Linkara wrote:As a self-proclaimed "SJW," I didn't see a lot of people taking issue with Discovery's focus on a black woman as the lead aside from the racists and the sexists (the kind who think Star Trek is just pzew pzew Kirk beds alien women and not anything of substance) and they were easy enough to drown out considering Star Trek is a show ALL ABOUT equality, social justice, and bringing people of different backgrounds together.
I really hate the term "SJW" (as a general rule I think anybody who uses it without any hint of irony is likely not worth taking seriously), but I'd probably be considered one myself with some of the things I believe. Really, if you go by how trolls use it at this point the term basically just means any form of media that has a female or minority character in a major role.
One of the issues in cases like this is that yes, the blatantly obvious racist/sexist trolls are easy to filter out, but I really like to think that some of the things happening in real life should have taught people at this point that a lot of racists and sexists aren't actually that stupid and they'll instead crouch it in more reasonable terms (or relatively vague ones) in order to lead you down their rabbit hole (ie dog whistling, concern trolling etc).
An example I'll cite was the Ghostbusters remake- in my view it was a godawful film and there was lots and lots of legitimate complaints to be had, but when you compare it to the backlash on the torrent of terrible remakes or sequels we've had, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to spot what the difference is. It's not even just that Ghostbusters was a beloved movie, because we've had things like that mediocre Robocop reboot, that terrible sequel to ID4 or the recent trainwreck of the recent Mummy movie trying to jumpstart another stupid cinematic universe- all of these are related to movies which are beloved by some part of moviegoers, so what made Ghostbusters so different?
In Discovery's case, even once you get past the "they changed it, now it sucks" type complaints typical of any new entry of a long franchise, you'll often run into generic complaints ("the characters are unlikable", "the writing is bad") where dishonest people will either constantly avoid answering directly or just quickly change the subject when you press them to elaborate.
In that light I don't think it's hard to misunderstand why some people might get tired of the dog whistling and start seeing dishonesty where there isn't any, so I do think it was important for Chuck to put that in the review. Being that I'm a long-time viewer I pretty much always assume good faith on Chuck's part so I don't need him to put that bumper in, but for anybody who isn't, it can be good to have that there.
No, the complaints people have had across the board are the perfectly legitimate ones - the continuity issues both in tech and look, the unnecessary amounts of "edginess" (swearing, nudity, pop culture references that Star Trek has tended to shy away from because we're several hundred years removed from it), or indeed - how everyone kinda starts as a jackass.
I think everyone coming off as an asshole is the complaint I can agree with the most. I think it was great of Chuck to have this big theme about hindsight and correcting past mistakes in his anniversary shows. It does make me wonder that, with all the things being revealed that put a lot of things from the earlier episodes into place, does that make up for how awkwardly the show introduces these characters to us? I'm surprised that Chuck didn't even bring up the title of the episode- it wouldn't surprise me that this benefit of hindsight being applied to the early episodes was completely intentional on the part of the writers.
Stamets in particular comes off as being a real douche in his introduction, yet understandable because he thinks he's dealing with the the most infamous criminal in Starfleet history who started the war that derailed his career. The recent episodes have really helped soften him and now I like him quite a bit.
Like other people have mentioned though, I don't think Tilly is autistic. I mean, she might be, but nothing in the show confirms that. Rather than Wesley Crusher, she reminded me a lot more of Barclay- a socially awkward crew member who dreams of making it big. The way Tilly runs her mouth reminded me of when Barclay talked about never knowing how to stand and where to put his hands. I can see the Crusher comparison though.
thisithis wrote:MithrandirOlorin wrote:Fanboys have always been resentful of change. But that applies even when the change remains White.
Then why do most Star Trek fans like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine so much which has a black male character?
There were plenty of people who complained about the fact that DS9 only took place in a station when it first started. That aside, early DS9 did a lot of TNG-type stories. It was still very much in the episodic structure Trek had done for decades and didn't go into serialized overdrive until like, season 6 (and IIRC Behr talked about how even at that point anytime they were playing around with serialized storytelling Berman would start wagging his finger at them).
Discovery, on the other hand, completely changes the way Trek is shot and presented (cinematic lighting as opposed to the even TV lighting that entire era of shows had) and the story format is different right from the outset.