Why the hate for Disco?

[fireproof78]

Q: What do TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, LD, and PIC all have in common?
A: Some people don't like them.

All that matters is that enough people DO like them for them to remain on the air. If that happens, they are a success.

This. 100% this.

 

[Lord Garth]

Staying on top of things. This is what's going to happen: Alex Kurtzman has a contract with Star Trek through 2027. So, we have at least six more years of the current era. Sooner or later, the films will start up again in one capacity or another. Series seem to be covering the 23rd Century, 24th/25th Century, and the 32nd Century. Alliances will shift, status quos will change, and everything will turn out all right in the end.

Anyone who wants to keep up-to-date, I just spoiled it for all of you.

 

[fireproof78]

Alliances will shift, status quos will change, and everything will turn out all right in the end.

Way to ruin the ending.

 

[Quinton]

Some people don't like it. That's OK! I don't spend time on forums for shows I dislike, verbally seething like a trapped anaconda, and I'm willing to bet plenty of folks who dislike Discovery don't do that, either. The weirdos you see who spend an inordinate amount of time around these parts lamenting the state of the world because Discovery exists, well, they're weirdos.

But yeah.

 

[Jadeb]

Staying on top of things. This is what's going to happen: Alex Kurtzman has a contract with Star Trek through 2027. So, we have at least six more years of the current era. Sooner or later, the films will start up again in one capacity or another. Series seem to be covering the 23rd Century, 24th/25th Century, and the 32nd Century. Alliances will shift, status quos will change, and everything will turn out all right in the end.

Anyone who wants to keep up-to-date, I just spoiled it for all of you.

I tend to think the future is less settled. Trek propped up All Access and remains a huge tent pole for Paramount+. But the streaming landscape could change pretty dramatically in the next few years. A lot of the lesser players will fold or get bought out, like DC’s stab at it just did. Maybe Paramount+ makes the cut, but it seems like it’s already way behind.

Not trying to be negative — as long as Trek makes enough money, we’ll get more, somewhere and somehow. But five or six series a year? Part of me thinks we’re in the golden age of streaming Trek, when the franchise can get by as big fish in a small pond.

 

[Oddish]

QUOTE: The weirdos you see who spend an inordinate amount of time around these parts lamenting the state of the world because Discovery exists, well, they're weirdos.

Most Trekkies are a little weird, though. It goes with the territory. But we try to be weird in a good way.

 

[Lord Garth]

The TNG/DS9 Brigade seems to hit the heaviest. At all other Star Trek.

 

[Lord Garth]

I tend to think the future is less settled. Trek propped up All Access and remains a huge tent pole for Paramount+. But the streaming landscape could change pretty dramatically in the next few years. A lot of the lesser players will fold or get bought out, like DC’s stab at it just did. Maybe Paramount+ makes the cut, but it seems like it’s already way behind.

Not trying to be negative — as long as Trek makes enough money, we’ll get more, somewhere and somehow. But five or six series a year? Part of me thinks we’re in the golden age of streaming Trek, when the franchise can get by as big fish in a small pond.

I don't know if we'll get five Star Trek series per year until 2027, just that whatever we do get on the TV end will be Kurtzman-led. The only way that changes is if he gets fired for cause or bought out of his contract.

 

[SITZKRIEG!]

Genuine question: does lack of interest in a recent franchise installment decrease interest in the overall franchise?

It does for me. More importantly for the company that owns the IP, it's associated with a decrease in spending as well. I'm not going to pretend that I'm some sort of super spender but I did spend hundreds of dollars a year on Star Wars and Star Trek every year for decades until I soured on both. I used to buy knick knacks, apparel, novels, physical media, movie tickets, RPG books, miniatures, models, video games, etc. My last trek purchase was either the core book for the Star Trek Adventures RPG or minis from the heroclix TOS set when those initially came out (whichever was more recent). My last Star Wars purchase was the U-wing model for FFG's X-wing game when it came out.

 

[fireproof78]

It does for me. More importantly for the company that owns the IP, it's associated with a decrease in spending as well. I'm not going to pretend that I'm some sort of super spender but I did spend hundreds of dollars a year on Star Wars and Star Trek every year for decades until I soured on both. I used to buy knick knacks, apparel, novels, physical media, movie tickets, RPG books, miniatures, models, video games, etc. My last trek purchase was either the core book for the Star Trek Adventures RPG or minis from the heroclix TOS set when those initially came out (whichever was more recent). My last Star Wars purchase was the U-wing model for FFG's X-wing game when it came out.

Fair point. I guess I don't get it then. My purchasing habits are the same, still get action figures, or costuming or whatnot. I like what I like and a poor installment doesn't decrease that or change my view on the company.

Interesting to hear another point of view.

 

[SITZKRIEG!]

Fair point. I guess I don't get it then. My purchasing habits are the same, still get action figures, or costuming or whatnot. I like what I like and a poor installment doesn't decrease that or change my view on the company.

Interesting to hear another point of view.

Fair enough. One thing I'll clarify is that a recent installment a stinker isn't exclusively what does it (the Star Wars prequels and Enterprise season 1 didn't cause that effect) but rather feeling either disregarded or disrespected by those making the show. Social media has made instanteous knowledge of how the sausage is made available at the click of a button and that wasn't the baseline case earlier even with widely available internet. I can tolerate a good show made by pretentious idiots but not a bad one and I really make an effort to not support financially (even indirectly through the purchase of related merchandise) those actions. In the past, I'd never know if the creators fell into that category until decades later when some sort of retrospective/behind the scenes thing would come out or gossip from a con panel made its way to the general public. I still rewatch older trek and I still have my existing merchandise collected over 30+ years of fandom but I don't feel the need to expand on it.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough. One thing I'll clarify is that a recent installment a stinker isn't exclusively what does it (the Star Wars prequels and Enterprise season 1 didn't cause that effect) but rather feeling either disregarded or disrespected by those making the show. Social media has made instanteous knowledge of how the sausage is made available at the click of a button and that wasn't the baseline case earlier even with widely available internet. I can tolerate a good show made by pretentious idiots but not a bad one and I really make an effort to not support financially (even indirectly through the purchase of related merchandise) those actions. In the past, I'd never know if the creators fell into that category until decades later when some sort of retrospective/behind the scenes thing would come out or gossip from a con panel made its way to the general public. I still rewatch older trek and I still have my existing merchandise collected over 30+ years of fandom but I don't feel the need to expand on it.

See, I don't care. The companies, even with Star Trek, are too large, too far removed from me for me to feel disrespected. Respect from a company is not something I expect. They don't know me; I don't know them.

 

[fireproof78]

Anyone pitching a TV show to one of the (at the time) three TV networks had better want it to be popular and appeal to a large audience -- or at least say that to the execs you're pitching it to -- but look at how controversial parts of TOS always were, right from the beginning. It sounds like a causality violation, but looking back, I think perhaps he was hoping for synergy between the way the show was written and the trends in our society at the time, one amplifying the other. Or if he didn't mean to do that, I think it certainly did it regardless. I, for one, know for a fact that the Star Trek genre has influenced the way I think about many things and my overall personality. I don't for a moment think I'm an outlier either.

I'm not saying you are an outlier but what people take away from it vs. artistic intention are two different things. Certainly not. But, honestly,I don't think that was intentional. I think it got spun that way with TMP and TNG and Gene hyping his own vision. But that doesn't mean that is what Trek is supposed to be or should be.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm a little confused, then. What is it you think it's supposed to be?

Entertaining, if it is supposed to be anything. Which is may not be, beyond telling a story. Like I said, action/adventure series with social commentary occasionally thrown in.

 

[johnjm22]

I squirmed and squirmed over that for a while until I came to the realization that Discovery isn't even the same Universe as Nemesis or Enterprise on back to TOS, it's a reboot that only bears superficial resemblances to the Universe we once knew. Think comic books and how they do the same thing from time to time. I'd guess that CBS both didn't want to have to drag around all the baggage from before, while trying (perhaps misguidedly) to make something new that has more universal appeal (which therefore would make them more money).
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you have to accept what I settled down with about Discovery, but I am saying that for me at least it all makes much more sense that way, which allows me to stop squirming about the apparent inconsistencies constantly, allowing me to attempt to enjoy Discovery for what it is rather than constantly judging it based on the last 50 years of programming.

You can choose to view it that way, but it's part of the prime timeline. (Unless something changed recently that I missed?)

Either way, the writing is still bad so it doesn't matter.

I kind of liked what they did with the the JJ movies. They had them set in an alternate reality which opened up new and endless possibilities. They didn't really take full advantage of it IMO, but at least it was a good premise.

 

[johnjm22]

If you mean there is only one 'timeline' for everything from TOS through current, then no, I can't agree with that, it makes no sense, there are too many inconsistencies.

Yes. There's more than one timeline.

Discovery is part of the prime timeline. It's not my opinion. It's a canonical fact.

 

[Worf factor9]

But, ultimately, people want safe and familiar.

Indeed.

 

[Timewalker]

O-kay... Just because I'm not inclined to read 12 pages of posts (especially if most of them are like the first page), that's why I might have missed some comments that are actually decently tolerant toward those of us who not only don't love this series, but have tried it and found it repulsive for a number of reasons.

I don’t get it, this is a modern trek for a modern times. I mean sure we all would have wanted something different and it’s far from perfect. But I for one don’t miss the standard holodeck/stuck in the transporter/let’s build the captain a new chair episodes.
The new series need to compete with a totally new TV landscape. Disco, and Picard are doing that.
But then I am a fanboy.

"These are modern times" is a sentiment regularly thrown in the faces of people who prefer older series or older versions of remade movies. I remember a thread in the media forum here many years ago when someone pontificated at length about how horrible black and white TV shows and movies are, and he'd never watch them for that reason. No mention of disliking the actual plots, storylines, characters, settings, or genres - just "no color = garbage."

Other similar arguments (usually made when talking about TOS or Classic Doctor Who) are the special effects. Apparently early special effects = garbage, with no thought given to the characters, storylines, settings, etc.

Would these franchises have lasted over half a century if color and special effects were all that mattered?

That said, there is a reason why I avoid TV shows and movies that overly rely on special effects. For me, it's too much. It's sensory overload and I can't take it all in. I'm bombarded by motion and noise and have to block it out. That means avoiding looking at the screen, which of course means I won't catch everything the characters do. And in the case of DiscoTrek, it meant not seeing the captions when the "Klingons" were speaking.

"Modern" sensibilities are not something I'm able to process well nowadays, when it comes to SF/F.

Don’t pay too much attention to reviews. The ones with the most views are usually the negative ones because negativity gets more clicks. It’s by no means an indication of the quality of Disco. There’s a very vocal fan group that likes to bash the new Trek shows whenever and wherever possible. It’s - sadly - a thing in a lot of fandoms these days where fans with an obsession of how things used to be when they were young wear rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and refuse to accept that times have changed. That’s basically all there is to this whole “NOT MY TREK” screaming.

Way to generalize. Times have changed, yes. That doesn't mean older things are bad. I am within my rights to state that I prefer older, less sensory-overloaded versions of Trek.

Another unfortunate component of the toxic fan hate is bigotry. I don't know how much of the haters fall into this category, but I see so much of it on Facebook that it is the first thing I think of when I think of the haters. They hate Disco because the lead is female. They can't handle the trans elements. They body shame Tilly. They are just gross people so it is better to avoid them.

It's one thing on FB. It's another thing to generally accuse people here of not liking DiscoTrek because of bigotry (not saying there aren't bigoted attitudes displayed on this forum at times; I've seen those posts myself).

I don't hate DiscoTrek because the lead is female (Voyager is my favorite non-TOS Trek show, and Voyager has several very strong female characters - and I include Naomi Wildman in that assessment even though she's a child character).

I dislike Burnham because in every episode I saw her in (I gave up watching partway through season 1), she was obnoxious. I dislike male characters who are obnoxious, too.

These people who hate the show -- not to be confused with those who are just critical of it ...

Thank goodness there's at least one person here who understands the difference. It is possible to loathe some aspect of a franchise without being one of the people you describe as a "fandom menace" (sorry, I know that's a Star Wars reference but I have no idea what the rest of it means).

There are the Gatekeepers. The "Star Trek 1966-2005" types who kiss the ground Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman walked on, even though they didn't like most of it at the time it was actually being made (despite what they'll say or however they'll try to deny it now).

Okay, now I'm not so pleased. I know you weren't talking about me specifically, but there are enough people who have been familiar with my views on Enterprise and anything made after it - and some have dogpiled me rather mercilessly about it - to be rather miffed by this ridiculous overgeneralization.

Y'know what? I'd absolutely fed up with being considered a Roddenberry/Berman worshiper just because my preferred versions of Star Trek are TOS through Voyager.

Both men had some inspired creative moments and both of them had/have qualities that I would use to describe terrible human beings. I can enjoy the creation while divorcing it from the creators' more awful qualities, just as I can enjoy Mel Gibson's Hamlet even though Gibson himself is reprehensible.

And wonder if the negativity is actually coming from an overly loud, overly entitled minority of ignorant small minded racist misogynist dickheads.

Got to admit, it's a possibility !

Do you say this about everyone who doesn't like the same TV shows you like, no matter if it's Star Trek or something else?

Genuine question: does lack of interest in a recent franchise installment decrease interest in the overall franchise?

This would be a good question to raise in its own thread in the Media forum, in my opinion. There are numerous franchises to which it could be applied.

Q: What do TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, LD, and PIC all have in common?
A: Some people don't like them.

BINGO!

We have finally arrived at a correct answer, offered without vitriol.

I agree, but I think Discovery does the same thing.

Plenty of times DSC has dug up old episodes or characters of Trek and shoved in memberberries. And of course Michael couldn't just be her own character. She has to be linked to a famous old Star Trek character somehow.

This, plus Michael's generally unpleasant personality, is a major part of why I don't like her. Retconning Spock's family history to shoehorn this unlikeable character into it is not the way to make me like her.

 

[Relayer1]

Do you say this about everyone who doesn't like the same TV shows you like, no matter if it's Star Trek or something else?

No I don't.

I don't care enough to post somewhere in most cases. I also don't frequent places where people talk about them so don't develop much of an opinion.

I'm also not saying that it applies to everyone who doesn't like Discovery. It wasn't aimed at you, I'm just saying that people displaying the traits I mentioned seem "overrepresented" amongst those that don't like it.

 

[Lord Garth]

Okay, now I'm not so pleased. I know you weren't talking about me specifically, but there are enough people who have been familiar with my views on Enterprise and anything made after it - and some have dogpiled me rather mercilessly about it - to be rather miffed by this ridiculous overgeneralization.

Y'know what? I'd absolutely fed up with being considered a Roddenberry/Berman worshiper just because my preferred versions of Star Trek are TOS through Voyager.

Both men had some inspired creative moments and both of them had/have qualities that I would use to describe terrible human beings. I can enjoy the creation while divorcing it from the creators' more awful qualities, just as I can enjoy Mel Gibson's Hamlet even though Gibson himself is reprehensible.

Fair enough.

I'm not a fan of ENT and I'm "in the middle" on the Kelvin Films. So that effectively made DSC the first new Star Trek I was an outright fan of in close to two decades. So I know what you're saying.

It's just that I've spent three-plus years dealing with some relentless, unpleasant people myself, who I've seen are using double-standards. It gets to you after a while. But, even there, I still separate those who are just critical of the show from those who outright hate it. And I did describe earlier in the thread what I think of as the difference between "don't like it" and "hate it", where even people who aren't fans of DSC were agreeing with me about it.

It isn't really that different from when VOY was the current series. Especially when dealing with the TNG/DS9 Brigade that I just mentioned a few posts earlier. I've been around here practically since the board opened up. So, even though I wasn't a regular in that particular forum, I did see some of the threads, and was familiar with the notoriety there.