Both because different people like different things and because - unfortunately - the world is full of bigots who don't like all the "wokeness'...which is doubly annoying because now to criticize the show at all is to risk being lumped in with them.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
Both because different people like different things and because - unfortunately - the world is full of bigots who don't like all the "wokeness'...which is doubly annoying because now to criticize the show at all is to risk being lumped in with them.
That is horrible. And these comments only serve to highlight why it is so important to have this representation on screen.
Screw them' bigots... if they can not accept updates, otherwise we would all still be swapping messages through the mail. May I borrow a stamp?
I'm old enough to have seen TOS in syndication.
Last edited:
It's kind of funny when people make all these comments about having gay, trans, non-binary, etc. characters and relationships on Discovery because Trek has always made it a point to push diversity. Having Uhura be a black bridge officer in TOS was notable back in the 60s. DS9 had a black lead, VOY had a woman lead. Previous Trek didn't do a great job with LBTQ representation but this is one area I think Discovery is doing a good job on. There are some things I would like to see done better, for example I would love to see Adira's character fleshed out a little more in terms of what exactly it means to be non-binary and how that impacts your life, or maybe a origin story, hopefully they do some of that in future seasons.
It always makes me chuckle when people complain about not having enough white, straight, male characters on the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but apparently for some having every other TV show in the history of TV isn't enough
It always makes me chuckle when people complain about not having enough white, straight, male characters on the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but apparently for some having every other TV show in the history of TV isn't enough
I don't give 
who is the lead. Just make them interesting. Janeway wasn't enjoyable because of her gender; she wasn't enjoyable because she wasn't interesting. Same with Archer.
As for the topic at hand my thoughts have been kind gelling together in to a small categorization system for me.
First tier is more casual fans who watch it because it sounds interesting and then move on. They don't really discuss it online.
Second tier is Star Trek fans who watch it because "Star Trek" and want to discuss Star Trek, either good, bad or indifferent. Not really hating new Trek but not liking it either.
Third tier is people who watch it and like it, Star Trek or not.
Fourth tier is what Lord Garth describes as the fandom menace. Hatred because it makes money or is old hat so change is extremely difficult.
None of this is hard and fast.
who is the lead. Just make them interesting. Janeway wasn't enjoyable because of her gender; she wasn't enjoyable because she wasn't interesting. Same with Archer.As for the topic at hand my thoughts have been kind gelling together in to a small categorization system for me.
First tier is more casual fans who watch it because it sounds interesting and then move on. They don't really discuss it online.
Second tier is Star Trek fans who watch it because "Star Trek" and want to discuss Star Trek, either good, bad or indifferent. Not really hating new Trek but not liking it either.
Third tier is people who watch it and like it, Star Trek or not.
Fourth tier is what Lord Garth describes as the fandom menace. Hatred because it makes money or is old hat so change is extremely difficult.
None of this is hard and fast.
I don't give
I liked Janeway but couldn't agree more on Archer. By far the most boring and overall worst series lead in Trek history. I'm also not a Bakula fan, never thought he was a good actor.
They were both flawed leads, but for different reasons.
Janeway could have been a compelling commanding officer. However, she was sabotaged by inconsistent writing. In some episodes, she was narrowly focused on getting the crew home, no matter what the costs. In other episodes, she was compelled to make every random stop along the way to help people out. It's where the jokes about "Insaneway" came from.
Archer, on the other hand, was what I thought was a very well fleshed out character. He was just fleshed out in a way which made it clear he was unfit for command. First they made the strange decision to have his father be the developer of the Warp 1 engine - which made it seem like he was essentially a nepotism hire (which reflects very badly on Starfleet). Then they decided to characterize Archer - particularly in the first two seasons - as a naïve, arrogant bigot. He's a purposefully bad leader. He'd rather be in his quarters petting his dog and watching water polo. Everything signals they wanted to write him as a loser. I get why they wanted this in terms of a character arc - they wanted to have a captain who grows as the show does - but they overdid it and it all-but broke the show.
I agree with the inconsistent writing for Janeway. It was exemplified in the finale when Janeway made a comment that exploring the delta quadrant wasn't worth it if even one person died. But, then over the course of the series she made so many insanely reckless choices that constantly put everyone's life at risk. There was definitely a lot of stuff like that, but I still found the Janeway character interesting and engaging. It helped that Mulgrew was a great actor.
I could never get into Archer, just something about the way Bakula delivered his lines, he was so bland. The only regulars I liked were Trip and Phlox, everyone else was just blah. The show got better when they brought in better supporting cast (Shran, Degra, etc.).
A lot of the reasons people hated this show was because they wanted to have it be completely like TOS in every way down to the costumes; when they didn't get that, and they saw that Discovery was going to be focused on two women of color (initially) they went on the attack vector that we know too well now. All of the nonsense that's happened with both this show and Picard is for that reason, IMHO, as well as for the fact that the production staff announced that the Klingons were analogous to present day Americans (the ones who voted for Donald Trump to be POTUS.)
It's too bad that the Spore Drive was swept under the rug; the concept and reason for it (the need to have a different secondary power source-or whatever it is that dilithium does-from dilithium because it is a finite and precious resource) is analogous to how oil and other resources are used on Earth now and the possibility of peak oil (peak dilithium?); a great timely environmental story that fits with the environmental problems of today. But of course, the 'fans', obsessed with canon, can't accept it, so it must be swept under the rug to placate them (what Leonard Nimoy said about canon applies here.)
Bottom line, people can't accept that 1966 and 1987 can't really happen anymore, and because of that, both Discovery and Picard have the reaction they have from these fans (which is also why the Captain Pike show was created, IMHO, to placate them, and also why people love The Orville so much and use it to bash Discovery and Picard as not being 'real' Star Trek.)
Last edited:
At this moment, only because Disco season 3 was the most recent season to air. This time last year while Picard was airing, everyone was going at it with their laundry list of complaints about why that sucked and how it soiled Gene's Vision or whatever, with hardly any attention paid to Disco. Then after Picard ended, we all kind of got distracted by that thing that happened last spring so no one was paying attention to Star Trek much at all.
Anyway, then Lower Decks premiered and the peanut gallery were at it with their complaints about how Star Trek isn't supposed to be fun or whatever, then Disco's third season premiered right after Lower Decks ended so we were back at Disco hate. I'm sure within a few weeks or months we'll burn out on Disco hate and then when season 2 of Lower Decks or season 1 of Prodigy (whichever airs next) premieres, we'll ramp up the hate for those. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.
I actually think being a straight white American man was one of the problems with the character. The all American lead man that you get on US TV is one of the blandest characters out there. Fair play to Chris Evans for actually making it work in the Avengers but very few do
Archer was just incompetent. He could have been a Vulcan and been just as bland and incompetent.
Except, he didn't come across as thoughtful. Just stumbling along in a way that begs how he was a captain in the first place. His lack of professionalism shouldn't be explained by "learning the ropes."That reminds me of Sinclair from B5. Everyone said "oh, he's so wooden, what a terrible actor!" but if you watch the rest of the series you realize that's just how the character of Sinclair was.
In the case of Archer, I do see what you're saying -- but I'd counter with the idea that he literally was breaking new ground with every lightyear they traveled, having to 'learn the ropes' and make up things as he went, often on-the-spot; there was no 'Starship Captains Instruction Manual', he was writing that as they went.
So far as 'bland' goes, I don't think I'd want a hot-headed Captain for the first warp-5 starship in my fleet, I'd want someone level-headed, thoughtful, and somewhat boring.
That's why I wrote: 'Not that these can't be factors'. They absolutely are, but I think they also act as a convenient way for people to write off any dislike/hate of the show. Again, same as The Last Jedi.
As long as people are endeavoring to explain their dislike I'm all on board.
Sometimes I am actively confused by the rationale and feel like I have been watching an entirely different show than the other person. But, I'll do my best to listen all the same.
Sometimes I am actively confused by the rationale and feel like I have been watching an entirely different show than the other person. But, I'll do my best to listen all the same.
Can we start a small argument then? A tiff? A spat, perhaps?
Chalk it up to the fact that Archer didn't inspire but it had nothing to do with the actor and everything to do with the writing.
I love that Voyager escaped this completely. LOL
What was Voyager? That robot thing in TMP?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
