Why so much negativity?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
- Status
Sure.
Nonsense. Do people the courtesy of taking them at their word when they say they like something, even if you don't personally see the appeal. Don't presume you can read their minds and know what they really think.
Oh, geez. Unless you are a psychologist yourself, I suggest you don't question his credibility and integrity in psychological matters, especially when he didn't actually say anything about the characters in this thread.....
The question is whether or not someone on their off duty hours is interested in bringing their professional viewpoints into a conversation, specifically in an environment where the question of whether or not they should even do that. Not everyone takes their profession onto the internet with ease, especially when you're under the pressure of constant professionalism at their jobs.
Part of what I'm semi is semi rhetorical, they again don't have to bring their professional life into their hobbies, requesting that is a true request. Especially when part of the argument is whether or not they can even do that in the first place.
Sure I agree with what you're getting at entirely, my point is specifically in the first 3-5 episodes? Because yes it's an extreme of normal behavior, but that's the point. All she displays when you're getting to know her are those extreme personality traits. And again I've spent my time on those episodes trying to edit it out, so I at one point could point out the exact frames where this occurred.
Are you saying throughout the first few episodes or throughout the series?
Based upon...what?
Sure without a doubt.
Sometimes I love listening to Donald Trump he makes me laugh with every fibre of my being. But I'd never question why I disliked him intensely until I saw him turn a podium into a comedy central roast. I don't for a second wonder why the vast majority of people find his behavior revolting to the core.
Some people would love to watch Trump's star trek, but it'd be absurd to pretend a lot of people wouldn't' find it repulsive.
EDIT: The issue would be if people were pretending his behavior had no link to why people loved or hated the show. When people say hypothetical trump doesn't matter, they're just bringing it up to justify their opinion, we have a problem.
I'm not remotely inviting a political discussion here, that's another conversation all together.
I'm just trying to use an example we can agree upon.
I think, perhaps, just maybe, some folks spend waaay to much time obsessively evaluating the character's of a fictional TV show, rather than just enjoying for what it is...
Subjective entertainment meant to while away some idle hours.
Watching Star Trek is something I do for fun, not to evaluate to the Nth degree.
Subjective entertainment meant to while away some idle hours.
Watching Star Trek is something I do for fun, not to evaluate to the Nth degree.
She's a fictional character. They tend to go to extremes for the drama/comedy.
This.
Sometimes narcissists are the right character for the story. That being said: I don't think Michael Burnham is a narcissist.
Too late.
As a newbie fan, converted into a Trekfan by "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" in December 1979, I spent most of 1980 hearing "true fans" and "Star Trek originals" complaining how terrible it was. TMP, the film that is still my favourite movie of all time.
People would take me aside and explain that I would understand, if only I had been there from the beginning.
I then saw the likes of ST II, ST IV, TNG, ST V, VGR, ENT, the 2009 movie, DSC and LDS, trashed by different groups of "true fans". In the late 80s, I had the chance to read issues of the club newsletter from before my joining - and there were angry letters about Filmation's TAS from before it even started airing! Seems to be counter to IDIC. Such irony.
Yep! As popular as ST IV was - with fans, critics and the general public - the club I ran (over 1000 members at that time) had numerous diehard TOS fans walk away from the club in anger in 1986, calling ST IV "the dumbing down of the franchise for the masses".
I just try to steer away from such negativity. Even the threads and polls here that demand to know "the worst". Way to start a negative thread.
Huh?
This board is littered with thousands of examples. I have met many fans who seem to start loving previous Treks they once hated in order to build up their arguments about their current hate. It is quite funny when you remind them of their previous stance.
Last edited:
Sure, but when did that become a good idea for the lead on a show called star trek?
In the first 3-5 episodes or later in the show when they rewrote her character?
Since 1966?
Since forever, at least TNG.
Sure the internet can be negative, sure people will always resist change.
But that doesn't explain why STD is getting 10 times the hate of the Mandalorian.
Most of what I heard is "it's disney I'm sure they're gonna find a way to fuck it up", "they fired the UFC chick because she's conversative".
Neither of which have anything to do with the show.
Burnham is human one episode, more Vulcan the next. She bounces all over the map but that's how she's written. She's a human raised from roughly the age of 10 by the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation and with a half-Vulcan adoptive brother. She struggles with doing too much and then not doing enough.
I have many issues with DSC but Burnham being a narcissistic and problem character isn't one of them.
I have many issues with DSC but Burnham being a narcissistic and problem character isn't one of them.
Well, I must admit that I do occasionally go to the third degree.
Does it matter?
- Status
Similar threads
