I hate ST Discovery

robn1 said:
Instead of constantly criticizing others for their opinions, why not tell us what you like about this show (other than it's diversity)?

To address your question I used to go to the theater 2 or 3 times a week, now it's more like once every 2 or 3 years. Why? Because everything is crap anymore. The only current things I watch are The Orville, The Mandalorian, and Last Man Standing, that's it. Anything else I've looked at was at best disappointing.
Click to expand...
Was I talking to you?
 
robn1 said:
No. I was talking to you, this is a group discussion isn't it? Call it inclusion if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Alright, I’ll bite, even though none of this actually matters to you.

I enjoy:
-The ship design
-The fact that they’ve moved to the future
-The action sequences
-Saru
-Stamets
-Tilly
-Cleveland Booker and his Cat
-The fact that the show entertains me

Things I don’t enjoy:
-Burnham’s weird half whisper/half talk that she took on so prevalently this season
-The cause of “The Burn” may have been the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen
-The fact that Burnham gets promoted by constantly disobeying orders

But you know what I like the least about this show? The fact that I feel like I can’t even share the things I do like about it here on RPF because every thread about the show turns into hate mongering. I’ve never seen anything like it. You know what I do if I don’t enjoy something? I don’t actively seek out venues to vent that I don’t like it. I don’t like Aaron Rodgers...but I don’t go looking for Green Bay Packers hangouts to express that. It’s extremely odd to me how many people on this site just beat a dead horse, over, and over, and over again.

For instance...I believe that Last Man Standing is one of the worst comedies on TV. It’s a poor reconstruction of Home Improvement with zero redeeming factors. You apparently enjoy that show...and you would NEVER see me posting in a thread dedicated to that show.

Yet, here, in a thread about a show that you admittedly don’t enjoy, here you are, posting. That is just...strange...to me. Why waste time seeking out something that you don’t enjoy, just to repeatedly say that you don’t enjoy it?
 
Cephus said:
Better doesn't mean saleable. When the marketplace is filled with idiots who would watch what is currently on, there's no way to dumb actual good writing down far enough to appeal to them.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples of "better" out there that put lie to this assertion. The Expanse would be chief among them. There are also Lower Decks, Russian Doll, Lost in Space, The Mandalorian, and others I'm probably not thinking of.
 
Gimpdiggity said:
Alright, I’ll bite, even though none of this actually matters to you.

I enjoy:
-The ship design
-The fact that they’ve moved to the future
-The action sequences
-Saru
-Stamets
-Tilly
-Cleveland Booker and his Cat
-The fact that the show entertains me

Things I don’t enjoy:
-Burnham’s weird half whisper/half talk that she took on so prevalently this season
-The cause of “The Burn” may have been the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen
-The fact that Burnham gets promoted by constantly disobeying orders

But you know what I like the least about this show? The fact that I feel like I can’t even share the things I do like about it here on RPF because every thread about the show turns into hate mongering. I’ve never seen anything like it. You know what I do if I don’t enjoy something? I don’t actively seek out venues to vent that I don’t like it. I don’t like Aaron Rodgers...but I don’t go looking for Green Bay Packers hangouts to express that. It’s extremely odd to me how many people on this site just beat a dead horse, over, and over, and over again.

For instance...I believe that Last Man Standing is one of the worst comedies on TV. It’s a poor reconstruction of Home Improvement with zero redeeming factors. You apparently enjoy that show...and you would NEVER see me posting in a thread dedicated to that show.

Yet, here, in a thread about a show that you admittedly don’t enjoy, here you are, posting. That is just...strange...to me. Why waste time seeking out something that you don’t enjoy, just to repeatedly say that you don’t enjoy it?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I disagree but I can disagree without giving you crap for it. I find no entertainment value at all in this show. This and Picard are both the complete antithesis to everything Star Trek was about. I complain about them not out of hatred, but out of my love for the original source material. These shows mean too much to me to just silently turn away. If you like them say so, talk about it. I'm not driving you out or criticizing your opinions.

I felt the same as you about LMS at first, but once I got into it I found it to be superior. It's more mature, and I find the daughter based stories to be more engaging than the sons' from HI. But what do I know, I'm just a misogynist who's afraid of strong female characters.
 
Last edited:
both Discovery and Picard suffer from storylines that make little sense at times and wasted opportunities for greatness, Picard kills off characters needlessly for "drama"
 
DarkKnight said:
one ship has an unattractive design with bridge on bottom, big holes in saucer ruining Discovery along with an unrealistic mycelium spore drive that makes no sense scientifically, no explanation why Burnham has a boys name. Yet another version of Klingons, uniforms that look like pajamas, anxiety ridden crew members that need to be fired/executed, Spock as a mentally ill weirdo, it just goes on and on, Can they kill this monstrosity and do a Mandalorian style show, mebbe Young Spock adventures or something like that.
Click to expand...
Historically speaking, Michael was traditionally more commonly a woman's name than a man's for about 3500 years. It was used for both sexes. There are still some cultures that embrace Michael as a female oriented name.. Gaelic and Jewish in particular. Got a good friend named Michael who is a lovely woman. Also have a few friends named Kelly that are men, one is a Navy SEAL. Want to complain about his name?
 
robn1 said:
Spock was established in this show as awkward with a mental disability who needed Burnham to teach him how to be a good Vulcan. The implication here is that all of Spock's great accomplishments were only possible because of Burnham. Same thing with Star Wars, the original heroes were failures and the amazing and all powerful Rey had to finish their job.
Click to expand...

By that logic* all of your accomplishments and triumphs in life are only possible because of the teachers you had at school.

People grow by being shown by leaders and failures on how to be better. That's literally how society progresses. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

*a Star Trek pun in a Star Trek thread? You know it!
 
MattBlack said:
By that logic* all of your accomplishments and triumphs in life are only possible because of the teachers you had at school.

People grow by being shown by leaders and failures on how to be better. That's literally how society progresses. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

*a Star Trek pun in a Star Trek thread? You know it!
Click to expand...
Which is all fine if it comes from the original creators of the character. But this is a group who took over someone else's creative work and made a radical change that was never intended. They're saying Spock could only be Spock because of the influence of their character, a Vulcan needed a human to teach him how to be a Vulcan. This was never part of Spock's established back story, just as Sulu was not gay.
 
robn1 said:
Which is all fine if it comes from the original creators of the character. But this is a group who took over someone else's creative work and made a radical change that was never intended. They're saying Spock could only be Spock because of the influence of their character, a Vulcan needed a human to teach him how to be a Vulcan. This was never part of Spock's established back story, just as Sulu was not gay.
Click to expand...
exactly the rewriting and pushing an agenda is what's annoying and unnecessary. If Sulu were gay I believe Roddenberry would've written him that way and it would be mostly ignored, as an example we dont really have any discussion about Uhura being black except when Abe Lincoln does it. It works and shows the true equality of ST, However the camera focuses on Sulus wedding ring there's a picture of husband and daughter on bridge controls (a violation of regs Im sure) and they make sure you see them at starbase, none of this was necessary for telling the story in ST beyond. The rewrite of Spocks history is even more annoying, making him emo and looking like Antifa changes things, Spock to me was always super strong, the wunderkind who was smarter and stronger than everyone else, and when he had a beard it was scary not hippy/smelly and illogical that a Vulcan needs a human to be a Vulcan, Spock had to embrace being a Vulcan harder than anyone else because he was only half. Michael was some annoying person that came to his house disrupting it.
 
NakedMoleRat said:
Well, I was going to post my thoughts about Discovery on this thread, and then I got to the last page and smelled all of the troll farts...
Click to expand...
That was just me, I have IBS. Sorry. :p
CessnaDriver said:
Voyager had a great ep.. "One Small Step". Voyager encounters a long lost NASA space probe.

The episode spoke my language, it spoke "Star Trek".

Seven endlessly recovering her humanity learns about why we explore even when it is not logical............

COMPUTER: Analysis in progress.
SEVEN: The Borg developed shields to get through the gravimetric currents. They intended to dissipate the anomaly from within. Perhaps we should continue their efforts.
TUVOK: It would be short-sighted to destroy it. We should study the phenomenon.
SEVEN: I didn't realise you shared this crew's penchant for exploration.
TUVOK: I am a Starfleet officer.
SEVEN: When the risks outweigh the potential gain, exploration is illogical.
TUVOK: We can't predict what we might find here, Seven. One must allow for the unexpected discovery.



It ended with some great scenes of Seven finally "getting it".
Click to expand...
Before the picard writers ruined her.
robn1 said:
Which is all fine if it comes from the original creators of the character. But this is a group who took over someone else's creative work and made a radical change that was never intended. They're saying Spock could only be Spock because of the influence of their character, a Vulcan needed a human to teach him how to be a Vulcan. This was never part of Spock's established back story, just as Sulu was not gay.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It is even more telling when the original actor who played Sulu, George Takei(who IS gay) was against this idea.
If sexual sexual orientation/gender/origin/race/eye color/whatever is what defines a character on a tv show/film, then I would say: that is a very one dimensional character. Typical bad writing.
 
The Terminator said:
That was just me, I have IBS. Sorry. :p

Before the picard writers ruined her.

Indeed. It is even more telling when the original actor who played Sulu, George Takei(who IS gay) was against this idea.
If sexual sexual orientation/gender/origin/race/eye color/whatever is what defines a character on a tv show/film, then I would say: that is a very one dimensional character. Typical bad writing.
Click to expand...

Sulu's character in the new trek movies WASN'T defined by being gay. Where the hell is that even coming from? It was one change they made to his character background, shown in one brief scene. It otherwise had ZERO impact on the character in the movies.

Though it may have had positive impact for gay fans of Star Trek to see a little something of themselves represented in those otherwise ****** films.

How is that hurting anything? Even in the canon of Trek, it's not like Sulu's background was ever really explored or touched up in any huge fashion.

And just because Takei didn't think it was a great idea, I don't recall him saying it was something for people to complain about either.
 
firesprite said:
There are plenty of examples of "better" out there that put lie to this assertion. The Expanse would be chief among them. There are also Lower Decks, Russian Doll, Lost in Space, The Mandalorian, and others I'm probably not thinking of.
Click to expand...
The Expanse is very good. Of course, it got cancelled on Syfy because it was very expensive to make and picked up by Amazon, which is great, but it's only a single example. I also like Lost in Space, which is coming to an end with season 3 and who knows when it will actually air. It still has some significant problems. I was talking with my best friend last night about Star Trek and... yeah, no thanks. It's all crap. You might like it but most people don't. It's why Lower Decks has a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. Mandalorian may be good, only because Kathleen Kennedy has nothing to do with it, but I'm done with Star Wars. And Disney. Forever.
 
patrickivan said:
Sulu's character in the new trek movies WASN'T defined by being gay. Where the hell is that even coming from? It was one change they made to his character background, shown in one brief scene. It otherwise had ZERO impact on the character in the movies.

Though it may have had positive impact for gay fans of Star Trek to see a little something of themselves represented in those otherwise ****** films.

How is that hurting anything? Even in the canon of Trek, it's not like Sulu's background was ever really explored or touched up in any huge fashion.

And just because Takei didn't think it was a great idea, I don't recall him saying it was something for people to complain about either.
Click to expand...
It was one changer, supposedly to honor George Takei, and even he said not to do it. This is what happens when you take existing characters and try to pander to a specific political ideology. It's really that stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron
robn1 said:
If this is in response to any of my posts then you really need to work on your reading comprehension. And if you don't think cancel culture is a thing then you aren't paying attention to what's going on in the world.
Click to expand...
yup, hes the only one screaming about this, he cant get off the subject of diversity, gay, and racism, he sees it around every corner behind every tree. He said he was going to stop posting here but now wont leave us alone. I'm glad so many see it as I do, real stories, real writing real characters are what we need in SciFi, The Force is not female, but it was ruined by some stupid idea about creatures in your bloodstream. Kathleen Kennedy and those who are like her are destroying sci-fi and that is the problem, they are so self righteous they refuse to do better even when we not buy their drivel
 
robn1 said:
If this is in response to any of my posts then you really need to work on your reading comprehension. And if you don't think cancel culture is a thing then you aren't paying attention to what's going on in the world.
Click to expand...
Like when "they" try to cancel for example Gina Carano. Sure, I definitely don't agree with some things she and many other people have said in interviews and in social media posts. So what?

She is an actor and I think she does her job really well. A plus is she appears to be liked by her colleagues. Let her do her job.

Opinions are like... and everyone's got one. Equality is a good thing, right?
Let everyone speak their mind, then you can easily tell which people you want to avoid.

In TNG Barclay was an outcast of sorts. Sure, he could have been treated better. But he was treated a hell of a lot better than some people on STD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top