What's up with this hypocrisy?

[MixedDrops]

IIRC Roddenberry himself had reservations about homosexuality too, though to his credit he changed his attitudes later in life.

He still did plenty of other shitty things though.

If we want to list all the Trek staff who didn't/don't live up to Trek ideals we'd be here all day though.

[Yukaphile]

I mean, as I've said elsewhere, I think Roddenberry was the produer who raped Whitney, and if it was ever revealed, he'd probably bring up that tired old excuse of, "I'm a man, I can't help it." Bleargh.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I mean, as I've said elsewhere, I think Roddenberry was the produer who raped Whitney, and if it was ever revealed, he'd probably bring up that tired old excuse of, "I'm a man, I can't help it." Bleargh.

I've never seen this as a line of reasoning. Surprisingly clothing attire apparently is a known line of reasoning. I saw it in an episode of 90210 recently.

[Yukaphile]

Anyway, to date, the only really good sci-fi series I've seen that was LGBT-friendly, and had the spirit of making it feel normal within the verse, was again, The Culture. Trek, Wars? None of them came close.

[Antiboyscout]

What reason do you have to think that DIS staff wrote characters you find shitty on purpose because they think they only need to satisfy ideologues, rather than them writing something, and then you not liking it?

Also isn't one of the most common assertions you hear is that these ideologues can't sustain financial stability for franchises on their own? Why isn't DIS canceled yet if that's the case?

They created an entire video streaming service who's only content is STD. They can't stop making it at this point.

[MixedDrops]

So your implication is that it's a financial failure, but they're going to keep making it to make sure CBS All Access can be sustained with the money that it isn't making?

[Makeshift Python]

Funny how goal posts moved from "CBSAA will shut down due to the failure of DISCOVERY" to now "they can't cancel DISCOVERY because it's all CBSAA has".

Haters just can't give it any credit.

[Antiboyscout]

What? You don't think corporations can fall prey to sunk cost fallacy?

[Antiboyscout]

Funny how goal posts moved from "CBSAA will shut down due to the failure of DISCOVERY" to now "they can't cancel DISCOVERY because it's all CBSAA has".

Haters just can't give it any credit.

I'm not everyone else. You're arguing with me. I haven't moved any goal posts.

The problem comes from subscription based content. Even if viewership is down, as long as people maintain there subscriptions, it doesn't matter. No direct sales numbers exist to determine the success of the product. The only thing to go on is viewership (doesn't matter as long as you are still subscribed) and reviews (easily ignored). Even if CBSAA starts going under, it is impossible to pin why it would be to any one source. It's all connected into one big system that has to collapse all at once, and it will only collapse if people are bothered enough to unsubscribe, something that web designers intentionally make obfuscated to reduce the likelihood you will.

[Nealithi]

On the other hand I am told 'Michael' is so different because skin and gender and by god has a masculine name. Gasp! So they seemed to play up on being diverse in a setting that shouldn't care. And while you hear that (And I cannot corroborate) executives are dumping on existing fans as not needing them, or any who do not get the message are uneducated, etc. It seems like they are setting themselves up for an Emperor's new clothes scenario. "This is diverse and empowering. And any who cannot see it are mysognoistic fools." (I am pretty sure I misspelled that. But a PS4 does not have a dictionary. Sorry.)
Any way. Telling us something is great as a series is not how Trek does it. They can be preachy. Hamfistedly preachy at times. But do not tell you to like it.

This is once again why you don't talk about shows you don't watch, and if you do, you spend maybe 5 minutes looking this sort of thing up instead of repeating bullshit peddled by people who are always making shit up to make a show they don't like look bad, or people who deliberately keep themselves in the dark to complain about things that aren't there (or they aren't keeping themselves in the dark, and they're just straight up being liars). I apologize if I sound a bit exasperated, but this sort of thing comes up almost every single thread (not even just for Trek) and I don't understand why nobody ever googles anything to confirm these sorts of accusations. It takes less than 5 minutes, and you're already at a computer.

The fact that Michael is black or a woman has never come up once in the show, ever. Neither has the fact she has a masculine name (which is just a thing Bryan Fuller likes doing rather than some kind of statement). They talk about these things outside the show sure, but of course, Behr, Brooks and others on the DS9 staff talked about Sisko being black or other things about the show plenty if you look for it (for example, they proudly talked about how the woman-woman kiss Dax had earned them hate mail).

And I've yet to see any quotes from any of the Discovery staff about how they don't like fans or whatever. You can't corroborate it, because it likely doesn't exist. If it does, it's almost certainly a quote taken wildly out of context (for example, there's one where one of the staff says viewers back in the 90s might have gotten confused when DS9 and Voyager were running simultaenously, and people took that to mean he didn't know anything about DS9...somehow)

The only difference is nowadays people will find reasons to get angry about these things (more often anyway), and when they can't find quotes they can mine, they'll make them up, and people like you will take their complaints at face value rather than dismissing them as being jackasses like they deserve.

I mean, I already posted several quotes from Bryan Fuller, so perhaps read them? Granted he isn't one of the people working on the show anymore, but do any of those sound like they'd come out the mouth of someone who also says the sorts of things you're saying they do?

I am replying so you know I am not ignoring you. But I cannot think of a reply that is adequate to what this deserves, at this time.