Michael Burnham is the Chosen One

[MakeshiftPython]

I just watch shows I like, so I don't waste time on shows I don't like or that bore me.

You mean you don't post on threads for TV shows you claim to not like and find boring? How novel.

 

[BurnhamAll]

You mean you don't post on threads for TV shows you claim to not like and find boring? How novel.

I spend hours every day online leaving nasty comments about the Spy Kids movies, and how much I hate them, how bad they are, and insulting people who like them.

 

[Awesome Possum]

You mean you don't post on threads for TV shows you claim to not like and find boring? How novel.

It gives me time to watch more shows that I like too. Trying to convince people they're wrong about liking a show wastes so much time.

 

[Jadeb]

I spend hours every day online leaving nasty comments about the Spy Kids movies, and how much I hate them, how bad they are, and insulting people who like them.

They cast Ricardo Montalban. How bad could they be?

 

[cultcross]

I think "start great" or "get better" is a false choice. We live in a time of unprecedented entertainment options -- far too many to watch. So, for me, it's a question of whether a show is worth my time. Discovery's first season was right on the cusp. Had it not had "Star Trek" in the title, I'd have dropped it early on, so I can't help but question whether continuing with it -- and voting with my subscription dollars week after week -- was really the right call, for me or for the franchise. At a certain point, tolerating bad/mediocre Trek is only encouraging more bad/mediocre Trek, and there's already too much of that.

These days, being willing to write off the first two years doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We have, what, five or six more shows supposedly in the pipeline? Am I really expected and willing to sit through 12 seasons of disappointing TV in hopes it will improve?

Well I liked the first season of a lot of the shows I thought got better; the fact they get better doesn't mean they are disappointing in season 1. In fact, I loved season one of OITNB (for example), and it was only in rewatching years later that I found it so lacking compared to what came later. The same was true of TNG back in the day. Now I've enjoyed Discovery season 1, I maintain it was better for me than TNG, ENT or VOY season 1, and I still anticipate hopefully looking back on it in years to come as the weakest season of this show.

 

[LJones41]

Well of course it didn't the thread was about Captains, not leads.

Aside from "Discovery", all of the other leads are the Captains. So, this whole idea that we're expected to choose between Kirk and Picard on who was the best is meaningless to me.

 

[Tuskin38]

Aside from "Discovery", all of the other leads are the Captains.

That doesn't change what the thread was about.

 

[Noname Given]

*Fortunately there are other shows that now embrace all the lost fun and adventure. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but Stargate SG-1 is no longer making new shows.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Indeed.

 

[fireproof78]

I spend hours every day online leaving nasty comments about the Spy Kids movies, and how much I hate them, how bad they are, and insulting people who like them.

That was you!? That hurts...

 

[BurnhamAll]

They cast Ricardo Montalban. How bad could they be?

Don’t get me started. The main girl is a total Mary Sue. They’ve gotten way too violent and dark and gritty, at this point, Catch That Kid is more Spy Kids than Spy Kids!

I also heard the Spy Kids cartoon is already cancelled and being replaced with a new series by Nicholas Meyer.

 

[CorporalClegg]

 

[Jadeb]

Don’t get me started. The main girl is a total Mary Sue. They’ve gotten way too violent and dark and gritty, at this point, Catch That Kid is more Spy Kids than Spy Kids!

I also heard the Spy Kids cartoon is already cancelled and being replaced with a new series by Nicholas Meyer.

So Ricardo is Spy Kids' Jason Isaacs?

 

[Mudd]

Star Trek doesn't so much do characters at this point as they generate game avatars.

 

[LJones41]

Star Trek doesn't so much do characters at this point as they generate game avatars.

The more comments I read about "Discovery", the more pathetic the Trek fandom seems to me. I had no idea that the franchise fandom has come down to clinging to the familiar . . . to the point of making irrelevant criticism about something new that don't have any real value.

 

[Tuskin38]

Star Trek doesn't so much do characters at this point as they generate game avatars.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Felicia Day as Colt?

 

[XCV330]

Star Trek doesn't so much do characters at this point as they generate game avatars.

The idea that video game avatars don't stand for developed characters in the same way a headshot of an actor can be used to portray a well written character tends to betray a certain vacuity on modern entertainment forms.

 

[CorporalClegg]

To be fair, the cake is a lie.

 

[Vger23]

The more comments I read about "Discovery", the more pathetic the Trek fandom seems to me. I had no idea that the franchise fandom has come down to clinging to the familiar . . . to the point of making irrelevant criticism about something new that don't have any real value.

The biggest reason is that people become locked into a dogmatic view of what "REAL STAR TREK IS".

The most diverse franchise in the history of live-action entertainment, and a fan base that prides itself in intelligent, diverse thinking....and yet fans love to declare what the brand IS and IS NOT, locking it into a narrow, stale little box...and there you have it. Instant animosity and disappointment any time the definition isn't met.