I'd rate as better than 2.5 stars or six on a scale of ten yet. And I'm not saying that because "it's not Trek" or because I'm pissed at how the Klingons look. The characterization has been inconsistent, the plots are full of obvious holes, and the writing is clunky. At least the direction and cinematography took a major leap forward in Episode 3, but I think the show needs a lot more improvement before I'd call it "really good."
On the other hand, it's more consistent with the characters in TOS who disagreed and argued. It's fits with the time period depicted. Non-issue in my book.
Actually the overall consensus has been really good. Seems like you're not in tune with the overall reaction. Don't mistake your personal reaction to the overall consensus!
Nope, and it shouldn't. Society has moved on, and to be mired in the past with old-fashioned attitudes would be foolish.
I suspect we'll see her evolve. It is a serialized format after all.
Exactly so! The first episodes have been complex and morally complicated. These threads demonstrate that they've got people thinking! That's a lot more than the typical shows. Love it!
I think it's a fair comment though. The characters are translating as being 'unlikable' to some viewers. That's not to say they might not warm up or have moments that amuse or fascinate but they are (in my opinion) a gloomy lot. Tilly isn't but then I guess she's.. well, I won't add more negativity. I personally attribute my reaction to expecting a certain mix of personalities that have been in previous Trek. It isn't working out that way and I miss it.
Wow, hyperbole much?
You might want to get some more sleep, take time away from the keyboard, stop watching, or something. You seem to have a non-stop stream of grumpy posts lately! I'm just saying that for your own peace of mind!
This is not directed at anyone specific, just a half-joking commentary paraphrasing Game of Thrones.
McCoy was the epitome of crankiness, and Roddenberry was also a crime show writer. So, seems right on the money.
Truth be told, I've got a lot of issues with the show and the tone and the presentation, but none of them stem from caring one iota what Roddenberry would have thought about it. He was never the sole guiding hand behind the show, frequently held it back in many respects dramatically speaking, and from numerous reports was often not a very nice guy even when he was operating at full capacity, to put it mildly and diplomatically. I'm grateful for what he helped create, but his "vision" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Time to move on.
Look, Roddenberry deserves plenty of credit for creating STAR TREK and successfully launching it three times. (Four, if you count the Saturday morning cartoon.) And, honestly, I would have loved it if "Genesis II" or "Assignment: Earth" or "The Questor Tapes" or "Spectre" had run for years as well. It's just that the endless hand-wringing over "What would Gene think?" gets a bit wearisome--and counter-productive--sometimes.
Star Trek is a TV show, not a cult. And Roddenberry, thankfully, was not L. Ron Hubbard. At this late date, fretting about "what would Gene do?" should not be the only standard that matters. Star Trek has passed into new hands.
Would Arthur Conan Doyle approve of "Sherlock" or "Elementary"? Who knows? Who cares? What matters is whether the shows work for modern audiences.
It's reasonable to expect that we'll see the characters evolve and grow over the series. It's a highly serialized format after all. And, the producers have indicated that only the first season will focus on the Klingon war and that they wouldn't want a darker series for any longer. So, stay tuned!
Please don't direct personal remarks at posters, and stick to discussing the content of people's posts. People are entitled to their own opinions on Discovery.Wow, hyperbole much?
You might want to get some more sleep, take time away from the keyboard, stop watching, or something. You seem to have a non-stop stream of grumpy posts lately! I'm just saying that for your own peace of mind!
Alright, Doc, that'll do. Let's not get personal.Wow, hyperbole much?
You might want to get some more sleep, take time away from the keyboard, stop watching, or something. You seem to have a non-stop stream of grumpy posts lately! I'm just saying that for your own peace of mind!
