Why the hate for Disco?

[Lord Garth]

Trek isnt supposed to be a kids show #genesvision

Fan: "How will children be able to watch Picard?"
Same Fan: "Prodigy?! Star Trek's not for children!"

John Kerry: "I actually did support Gene's Vision, before I was against it!"

 

[Amasov]

I do like the show, but, it's only recently have I taken a more critical eye to it.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire premise of Discovery was fulfilled at the end of the first season. Since then, it's been any writer's guess on what to do with Michael. If the ultimate goal for Michael was to get her to where we arrived at the end of the third season, the journey getting there was terribly-written as it was juggled from one writer to the next.

When Discovery does something well, it does it well. IMO, New Eden, Sounds of Thunder, People of Earth, Forget Me Not, and Unification III aren't just really good Discovery episodes, but, all-around good STAR TREK episodes.

The frustration I have with the show really started about halfway into the second season and then again halfway into the third season; though my critique differed somewhat in both instances. I thought the storyline they were telling in the second season started off intriguing but then started to fall apart the more they began to pile on to it. About halfway into that season, we should've started to see things come together, but didn't. And in the end, while the arc was resolved, in doing so, they tore SO MANY plotholes through the fabric of the show in the finale. I was willing to forgive them the problems in the second season because of the producer/writer/whatever the fuck it was shakeup that took place.

Season three, like the season before it, started off intriguing and I'd argue MORE promising because they had an entirely blank canvas to work with. Ultimately, it came down to the writing and what the show decided to focus on. Yes, there were less issues with inconsistent writing this time, but I just felt like the show was trying to balance too many plots and too many characters in the limited amount of time it had. And because of that, certain things weren't developed enough in order to deliver a proper payoff in the end. Season three just felt like nearly each episode was written in a vacuum and each writer was just barely aware of what the other writer was working on.

But, look, I'm still coming back for season four. I never once considered jumping ship. It's Star Trek. And I want Star Trek to do well. I'm always cheering it on.

 

[eschaton]

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.

That was their defense at the time, IIRC. But...it makes no sense at all!

I mean, think about what would occur if hypothetically we stumbled upon a real faster-than-light ship - and could figure out how to use it. Do you think the sort of person put in command would be anything like Jonathan Archer? of course not! They might be completely out of their depth exploring strange new worlds, but they'd put a competent widely-read person in charge with extensive command experience (military or NASA).

But the real problem with Archer as a buffoon isn't what it says about Archer. It's what it says about Starfleet - that a mediocre man with a famous last name can fall upward into command and be given the space to fail - repeatedly - until he somehow grows up enough to become the hero the Federation needs.

 

[fireproof78]

But the real problem with Archer as a buffoon isn't what it says about Archer. It's what it says about Starfleet - that a mediocre man with a famous last name can fall upward into command and be given the space to fail - repeatedly - until he somehow grows up enough to become the hero the Federation needs.

Indeed, yes. I wish Starfleet had planned out their mission a bit better.

 

[Lord Garth]

If you want to know what the difference is between "dislike" and "hate", Fred Sanford put it best. I don't know how many of you ever watched Sanford & Son, but one time he said:

Sanford: "When you don't like someone, you don't want to touch 'em!"
looks repulsed
then he clenches a fist, shakes it, and says...
Sanford: "But when you hate someone, you want to touch them repeatedly!"

Same applies to a TV show.

I'd think if you don't like a show, you'd want to avoid it all costs and not want to talk about it all. But if you hate it, you want to tear into it repeatedly and take joy from it. That's the way I've always read it.

But on another topic: Sanford & Son. Hell of an underrated show. Fred knows his stuff and tells it like it is. Aunt Esther tells it like it is too. They just say different things. They'd be great in the TNZ Forum.

 

[fireproof78]

think if you don't like a show, you'd want to avoid it all costs and not want to talk about it all. But if you hate it, you want to tear into it repeatedly and take joy from it. That's the way I've always read it.

This is my reading too. I don't actively seek to discuss things I don't like. For me, that feels like looking for an argument.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but I would like to believe they could have handled it better.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

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

The caterwauling in this video about the character mentioned on this non-Star Trek show encapsulates what you said (the white male character in question is a variation on this classic character and this classic character who the ladies narrating the video feel was just a target of abuse on the show, their implication being that he's only being targeted for said 'abuse' because he's a white male.)

 

[eschaton]

No human had the requisite experience to cover all the crap NX-01 Enterprise ended up getting into.

Around half of the season 1 episodes literally had T'Pol advising Archer to do something quite obvious, which he then promptly ignored. Are you telling me that there is no possible human in the Trekverse who would have listened to her advice?

 

[fireproof78]

*shrug* maybe not such an easy subject to write?
Not even defending the writing. The scant number of seasons the show lasted speaks for itself on that subject.

First contact protocols could have been written in advance, with prepared speeches for when they first encounter an unknown alien, which they do, and Archer just wings it. Archer is a known anti-Vulcan in his sentiments and does not hold their best interests, as an ally of Earth, in mind when sharing military secrets to Vulcan's enemy. As @eschaton notes he routinely ignores T'Pol's advice.

You want to write him over his head that's fine. But there's over your head and the unbelievably incompetent. I would trust Colonel Blake over Archer. Largely because there are Earth ship captains who could have at least a measure of understanding of surviving in space, of encountering the unknown, like pirates, and presenting a cool head as a leader.

I think it can be written well, simply by studying old naval logs and encounters by maritime explorers. Not perfect but at least a measure of competence.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Fan: "How will children be able to watch Picard?"
Same Fan: "Prodigy?! Star Trek's not for children!"

John Kerry: "I actually did support Gene's Vision, before I was against it!"

I have seen it starting already. There are fanboys over on another Trek thread I am on already"writing it off" despite being 30yrs to old for the shows demographics. Based on one promo poster they already feel it "dilutes" Trek

The big complaints are that none of the crew are known species or look too Disney

 

[fireproof78]

Well, it doesn't look like Star Trek. Which is probably the point but we've already seen what happens with DSC.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sanford: "When you don't like someone, you don't want to touch 'em!"
looks repulsed
then he clenches a fist, shakes it, and says...
Sanford: "But when you hate someone, you want to touch them repeatedly!"

Same applies to a TV show.

I'd think if you don't like a show, you'd want to avoid it all costs and not want to talk about it all. But if you hate it, you want to tear into it repeatedly and take joy from it. That's the way I've always read it.

That sums it up quite nicely.

I tried it, it didn't resonate with me, I gave up on it. I have had a few folks telling me I should try S2 instead, though I've not yet psyched myself up for that (someday I might) so my only exposure was the pilot and it just rubbed me up the wrong way.

When there are threads like this, I'll pop in to say why I didn't like it, but I'll not say it's not Trek or those who watch it are ruining the franchise or aren't proper fans, or any of that bollocks, I'm not going to tear people down for what they like (IDIC and all that). It's the same way people say they don't like DS9, I like to find out why as it often helps me understand and appreciate why I love it. I do hope that I might read comments that'll make me want to watch more of Discovery, after seeing what others like so much about it.

Not liking the show because of the stories or tone or writing doesn't make someone a toxic fan (this is a franchise many of us have been watching for years and will have opinions on, or standards we expect shows to meet), hating the show because of it having a female of colour as the lead or representing the LGBT+ community just makes them a piece of trash.

 

[Lord Garth]

I have seen it starting already. There are fanboys over on another Trek thread I am already"writing it off" despite being 30yrs to old for the shows demographics. Based on one promo poster they already feel it "dilutes" Trek

The big complaints are that none of the crew are known species or look too Disney

It's actually good stuff, believe or not.

Some day, I shall do something I've done before and take a poster's own comments and pit them against each other. Why make my case, when they can do it for me?

 

[nic3636]

Around half of the season 1 episodes literally had T'Pol advising Archer to do something quite obvious, which he then promptly ignored. Are you telling me that there is no possible human in the Trekverse who would have listened to her advice?

First contact protocols could have been written in advance, with prepared speeches for when they first encounter an unknown alien, which they do, and Archer just wings it. Archer is a known anti-Vulcan in his sentiments and does not hold their best interests, as an ally of Earth, in mind when sharing military secrets to Vulcan's enemy. As @eschaton notes he routinely ignores T'Pol's advice.

You want to write him over his head that's fine. But there's over your head and the unbelievably incompetent. I would trust Colonel Blake over Archer. Largely because there are Earth ship captains who could have at least a measure of understanding of surviving in space, of encountering the unknown, like pirates, and presenting a cool head as a leader.

I think it can be written well, simply by studying old naval logs and encounters by maritime explorers. Not perfect but at least a measure of competence.

Yeah I mean he was representing all of humanity. If that bumbling oaf was the best the entire planet could offer, that's really sad. Makes me want to cry, Burnham style.

 

[nic3636]

The caterwauling in this video about the character mentioned on this non-Star Trek show encapsulates what you said (the white male character in question is a variation on this classic character and this classic character who the ladies narrating the video feel was just a target of abuse on the show, their implication being that he's only being targeted for said 'abuse' because he's a white male.)

Ah yes, I'm glad someone is documenting the struggles of the white man. We have it so rough .

 

[fireproof78]

Some do. Some don't. Not everyone's experiences are the same. I've worked with a white man who was raped at 11, addicted to 3 types of hard drugs by 8, and running drugs at the same age. Everyone has a story and assuming it's all the same is kind of missing well, a lot.

 

[nic3636]

That's fair, I didn't mean to refer to individual struggles.

 

[Kor]

"Hate" is a strong word and a strong sentiment. Life is too short to drain one's energy "hating" TV shows and movies. I don't understand the need that some viewers have to get all riled up and loudly moan about something that they don't like on TV. That's a good way to give yourself thrombosis or something. Just quit watching and move on, and let other people enjoy it in peace. There's already way too much anger and negativity in the wide world of today.

Personally, I lost interest in the show some time in the last season, mostly just because of personal taste. I found the characters to be grouchy and unlikeable with the exception of Pike. Plus, the hyper-serialization leads every episode to be 45 minutes of frenetic action that seem to serve no purpose except to lead directly into the next episode, not making me care about the characters or what's happening with them. I was also hoping beyond hope that this show would be a glorious high-budget celebration of retro-futurism (the only sci-fi aesthetic that I really enjoy), since we were returning to the 23rd century. But instead it looks just like any other contemporary sci-fi show. And other viewers may enjoy the very things that I don't enjoy. Live and let live.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

That's fair, I didn't mean to refer to individual struggles.

Fair point. But, that's my approach. Everything is an individual case for me and so I try (don't always succeed) at approaching things case by case, individual by individual.