Star Trek (Dis): Context Is for Kings

[unknownsample]

I appreciated Chuck's opening rant regarding Star Trek Discovery and pop-culture today in general. Just today I read an article from Gizmodo which essentially bashed fans who don't like Discovery or The Last Jedi, asserting that they are just closed-minded fanboys who can't stand change or having a non-white straight male protagonist. I don't want to go into that, I'm just happy to see that there are still some internet personalities who actually attempt honest and fair discourse.

Is the article in question?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-fascinating ... 1822393816

Additionally, a small but vocal contingent of both properties have turned to trollish seething over the fact that Discovery and Last Jedi feature prominent characters who aren’t straight white men, but that’s a whole separate, depressing thing.

One sentence hardly constitutes a bashing.

[Linkara]

Honestly, I think it was a mistake to focus on that for the intro. 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.

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.

Now I'm still waaaay behind on Discovery (still haven't watched past the time loop episode, which I loved) but I've been enjoying the character development we've had so far and have been willing to MOSTLY overlook the continuity stuff, but I'd be lying if I said some of that didn't bug me.

[BlackoutCreature2]

"It's not for me to judge"? Come on man, this is supposed to be your "opinionated" review. You can judge. That's why I'm paying you the bare minimum Patreon.

And I liked the part where the Captain held his hand up against the force field with the monster on the other side. It looked like Hiccup trying to train a new dragon.

[SFDebris]

Honestly, I think it was a mistake to focus on that for the intro. 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.

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.

Now I'm still waaaay behind on Discovery (still haven't watched past the time loop episode, which I loved) but I've been enjoying the character development we've had so far and have been willing to MOSTLY overlook the continuity stuff, but I'd be lying if I said some of that didn't bug me.

The thing of it is, though, I've had 19 years of being called a sexist pig for criticizing Voyager, so I felt that it was something that needed to be said up front, since I was effectively about to do the same thing all over again (criticize a program with a female lead). Even laying into Archer (which is not faked, he deserve all i heap upon him and more) hasn't stopped accusations that I would "likely" organize stalking campaigns in real life of females who were brave enough to call me out over it.

I can't stop people from saying things about me (I obviously wouldn't if I could, since one of the top threads of my own forum is dedicated to me being wrong ) but I at least feel this needs to be on the record. I always try to be optimistic about people, but there's always some that are working hard to prove me wrong.

[Darth Wedgius]

The thing of it is, though, I've had 19 years of being called a sexist pig for criticizing Voyager, so I felt that it was something that needed to be said up front, since I was effectively about to do the same thing all over again (criticize a program with a female lead)

And now something thinks you have a beef with cows.

(I regret nothing!)

[thisithis]

The thing of it is, though, I've had 19 years of being called a sexist pig for criticizing Voyager, so I felt that it was something that needed to be said up front, since I was effectively about to do the same thing all over again (criticize a program with a female lead)

And now something thinks you have a beef with cows.

(I regret nothing!)

And in a way your right. The thing about the artistic woman, and me having Aspergers. And as complicated as a topic is I feel that the artistic woman character storyline was more forced then I care for. Yeah, I know that Aspergers is not the same as artistic, but still. And regards to Linkara there was someone that told me a long time ago, "There are extremist on every end, no matter what side you're on, there is someone always taking it to fare." When I heard that actress playing Michael saying that she was the first ethnic woman to star in a Star Trek show. When Voyager had a female and Deep Space Nine had a Black male. Why is this an issue for Star Trek? Yes had a crapy history of gays, and Star Trek needed to place more gays in there shows.

But this show is bad, and it keeps reminding me of Stargate Universe. Even that Stargate Universe had a lesbian character, even that she thought somehow she could take on well trained Marines with a pack of scientist and a few civilians. I only liked two characters in that show, the Hacker kid and the nut job Marine. Rush was an ass hole and should have been put on a firing squad for half the shit he did. Young was always focused on Rush and sometimes just didn't pay attention to the mess around him. And Chloe made rock look like Harvard students. And eveyone else was that is dumb as Chioe, but still dumb as shit.

As for Star War The last Jedi, Never watched it, As soon as I heard Princess Leia flying in space and oping cargo doors with her mind. I was pretty much done with Star Wars after that.

R.I.P Carrie Fisher. It sucks you past away.

[J!!]

The thing of it is, though, I've had 19 years of being called a sexist pig for criticizing Voyager, so I felt that it was something that needed to be said up front, since I was effectively about to do the same thing all over again (criticize a program with a female lead)

And now something thinks you have a beef with cows.

(I regret nothing!)

What a load of bull.

[Linkara]

Stargate Universe DID improve with time, IMHO. It was nowhere near as good as SG1 or Atlantis, but it definitely was working on smoothing out some of its rough angles. It was trying to be too much like Battlestar Galactica at the start, since ALL of sci-fi was trying to be like Battlestar Galactica during that time (and I definitely see the comparisons of Universe to Discovery). Really Universe's big problem compared to the two previous series can be summed up with what Colonel Young said at the beginning of the show: "These are not the right people."

It'll be interesting to see Chuck's thoughts when he eventually gets to Universe in the reviews. BSG was SUCH a gamechanger in sci-fi that it's still affecting how we see shows and movies this many years later - more grit, even spaceship fight scenes are filmed in a very different manner.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Fanboys have always been resentful of change. But that applies even when the change remains White.

[Sir Will]

Stargate Universe DID improve with time, IMHO. It was nowhere near as good as SG1 or Atlantis, but it definitely was working on smoothing out some of its rough angles. It was trying to be too much like Battlestar Galactica at the start, since ALL of sci-fi was trying to be like Battlestar Galactica during that time (and I definitely see the comparisons of Universe to Discovery). Really Universe's big problem compared to the two previous series can be summed up with what Colonel Young said at the beginning of the show: "These are not the right people."

It'll be interesting to see Chuck's thoughts when he eventually gets to Universe in the reviews. BSG was SUCH a gamechanger in sci-fi that it's still affecting how we see shows and movies this many years later - more grit, even spaceship fight scenes are filmed in a very different manner.

Yeah it definitely improved but still wasn't as good as the other 2 series. And even season 2 had some missed opportunities. I felt they moved onto another galaxy too soon. Finally some chance to interact with some civilizations and they move on. I know the show is all about moving forward but, well, that premise was already running really, really thin.