"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

The Federation fell apart sometime after all the dilithium (except maybe a little here and there for the convenience of lazy writers) exploded for some reason that was so poorly written that I forgot what it was.
Little boy born in weird nebula got sad when his mommy died and blew up all the stuff because his scream magically resonates through subspace at speed bordering on instant while on the moon apparently made of solid dilithium.

More or less.
 
I actually loved the last season and thought it was finally heading in a great direction. But this season has just overall sucked.


1. Tired of Burnham over-acting. Not sure what happened here, last season I thought she was making a lot of strides. This season everything is overly emoted. She never talks normally. It's either a whisper or some overly positive fake badass ting.
2. The better characters (Saru) are being minimized a bit.
3. Everything is overly emotional.
4. High-risk situations are dealt with poorly and not through a logical framework. This is out of character with starfleet.
5. The galaxy can only have so many "galaxy ending" threats

I am not someone who cries "wokeness." I generally think people that fall back on calling everything woke don't share most beliefs with me. But Discovery? Yeah.....it's trying too hard to be woke.
 
I actually loved the last season and thought it was finally heading in a great direction. But this season has just overall sucked.


1. Tired of Burnham over-acting. Not sure what happened here, last season I thought she was making a lot of strides. This season everything is overly emoted. She never talks normally. It's either a whisper or some overly positive fake badass ting.
2. The better characters (Saru) are being minimized a bit.
3. Everything is overly emotional.
4. High-risk situations are dealt with poorly and not through a logical framework. This is out of character with starfleet.
5. The galaxy can only have so many "galaxy ending" threats

I am not someone who cries "wokeness." I generally think people that fall back on calling everything woke don't share most beliefs with me. But Discovery? Yeah.....it's trying too hard to be woke.
I liked the idea of them moving outside of the established timeline because they really did a bad job at reconciling the aesthetics with prior incarnations of Star Trek, specifically thinking of the Klingons, lighting, set design, technology, etc. Moving to a period in time that was not in between established canon should have been a great way for them to tell their story without destroying everything that fans came to love about Star Trek. You can still only do so much with bad writing, poor direction, and non-endearing overacting.
 
But Discovery? Yeah.....it's trying too hard to be woke.

Yeah, I have watched the show up until the first three episodes of the current season. Started to watch the third episode, and I just felt zero motivation. Season 1 was different enough to peak interest (with a little bit of 'Woke-ness', but not over the top at all). Season 2 was ok, liked what the show did with the Pike character and with the promise of moving to the future of Trek. It made me interested for season 3. Season 3 I started watching, but it's just so "Woke" I ended up skipping around entire scenes, and with the writing changing characters like Stamets from being interesting to instead Woke cheerleaders was IMMENSLY worse. So now season 4 is on, and I just can't watch it; its been utter trash. I also have zero care for any of the cast of characters, minus Saru. Stamets, Culber, and Tilly were better early on. Lorca was great until he went mustache-twirling evil. Philippa and Tyler were ok but both written off. Reno was fun, and I know she's in the current season but I can't make it to her scenes. I don't care about Michael, Adira, or Book. The rest of the characters I don't even know their names, because I could care less because the writing doesn't make me care.

Star Trek has always been progressive, but it told the progressive stories with the crew of characters. With Discovery, the original focus was on Michael Burnham, and while that's great for a show when she's not the captain, it's so boring when she is. She solves almost every issue! Not to mention we have to sit with the progression being shoved down our throats. It's just bad writing. Some people like it, and that's perfectly ok. It's just not my cup of earl grey.
 
Last edited:
Little boy born in weird nebula got sad when his mommy died and blew up all the stuff because his scream magically resonates through subspace at speed bordering on instant while on the moon apparently made of solid dilithium.

More or less.
Oh so it is a story about Gen Z.
 
Yeah, I have watched the show up until the first three episodes of the current season. Started to watch the third episode, and I just felt zero motivation. Season 1 was different enough to peak interest (with a little bit of 'Woke-ness', but not over the top at all). Season 2 was ok, liked what the show did with the Pike character and with the promise of moving to the future of Trek. It made me interested for season 3. Season 3 I started watching, but it's just so "Woke" I ended up skipping around entire scenes, and with the writing changing characters like Stamets from being interesting to instead Woke cheerleaders was IMMENSLY worse. So now season 4 is on, and I just can't watch it; its been utter trash. I also have zero care for any of the cast of characters, minus Saru. Stamets, Culber, and Tilly were better early on. Lorca was great until he went mustache-twirling evil. Philippa and Tyler were ok but both written off. Reno was fun, and I know she's in the current season but I can't make it to her scenes. I don't care about Michael, Adira, or Book. The rest of the characters I don't even know their names, because I could care less because the writing doesn't make me care.

Star Trek has always been progressive, but it told the progressive stories with the crew of characters. With Discovery, the original focus was on Michael Burnham, and while that's great for a show when she's not the captain, it's so boring when she is. She solves almost every issue! Not to mention we have to sit with the progression being shoved down our throats. It's just bad writing. Some people like it, and that's perfectly ok. It's just not my cup of earl grey.

It's just crazy to me that I feel that way because I tend to be extremely moderate with liberal social preferences. Normally this stuff doesn't bother me and I am all for inclusiveness, but Discovery is just trying way, way, way too hard. If someone like me feels this way it should be a sign to the show runners that they are really screwing up and are in dangerous territory.

It is not a sci-fi show that makes people think about progressive values through clever writing and putting characters in interesting situations. It is a show about being woke that has some occasional sci-fi. I still watch it because I am so desperate for good sci-fi, but it just isn't in the same league as earlier Trek, the Expanse, Firefly, etc.
 
They didn't cancel this show yet?

Hoping that CBS sells the franchise to someone that knows what they are doing but I fear that they've destroyed the value of it so much in the last 5 years, the price of the IP is in the utter toilet and there would be no point in letting it go.

It's a shame - I doubt we'll see any Star Trek IP for at least another 5-7 years depending on what happens to CBS/Paramount as their financials are also in the toilet. Might be looking at another MGM situation where a big tech company comes and snaps them up but this takes time and I doubt it will solve the absolute bankrupt writing that has plagued Discovery and Picard.
Nope. that misinformation was brought to you by Midnight Edge...the youtube channel that has gotten it wrong for 2 years and counting (maybe longer, but I never heard of them until someone here insisted it was canceled because that rando youtuber said it was. Oops
God no. That wouldn't be a good idea either. If he took over, we'd have another Battlestar Galactica. I know this goes against the grain, but that was a shit show. Awful pacing, bad writing and horrendous character arcs. Everyone on the ship was a raging alcoholic. Everyone on the ship had the exact same character flaws. Everyone was trying to fuck over everyone else or just fuck them. Plus, at least half the crew were all cylons. Of course, cylons were undetectable but had super strength, etc. The women were basically written like men and the men were whiny indecisive bitches. I suppose it was a forerunner of woke television and didn't even know it.

Don't get me started on some of the other aspects of the show's narrative that were terrible.
Well that's certainly a contrarian take on BSG
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/battlestar-galactica
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

For the people I knew (anecdotal, I admit), BSG was must see tv throughout its run and with the exception of some complaints about the way it ended, I don't recall many, if any, complaints.

And given that RD Moore also ran the first 3 seasons of Outlander and is currently running For all Mankind, which are also critically acclaimed, I'd say he's more than capable of doing a good Trek show.
 
Nope. that misinformation was brought to you by Midnight Edge...the youtube channel that has gotten it wrong for 2 years and counting (maybe longer, but I never heard of them until someone here insisted it was canceled because that rando youtuber said it was. Oops

Well that's certainly a contrarian take on BSG
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/battlestar-galactica
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

For the people I knew (anecdotal, I admit), BSG was must see tv throughout its run and with the exception of some complaints about the way it ended, I don't recall many, if any, complaints.

And given that RD Moore also ran the first 3 seasons of Outlander and is currently running For all Mankind, which are also critically acclaimed, I'd say he's more than capable of doing a good Trek show.
I remember that pretty well. I and many of the people I knew loved the BSG reboot for much of its run, and the characters were definitely more complicated than inverted gender stereotypes.

On that note, I'm developing a golden rule: someone's tendency to complain about "woke" media is directly proportionate to neurotic insecurity about their gender/sexuality/ethnicity. It's certainly alright to complain that a show is ham-fisted in its attempts to be diverse; but someone fighting "wokeness" seems obsessed with fighting diversity itself, like they can't stand that they aren't the center of the universe.
 
For the people I knew (anecdotal, I admit), BSG was must see tv throughout its run and with the exception of some complaints about the way it ended, I don't recall many, if any, complaints.

And given that RD Moore also ran the first 3 seasons of Outlander and is currently running For all Mankind, which are also critically acclaimed, I'd say he's more than capable of doing a good Trek show.

It maybe a contrarian take, but it isn't wrong.

I don't know what other people see in a show like BSG, best I can come up with is that they themselves are also raging narcissistic nihilists that identify with the scummiest of human drama. They want a dystopia, they crave it, because it gives them license to be the worst version of themselves. That is RD Moore in a nut shell.

The problem with that, and evidenced in the current direction of Star Trek and most other franchises, is that those of us that want to strive for better, the original Star Trek fans in this case, are left out watching everyone else burn the world down.
 
Well that's certainly a contrarian take on BSG
I get that a lot.
To be perfectly frank, you can't trust that site but I'm not surprised by the rating. Only recently when bringing up how shitty that show is in some other threads have people started to see it my way. I used to think I was completely alone in my disdain for it. It's interesting to me how people's viewpoints over these shows can change over time. I don't think BSG will age all that well to be honest. I still can't understand why it was that well received in the first place.
For the people I knew (anecdotal, I admit), BSG was must see tv throughout its run and with the exception of some complaints about the way it ended, I don't recall many, if any, complaints.

And given that RD Moore also ran the first 3 seasons of Outlander and is currently running For all Mankind, which are also critically acclaimed, I'd say he's more than capable of doing a good Trek show.
I've analyzed it many times over the years and I've never understood its success. It did sort of bring a gritty and dark aspect to sci-fi which was lacking at the time. Between that and the amazing cast...maybe that was it? I don't know. It's all I can come up with. It was certainly different at the time and it was on the same sci-fi channel that had shit like Warehouse 13, Ice Spiders, Lavalanchula, and Sharktopus. I mean comparatively, it's brilliant. Sometimes sci-fi fans have a low bar for entertainment. I don't think it would have succeeded on a major network at the time. So it may be a right place, right time situation.

Maybe Ronald D. Moore could do a Star Trek show, but he was pretty much left on his own for BSG and I stand by my reasoning as to why its a huge pile of shit. A similar approach to the source material will go badly. In fact, I can prove it. In a lot of ways, modern Trek under Kurtzman has had a BSG makeover. If you compare the original BSG to the reboot, it's almost exactly what happened with modern Star Trek as compared to the original. While his other shows are successful, they do not indicate to me that he'd be a good fit for Star Trek at this point.
 
I remember that pretty well. I and many of the people I knew loved the BSG reboot for much of its run, and the characters were definitely more complicated than inverted gender stereotypes.

On that note, I'm developing a golden rule: someone's tendency to complain about "woke" media is directly proportionate to neurotic insecurity about their gender/sexuality/ethnicity. It's certainly alright to complain that a show is ham-fisted in its attempts to be diverse; but someone fighting "wokeness" seems obsessed with fighting diversity itself, like they can't stand that they aren't the center of the universe.

You are developing a golden rule that lumps everyone into a group to neatly reinforce your shitty ideology about them wanting to be the center of the universe... the irony is amazing.
 
Nope. that misinformation was brought to you by Midnight Edge...the youtube channel that has gotten it wrong for 2 years and counting (maybe longer, but I never heard of them until someone here insisted it was canceled because that rando youtuber said it was. Oops

Well that's certainly a contrarian take on BSG
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/battlestar-galactica
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

For the people I knew (anecdotal, I admit), BSG was must see tv throughout its run and with the exception of some complaints about the way it ended, I don't recall many, if any, complaints.

And given that RD Moore also ran the first 3 seasons of Outlander and is currently running For all Mankind, which are also critically acclaimed, I'd say he's more than capable of doing a good Trek show.
Well the content release schedule for the forseeable future looks half decent.
1642711694617.png
 
You are developing a golden rule that lumps everyone into a group to neatly reinforce your shitty ideology about them wanting to be the center of the universe... the irony is amazing.
Er, no. This doesn't mean you can never complain at all; it just means that being obsessed with defeating "woke" media says more about someone's insecurity than it does about the media they're whining about. If a person can't discuss Discovery or other shows without griping about "wokeness" in every other breath, the shows aren't the real problem.

There are varying degrees to which people can discuss representation in media, some of which are more intelligent, nuanced and context-aware than others. Acting like a show is one great conspiracy... is none of those things.
 
"i hate anti-woke" spouts off string of woke bs....
uh huh.
still dont understand why this is in tech news...
 
Er, no. This doesn't mean you can never complain at all; it just means that being obsessed with defeating "woke" media says more about someone's insecurity than it does about the media they're whining about. If a person can't discuss Discovery or other shows without griping about "wokeness" in every other breath, the shows aren't the real problem.

There are varying degrees to which people can discuss representation in media, some of which are more intelligent, nuanced and context-aware than others. Acting like a show is one great conspiracy... is none of those things.

You missed the point, your opinion doesn't mean fact and ends up being just as self absorbed and narcisistic as that which you claim to be combating.

The old golden rule of don't feed the trolls, which it appears is what your getting at, is perfectly applicable. Just ignore those that have nothing more than 'its woke' as a complaint?
 
You missed the point, your opinion doesn't mean fact and ends up being just as self absorbed and narcisistic as that which you claim to be combating.

The old golden rule of don't feed the trolls, which it appears is what your getting at, is perfectly applicable. Just ignore those that have nothing more than 'its woke' as a complaint?
The Star Trek and Dune shit posting groups are having a field day with the “it’s woke” crowd right now and it’s generating some funny content.
 
The Star Trek and Dune shit posting groups are having a field day with the “it’s woke” crowd right now and it’s generating some funny content.

Idk about much of that, I tend to scroll past the comments. The fact that Nacelles can detatch now and somehow a sad angry person was able to destroy all dilithium... well it ain't star trek anymore.
 
Idk about much of that, I tend to scroll past the comments. The fact that Nacelles can detatch now and somehow a sad angry person was able to destroy all dilithium... well it ain't star trek anymore.
So you haven't seen the 5 production star ship woke culture ass wagons you are missing out.
 
You are developing a golden rule that lumps everyone into a group to neatly reinforce your shitty ideology about them wanting to be the center of the universe... the irony is amazing.
Perhaps, but while there are legit issues with individuals taking wokeness (aka political correctness) to ridiculous places, virtually every single person that mentions wokeness on H sounds like a sexist and/or homophobe (which has been rampant on this site since, at least, the Gamergate BS). I'll catch Discovery at some point after it's finished it's run (cuz I don't do this wait a week to watch the next ep thing), but if past is prologue, it'll be fine, because the same people on here have been shit posting about it since day 1. First it was, <in a whiny nasally voice> "It's not star trek" - it was - and "This is the kelvin time line" - it wasn't. And as I've said a dozen times before, many of the complaints remind me of the whiners in the 90s complaining that DS9 wasn't star trek and bretrayed Gene's vision (which the first 2 seasons of trek show were not very interesting).

No, I think DS9 was better, but Discovery's first 2 seasons were infinitely better than S1 of DS9 (which was roughly the same number of episodes, as I recall). Having re-watched the first season last year, i found there were no more than 5 episodes worth watching and some were on the list, only because they fit into the main arc of the series.

Discovery did not have that problem, but so far has not risen to the heights that DS9 rose to starting in s2 (with only a handful of eps that are worth skipping). I'm not sure another trek ever will (no matter who is behind the show), but it's also worth remembering that the love that DS9 gets is a relatively recent phenomena. When it was on the air it got little love from Trekkers and much of that is brought back to life in the DS9 documentary.
 
I get that a lot.

To be perfectly frank, you can't trust that site but I'm not surprised by the rating. Only recently when bringing up how shitty that show is in some other threads have people started to see it my way. I used to think I was completely alone in my disdain for it. It's interesting to me how people's viewpoints over these shows can change over time. I don't think BSG will age all that well to be honest. I still can't understand why it was that well received in the first place.

I've analyzed it many times over the years and I've never understood its success. It did sort of bring a gritty and dark aspect to sci-fi which was lacking at the time. Between that and the amazing cast...maybe that was it? I don't know. It's all I can come up with. It was certainly different at the time and it was on the same sci-fi channel that had shit like Warehouse 13, Ice Spiders, Lavalanchula, and Sharktopus. I mean comparatively, it's brilliant. Sometimes sci-fi fans have a low bar for entertainment. I don't think it would have succeeded on a major network at the time. So it may be a right place, right time situation.

Maybe Ronald D. Moore could do a Star Trek show, but he was pretty much left on his own for BSG and I stand by my reasoning as to why its a huge pile of shit. A similar approach to the source material will go badly. In fact, I can prove it. In a lot of ways, modern Trek under Kurtzman has had a BSG makeover. If you compare the original BSG to the reboot, it's almost exactly what happened with modern Star Trek as compared to the original. While his other shows are successful, they do not indicate to me that he'd be a good fit for Star Trek at this point.
I liked some of BSG because they used actual guns instead of energy weapons.
 
Perhaps, but while there are legit issues with individuals taking wokeness (aka political correctness) to ridiculous places, virtually every single person that mentions wokeness on H sounds like a sexist and/or homophobe (which has been rampant on this site since, at least, the Gamergate BS). I'll catch Discovery at some point after it's finished it's run (cuz I don't do this wait a week to watch the next ep thing), but if past is prologue, it'll be fine, because the same people on here have been shit posting about it since day 1. First it was, <in a whiny nasally voice> "It's not star trek" - it was - and "This is the kelvin time line" - it wasn't. And as I've said a dozen times before, many of the complaints remind me of the whiners in the 90s complaining that DS9 wasn't star trek and bretrayed Gene's vision (which the first 2 seasons of trek show were not very interesting).

No, I think DS9 was better, but Discovery's first 2 seasons were infinitely better than S1 of DS9 (which was roughly the same number of episodes, as I recall). Having re-watched the first season last year, i found there were no more than 5 episodes worth watching and some were on the list, only because they fit into the main arc of the series.

Discovery did not have that problem, but so far has not risen to the heights that DS9 rose to starting in s2 (with only a handful of eps that are worth skipping). I'm not sure another trek ever will (no matter who is behind the show), but it's also worth remembering that the love that DS9 gets is a relatively recent phenomena. When it was on the air it got little love from Trekkers and much of that is brought back to life in the DS9 documentary.
disagree. Hardcore trek fan here. Watched TNG/DS9 probably 30+x times each. DS9 has been by far my favorite for about 20 years. I still rewatch the whole series at least 2-3x a year. Discovery is fricking trash. It is not Star Trek. The way TOS/TNG/DS9 added "social issues" to their episodes were meaningful and meant a lot to the story, not just tossed in like the woke crap in Discovery which has no bearing on anything to the series. Haven't watched this STD crap show since end of S1. Probably won't ever. Just pretending it doesnt exist in ST canon.
 
Last edited:
God no. That wouldn't be a good idea either. If he took over, we'd have another Battlestar Galactica. I know this goes against the grain, but that was a shit show. Awful pacing, bad writing and horrendous character arcs. Everyone on the ship was a raging alcoholic. Everyone on the ship had the exact same character flaws. Everyone was trying to fuck over everyone else or just fuck them. Plus, at least half the crew were all cylons. Of course, cylons were undetectable but had super strength, etc. The women were basically written like men and the men were whiny indecisive bitches. I suppose it was a forerunner of woke television and didn't even know it.

Don't get me started on some of the other aspects of the show's narrative that were terrible.

I have a theory: When Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore were working together, they reigned each other's worst ideas in and they were a solid combination. Separately, they were both awful. Voyager had a marked decline in writing and narrative quality compared to Deep Space Nine. Projects he'd been involved in up until The Orville were also horrendous. You know how Voyager always leaned on time travel? Yeah, that was Braga's influence. He even had a short lived sci-fi show about time travel some years later. Ronald D. Moore did fuck all until Outlander. Everything he was involved in basically went no where, or was shit. I can't speak to Outlander as I haven't seen it.

If you want to get technical, almost all writing is derivative of what came before it. That being said, they were way too on the nose with the "plot" of Picard.

AI destroys/harvests organic life in the galaxy every 200,000 years - (Mass Effect's plot exactly, but the cycles are shorter, but were referenced as having been longer in the past.)
Mechanical creature that does this is an obvious Call of Cthulhu rip off. It's basically Cyber Cthulhu.
Human/Androids clone or created from single cells (ugh...) is basically a rip off of the Battlestar Galactica reboot's human Cylon hybrids. They are also very similar to the Geth.
The small civilian ship and small crew of specialists (and degenerates) is by itself not an awful concept, but an odd one from Star Trek. It serves as the Normandy or Serenity of the story.

And let's not forget the Last Jedi treatment for Seven of Nine and Picard.

I really could go on and on about why Picard was a shit show and why it was worse than Discovery. Alex Kurtzman and company need to go. It's as simple as that. To be clear, it's not because Star Trek has become darker or more action focused that I have a problem with. The issue is that the quality of the writing is basically in the toilet. It's amateur hour at Bad Reboot and this is a good example of why people should be hired on the merits of their skills, ability and experience first. There is nothing wrong with a little new blood in the writers room, but why you would hire anyone but veteran writers of the genre for a flagship franchise like Star Trek is beyond me. It's a recipe for what we are getting.
Don't forget about poor Icheb. That was the most disappointing part of Picard for me.

Lower Decks season 1 my kids loved. Season 2 is complete trash. I pre-screen things incase I need to clip something out and they made almost every episode sexual for some reason beyond me. I didn't even bother showing it.

I basically stopped watching Discovery after Season 2. I skimmed two episodes of S3... was super disappointed so I googled the finale plot and by god I was happy I did.
 
Perhaps, but while there are legit issues with individuals taking wokeness (aka political correctness) to ridiculous places, virtually every single person that mentions wokeness on H sounds like a sexist and/or homophobe (which has been rampant on this site since, at least, the Gamergate BS). I'll catch Discovery at some point after it's finished it's run (cuz I don't do this wait a week to watch the next ep thing), but if past is prologue, it'll be fine, because the same people on here have been shit posting about it since day 1. First it was, <in a whiny nasally voice> "It's not star trek" - it was - and "This is the kelvin time line" - it wasn't. And as I've said a dozen times before, many of the complaints remind me of the whiners in the 90s complaining that DS9 wasn't star trek and bretrayed Gene's vision (which the first 2 seasons of trek show were not very interesting).

No, I think DS9 was better, but Discovery's first 2 seasons were infinitely better than S1 of DS9 (which was roughly the same number of episodes, as I recall). Having re-watched the first season last year, i found there were no more than 5 episodes worth watching and some were on the list, only because they fit into the main arc of the series.

Discovery did not have that problem, but so far has not risen to the heights that DS9 rose to starting in s2 (with only a handful of eps that are worth skipping). I'm not sure another trek ever will (no matter who is behind the show), but it's also worth remembering that the love that DS9 gets is a relatively recent phenomena. When it was on the air it got little love from Trekkers and much of that is brought back to life in the DS9 documentary.
Of course, it's the whole "no other point of view besides mine can be valid, so they must be 'ists, or 'phobes" BS. This statement is absolutely baseless and without merit. When you direct this at Star Trek fans such vitriol is about as misplaced as it possibly could be. Star Trek fans are about as diverse as you can get by their very nature. Polls have been taken in the past with some 51% or more of the country being fans and huge fan bases in just about every country the classic shows have ever aired in.

You are wrong about DS9. While it had its critics at the time who did claim it "wasn't Star Trek" because of how dark and action focused it could be, it's ratings tell a different story. While not as popular as the Next Generation, It was one of the more popular TV shows at the time when it was new. It's ratings were better than that of Voyager and Enterprise. The show was well received among critics of the day which weren't nearly as out of touch with audiences as today's modern critics are. Contrast that with the ratings of Discovery. Again, the numbers don't lie. Discovery is a shit show.

These new shows are not remotely popular with Discovery ratings on broadcast TV being at the very bottom of the ratings figures and well within a range that would have gotten any other show cancelled after one season. The argument that all the real fans saw it on streaming doesn't work either. While we do not have exact figures, CBS All Access was a dismal failure with the service bleeding subscribers while the show was still airing and no real uptick at the start of the second season. In fact, the first episode was given away on Youtube with All Access being advertised with no real effect. CBS All Access was a colossal failure with it being replaced by Paramount+ in under two years of its launch. A good Star Trek show could have carried the platform the way the Mandalorian practically carried Disney+ in its early days. Obviously, that didn't happen so Discovery was hardly a success in streaming.

And no, this bullshit we are being spoon fed now isn't real Star Trek. Frankly, that has nothing to do with what Gene Roddenberry would or wouldn't have wanted either. I have no doubt Gene Roddenberry would have had issues with aspects of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. I don't think what he wanted necessarily dictates what is or isn't real Star Trek. Some will disagree with me here but he wasn't the litmus test for what is or isn't good Star Trek. Some of the most popular episodes and films in the franchise history were ones that Gene Roddenberry reportedly hated. Whatever you think about specific shows, they all did what Discovery and Picard absolutely fail to do and that's explore the human condition in meaningful and interesting ways. I'm not saying they are all winners either, as I have plenty of bad things to say about Voyager and Enterprise in particular. However, those shows are more Star Trek than STD will ever be.

What you see from Alex Kurtzman and Bad Reboot is produced under what's known as an alternative copyright license. It may not strictly be Kelvin timeline as there are clear indicators that it isn't part of the Kelvin Timeline but there are something like 80 some odd continuity errors with the classic Star Trek shows because its produced by people who either have zero knowledge of Trek history and lore or by people who have nothing but disdain for it. Everything about the new shows is terrible. Awful writing (I've got tons of examples if you want me to go there), awful acting, and plots that make zero sense as they are driven by coincidences and contrivances that most people simply can't ignore. It handles existing characters and plot lines with the skills of a teenage fan fiction writer. Simply saying its connected to the original show does not make it true either. The quality of the writing, the continuity problems and contradictions fly in the face of such an assertion. You can't narratively connect the new shows to the classic ones because they are essentially incompatible and its not just because of quality.

Star Trek, at its best was grounded in the scientific theories of the day. Some of that has aged very well and some of it hasn't, but at least the show tried. It is one of the aspects that differentiated it from other popular franchises like Star Wars. It inspired people to learn about science and technology. Many of the people who grew up watching those shows are physicists and astronomers today. The new one? Well, Discovery has a magic space mushroom powered propulsion system that requires someone to interface with it and have an acid trip. The new show might inspire someone to hit a bong really hard, but it's not going to inspire the next generation of scientists when everything in it is basically totally made up bullshit. Even if it were somehow connected to the original shows, (beyond the name) it's completely lost the soul of the original shows. It misses the point. STD is another brainless, generic and forgettable sci-fi action show that no one outside of a few media shills and the smattering of hardcore New Trek apologists will ever give a shit about long term.

I've posted a lot of things about STD and Picard on these forums and I have never brought up race or gender as a reason for the show being bad. In fact, I don't know that I've seen anyone actually do this. Go ahead and find a quote from someone proving this was a principal argument against the show by anyone here on the HardForum. It will probably take you a long time because I don't think it ever actually happened. If you tried to read the comments and understand them or the perspective of people who don't like what you like, you may just find there are valid reasons people have to dislike the show that have absolutely nothing to do with being an 'ist or a phobe. I think the problem here is that fans of the show and defenders of wokeness are incapable of seeing another's perspective. Not only that, but they are obviously too emotionally fragile to handle someone talking about something they like in a negative way.

That is about as mature as flying into a rage because someone said something bad about your mom. It's juvenile and ridiculous. You can like things I don't like and I can hate things you like. It shouldn't be a big deal but the self-proclaimed SJW's always try to make things about racism or call people transphobic or some other kind of "ist" or "phobe" even if there is absolutely zero evidence of it being mentioned as a reason for disliking the show. It's the go to argument to "shut down" dissenting opinions and they make themselves look like children when they do it.

STD and Picard have a lot of problems narratively speaking and diversity and representation are ONLY problematic because of the ham-fisted way its done. When a character is gay, bisexual, trans or whatever, it's not a problem provided it is essential to the story in some way or it comes across as organic. It needs to feel natural in the story rather than just shoe-horned in there to check a box on some list. It's almost never that way in modern entertainment. There is no subtlety and no craft to it. It's just jammed in there in the most obvious and in your face way to the detriment of the story and the TV show or film's entertainment value.

If you like Star Trek Discovery, then by all means enjoy it. No one here is stopping you from doing so. But don't pretend that there aren't valid criticisms of the show and that the only reason people don't like it comes down being an "ist" or "phobe." You have absolutely zero evidence to back that up. No one claiming that BS has ever been able to refute the issues brought up about the story, continuity issues, or just nonsensical plot lines. They just cry "ist" or "phobe" without any evidence anyone with a dissenting opinion is either of those things and never address the core criticisms of the show in a meaningful or intelligent way.

When you attack the person and not the argument, you've already lost the debate.
I liked some of BSG because they used actual guns instead of energy weapons.
As someone who knows something about firearms, its often painful for me to see real firearms in science fiction shows. While it can certainly add to the sense of realism, it often has the opposite effect. While some films and TV shows do this in a way that works, BSG didn't. The reason why it didn't is because it used weapons pretty much as they were off the shelf. Weapons military organizations do not and would not use for good reason. The pistols are FN Five-Sevens and the "rifles" are Beretta CX4 Storm carbines. They didn't even put enough shit on them to hide what they were. It bothers me in the same vein as the Humvees on Caprica do. It's where the illusion breaks down and you can see the limitations of TV budget creeping through.

For example: I know the Aliens M41A Pulse Rifle is actually a Thompson sub-machine gun and that the grenade launcher is a Remington 870 shotgun. However, they are dressed up in a way that conceals what they are and it comes across as believable. When I can identify the firearm without even trying and it's not a great gun for its intended purpose, I have a hard time with the suspension of disbelief.

A good example of how to do this right is with Star Wars. They tend to put enough shit on the guns that it isn't quite so obvious as to what every gun is and even if you know, you quickly forget it in most scenes. The use of real-world guns as the basis for the props adds a sense of realism to the environment making it look and feel like a universe that's tangible.
disagree. Hardcore trek fan here. Watched TNG/DS9 probably 30+x times each. DS9 has been by far my favorite for about 20 years. I still rewatch the whole series at least 2-3x a year. Discovery is fricking trash. It is not Star Trek. The way TOS/TNG/DS9 added "social issues" to their episodes were meaningful and meant a lot to the story, not just tossed in like the woke crap in Discovery which has no bearing on anything to the series. Haven't watched this STD crap show since end of S1. Probably won't ever. Just pretending it doesnt exist in ST canon.
To be fair, there are cases where these issues were not handled all that well. That being said, the general quality of writing was leagues ahead of the modern shows.
Don't forget about poor Icheb. That was the most disappointing part of Picard for me.

Lower Decks season 1 my kids loved. Season 2 is complete trash. I pre-screen things incase I need to clip something out and they made almost every episode sexual for some reason beyond me. I didn't even bother showing it.

I basically stopped watching Discovery after Season 2. I skimmed two episodes of S3... was super disappointed so I googled the finale plot and by god I was happy I did.
I didn't forget. How could anyone who saw it forget his torture scene? I never made it more than two episodes through Lower Decks. I never found it funny. I watched all of Discovery Season 2 and that was enough for me. What I posted about the Warp Nacelles was actually something I found by accident and I ended up digging into some of the plot points of season 3 to see how they arrived at that bullshit and I decided there was no chance I was going to watch that obvious narrative train wreck.
 
View attachment 435226
some times they fit, not that id call the p90 the best choice... :)
Well, Stargate isn't an example of it being done badly necessarily. The cast's gun handling is often atrocious. Something I only noticed in recent years. Plus, the M9's are usually Taurus's, the P90's often don't have mounted optics in later seasons and any number of other things. (M249 SAW's aren't FN guns at all. etc.)
 
I've posted a lot of things about STD and Picard on these forums and I have never brought up race or gender as a reason for the show being bad. In fact, I don't know that I've seen anyone actually do this. Go ahead and find a quote from someone proving this was a principal argument against the show by anyone here on the HardForum. It will probably take you a long time because I don't think it ever actually happened. If you tried to read the comments and understand them or the perspective of people who don't like what you like, you may just find there are valid reasons people have to dislike the show that have absolutely nothing to do with being an 'ist or a phobe. I think the problem here is that fans of the show and defenders of wokeness are incapable of seeing another's perspective. Not only that, but they are obviously too emotionally fragile to handle someone talking about something they like in a negative way.

That is about as mature as flying into a rage because someone said something bad about your mom. It's juvenile and ridiculous. You can like things I don't like and I can hate things you like. It shouldn't be a big deal but the self-proclaimed SJW's always try to make things about racism or call people transphobic or some other kind of "ist" or "phobe" even if there is absolutely zero evidence of it being mentioned as a reason for disliking the show. It's the go to argument to "shut down" dissenting opinions and they make themselves look like children when they do it.

STD and Picard have a lot of problems narratively speaking and diversity and representation are ONLY problematic because of the ham-fisted way its done. When a character is gay, bisexual, trans or whatever, it's not a problem provided it is essential to the story in some way or it comes across as organic. It needs to feel natural in the story rather than just shoe-horned in there to check a box on some list. It's almost never that way in modern entertainment. There is no subtlety and no craft to it. It's just jammed in there in the most obvious and in your face way to the detriment of the story and the TV show or film's entertainment value.
I don't fundamentally disagree with your criticism of the show (although I do think some approaches are better than others; I have a soft spot for Stamets' relationship). My beef is when people specifically obsess over a show being too "woke" or otherwise decry "wokeness" in media as evil incarnate. They're not attacking clumsy approaches to diverse characters; by choosing that term, they're attacking the very concept of shows addressing racism and discrimination. I'd add that fixing that rage on a term coined by the Black community may be telling, or at least very poor form. If someone's gripe is with how well diversity is presented in a series, it's really easy for them to say as much instead of using a catchphrase that at best is an oversimplification, and at worst says more about their bitter worldview than it does the show.
 
I don't fundamentally disagree with your criticism of the show (although I do think some approaches are better than others; I have a soft spot for Stamets' relationship). My beef is when people specifically obsess over a show being too "woke" or otherwise decry "wokeness" in media as evil incarnate. They're not attacking clumsy approaches to diverse characters; by choosing that term, they're attacking the very concept of shows addressing racism and discrimination. I'd add that fixing that rage on a term coined by the Black community may be telling, or at least very poor form. If someone's gripe is with how well diversity is presented in a series, it's really easy for them to say as much instead of using a catchphrase that at best is an oversimplification, and at worst says more about their bitter worldview than it does the show.

Practically everyone that uses that term, at least in regards to Trek, is using it because of horrible plots / character development / ect and the show using a character’s status as an excuse to have it that way. It has nothing to do with “diversity” of the people being in the show.

For better or worse that’s the majority’s interpretation of “woke”. Vastly sacrificing a show’s quality and justifying it with a character’s, basically superficial, status. Then accusing the fan base of being sexists or racists is the icing on top when we worship Sisko, Picard, and Janeway… and our favorite characters are individuals like Worf, Issac, and Quark.

I may have misinterpreted you, but those are my thoughts. To attack a fanbase as sexist/racist that values the actions of a individual over all else because they don’t like Discovery or Picard is craaazzyy. (Not saying you, but that’s the general response to not liking Discovery or Picard, not that the plot and character development is absolute trash.)

I also loved Stamets, Pike, Saru, and the Empress Georgiou in S2. I felt like the Empress’s character changed too much to S3. Michael and Tilly were even fine in S2. S3 was just too much nonsense for me in the middle of a pandemic…

You could be right about people using “woke” incorrectly vs it’s origin but words change meaning all the time…
 
Last edited:
My only complaints with “wokeness” in entertainment media is when it’s been obviously shoehorned in and does nothing to add to a situation or story but instead detracts from it. Like there was a producer going over the script with their clipboard going “OK we’ve reached our percentage quota for this episodes racial diversity but we are 9% short on LBGTQ content. David!!! Get the writers on the phone and tell them they need to gay it up by at least 11% or managements gonna be all up in our asses”

But entertainment media bringing attention to it and me potentially feeling uncomfortable as a result isn’t necessarily a bad thing and when done correctly can be excellent story telling and immersion.
 
I don't fundamentally disagree with your criticism of the show (although I do think some approaches are better than others; I have a soft spot for Stamets' relationship). My beef is when people specifically obsess over a show being too "woke" or otherwise decry "wokeness" in media as evil incarnate. They're not attacking clumsy approaches to diverse characters; by choosing that term, they're attacking the very concept of shows addressing racism and discrimination. I'd add that fixing that rage on a term coined by the Black community may be telling, or at least very poor form. If someone's gripe is with how well diversity is presented in a series, it's really easy for them to say as much instead of using a catchphrase that at best is an oversimplification, and at worst says more about their bitter worldview than it does the show.
This is there the problem lies. You have a group of people that are assuming that someone complaining about wokeness is only doing so because they are racist or have one or more phobias about different sexual preferences is a false assumption. When you look at the shows that are talked about as being woke dumpster fires versus ones that have a great deal of diversity and sexual representation it becomes clear that there is a massive difference in quality. I don't recall anyone talking about True Blood being woke despite a great deal of diversity in the cast. The cast of the 1980's film Predator is diverse but no one mentions that in a negative light. I've never heard anyone say Alien would be better if Ellen Ripley were male. Notice how diversity and inclusion goes completely unnoticed when its done right? But if you want to talk about Supergirl or Batwoman on the CW, they are woke as hell.

I also think it's a stretch to assume that rage against the term woke has anything to do with where the term originated from. Assuming that hatred of wokeness equals racism or some sort of phobia is part of the problem in these discussions. There is often very little to no evidence that this is the case. You have one side who may be oversimplifying things by calling a TV show "woke", but rather than listen to the actual complaints, the other side simply assumes that someone using the term hates black people and has an irrational fear of transsexuals. It makes very little sense when you think about it. But, I would agree that calling a show "woke" is oversimplifying and potentially misleading.

But understand that "wokeness" as a complaint isn't actually about diversity or inclusion being problematic. It's about the poor quality of the shows that focus on a political ideology or message to the detriment of the material. Batwoman is a bad show. The fact that the main character is a lesbian was never the problem. Like it or not, comics fans are predominantly heterosexual white males. That same group also likes lesbian porn. Do you really think that a show about a lesbian woman in tight outfits is problematic by itself? It really isn't. It's the quality of the show that's the problem. It's badly written, badly acted and its visuals are cheap.

Lastly, when the advertisement and marketing behind a show focuses on diversity and inclusion or modern politics rather than it being a good show, your going to lose people out of the gate. Whether true or not, people are going to assume that the show is going to lecture them. People do not want to be lectured about something especially when they aren't guilty of it. I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but the fact is that when something is well written and believable, it will just work. When something is badly done it gets torn apart. As I said, no one cares about diversity when you have good characters. When you have bad characters who whine about perceived social injustice all the time in the narrative it's going to get called a woke dumpster fire. It's pretty much as simple as that even if the term is being improperly used to some extent.
Practically everyone that uses that term, at least in regards to Trek, is using it because of horrible plots / character development / ect and the show using a character’s status as an excuse to have it that way. It has nothing to do with “diversity” of the people being in the show.

For better or worse that’s the majority’s interpretation of “woke”. Vastly sacrificing a show’s quality and justifying it with a character’s, basically superficial, status. Then accusing the fan base of being sexists or racists is the icing on top when we worship Sisko, Picard, and Janeway… and our favorite characters are individuals like Worf, Issac, and Quark.

I may have misinterpreted you, but those are my thoughts. To attack a fanbase as sexist/racist that values the actions of a individual over all else because they don’t like Discovery or Picard is craaazzyy. (Not saying you, but that’s the general response to not liking Discovery or Picard, not that the plot and character development is absolute trash.)

I also loved Stamets, Pike, Saru, and the Empress Georgiou in S2. I felt like the Empress’s character changed too much to S3. Michael and Tilly were even fine in S2. S3 was just too much nonsense for me in the middle of a pandemic…

You could be right about people using “woke” incorrectly vs it’s origin but words change meaning all the time…
I agree with everything here excluding your thoughts on Discovery's characters. I will say, Pike was a solid standout. That much I can agree with.
 
Well if, calling a show woke is oversimlpification, then what do you call that when any type of criticism is labelled sexism/racism?

Calling it woke is just convenient, everybody instantly knows what you mean even if there are more layers to the story. That said Discovery's main problem is not wokeness. Some preachyness could be endured if the show was otherwise good, but it's not.

The problem with Discovery is that it does not follow the established values of star trek, au contraire it pisses on them and then smears it all over your face. And then calls you a bigot if you dare complain. At least in the pilot episode that I saw it promotes the wrong values. "Me fifis" over the collective interest of ship and crew. Sure sometimes old trek also prioritized people over the ship, but it was not the individual demanding preferential treatment, it was the crew that so loved that crew member that they went out of their way to help them voluntarily. It might seem like a small difference, but in practice it's almost polar opposites. For that to work first you need to build up the characters, they need to earn the respect not just of their crewmates, but of the viewer as well. I won't love a character just because she is a black woman, which is what the showrunners expected from the viewer.

In old trek when somebody from the crew acted without permission they were not rewarded for it, they were reprimanded. In the STD pilot Michael Burnham and others are constantly being egoists who are constantly disregarding every common good, for their own agendas. MB even goes as far as to incite mutiny, and in the end it's as if nothing happened, just forgiven like that. And constantly rails against the chain of command, which is represented as the "patriarchy".

For the sake of simplicity we call this woke writing. Writing that does not know subtlety, or nuance, that tries to bludgeon the viewer over the head with the most blatant agendas. And if somebody wants to be bludgeoned over the head that's fine too, just don't call me a sexist or racist for not liking this show.

I know the 'original' meaning of woke is to be aware of racial or gender injustices. But I subverted the word as I think the original definition is based on a false premise, as I don't think there is any inherent discrimination in anything.
 
Last edited:
Calling it woke is just convenient, everybody instantly knows what you mean even if there are more layers to the story. That said Discovery's main problem is not wokeness. Some preachyness could be endured if the show was otherwise good, but it's not.

The problem with Discovery is that it does not follow the established values of star trek, au contraire it pisses on them and then smears it all over your face. And then calls you a bigot if you dare complain. At least in the pilot episode that I saw it promotes the wrong values. "Me fifis" over the collective interest of ship and crew. Sure sometimes old trek also prioritized people over the ship, but it was not the individual demanding preferential treatment, it was the crew that so loved that crew member that they went out of their way to help them voluntarily. It might seem like a small difference, but in practice it's almost polar opposites. For that to work first you need to build up the characters, they need to earn the respect not just of their crewmates, but of the viewer as well. I won't love a character just because she is a black woman, which is what the showrunners expected from the viewer.

In old trek when somebody from the crew acted without permission they were not rewarded for it, they were reprimanded. In the STD pilot Michael Burnham and others are constantly being egoists who are constantly disregarding every common good, for their own agendas. MB even goes as far as to incite mutiny, and in the end it's as if nothing happened, just forgiven like that. And constantly rails against the chain of command, which is represented as the "patriarchy".

For the sake of simplicity we call this woke writing. Writing that does not know subtlety, or nuance, that tries to bludgeon the viewer over the head with the most blatant agendas. And if somebody wants to be bludgeoned over the head that's fine too, just don't call me a sexist or racist for not liking this show.

I know the 'original' meaning of woke is to be aware of racial or gender injustices. But I subverted the word as I think the original definition is based on a false premise, as I don't think there is any inherent discrimination in anything.
The show isn't as outwardly woke as some others. However, I'd argue wokeness is at the core of why the show is so bad. It's negatively impacted the quality of the writing and characterization. That being said, one of the show's principal problems is also that the writers are inexperienced and that's why you have a Mary Sue space Jesus type character at the center of it.
 
View attachment 435226
some times they fit, not that id call the p90 the best choice... :)
Well, and a lot of the time we the audience think "that's demonstrably worse in every way than a normal current-day firearm" based upon what is shown, and we have questions.

I actually liked SG because they used weapons which - well, actually, physically still work. Kinetic energy is kinetic energy.
 
Well, and a lot of the time we the audience think "that's demonstrably worse in every way than a normal current-day firearm" based upon what is shown, and we have questions.

I actually liked SG because they used weapons which - well, actually, physically still work. Kinetic energy is kinetic energy.
The P90 never made sense, but my guess is that they did it because it was new at the time and was cool looking and light weight. The MP5 in contrast is a lot heavier and that's what they carried in the first three seasons.
 
The P90 never made sense, but my guess is that they did it because it was new at the time and was cool looking and light weight. The MP5 in contrast is a lot heavier and that's what they carried in the first three seasons.
From the SG1 DVD commentary.

"The weapon is very good for filming, so we use it a lot in Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis. Other than e.g. the M16, the empty capsules don't get thrown out to the right, but they fall straight down through a special well. So if you want to film soldiers that are standing in a row, and everybody uses the P90, you don't need to worry about hot capsules that fly straight into the face of the guy next to you."
 
Well if, calling a show woke is oversimlpification, then what do you call that when any type of criticism is labelled sexism/racism?

Calling it woke is just convenient, everybody instantly knows what you mean even if there are more layers to the story. That said Discovery's main problem is not wokeness. Some preachyness could be endured if the show was otherwise good, but it's not.

The problem with Discovery is that it does not follow the established values of star trek, au contraire it pisses on them and then smears it all over your face. And then calls you a bigot if you dare complain. At least in the pilot episode that I saw it promotes the wrong values. "Me fifis" over the collective interest of ship and crew. Sure sometimes old trek also prioritized people over the ship, but it was not the individual demanding preferential treatment, it was the crew that so loved that crew member that they went out of their way to help them voluntarily. It might seem like a small difference, but in practice it's almost polar opposites. For that to work first you need to build up the characters, they need to earn the respect not just of their crewmates, but of the viewer as well. I won't love a character just because she is a black woman, which is what the showrunners expected from the viewer.

In old trek when somebody from the crew acted without permission they were not rewarded for it, they were reprimanded. In the STD pilot Michael Burnham and others are constantly being egoists who are constantly disregarding every common good, for their own agendas. MB even goes as far as to incite mutiny, and in the end it's as if nothing happened, just forgiven like that. And constantly rails against the chain of command, which is represented as the "patriarchy".

For the sake of simplicity we call this woke writing. Writing that does not know subtlety, or nuance, that tries to bludgeon the viewer over the head with the most blatant agendas. And if somebody wants to be bludgeoned over the head that's fine too, just don't call me a sexist or racist for not liking this show.

I know the 'original' meaning of woke is to be aware of racial or gender injustices. But I subverted the word as I think the original definition is based on a false premise, as I don't think there is any inherent discrimination in anything.
and the show still reeks i could barely finish season one and bailed at he end of season 2. TOS TNG VOYAGER and Enterprise is where it's at for me Picarcd was OK first season second one looks to be an improvement overall.

Barnum is simply not likable as a character and the storylines are horrible in discovery
 
I want the Saru and Tilly Go Berserk episode.

The two interesting characters space the rest of the crew, and then go on fun adventures.
 
I want the Saru and Tilly Go Berserk episode.

The two interesting characters space the rest of the crew, and then go on fun adventures.
I wouldn't call either of those characters interesting. In fact, those two are probably some of the furthest from interesting the show has beyond its lead. Discovery doesn't really have interesting characters. They have some that had potential to be interesting but the writers continually squander and waste those opportunities at every turn. Example: The cyborg chick was one of the only interesting characters the show had that wasn't a legacy character and they killed her off. They blew their creative load in doing all of her back story in a single episode killing the potential to explore her character in detail. She had real narrative potential and it went to waste.

She doesn't even have more than a single line in the first season.
 
I wouldn't call either of those characters interesting. In fact, those two are probably some of the furthest from interesting the show has beyond its lead. Discovery doesn't really have interesting characters. They have some that had potential to be interesting but the writers continually squander and waste those opportunities at every turn. Example: The cyborg chick was one of the only interesting characters the show had that wasn't a legacy character and they killed her off. They blew their creative load in doing all of her back story in a single episode killing the potential to explore her character in detail. She had real narrative potential and it went to waste.

She doesn't even have more than a single line in the first season.
I wanted to have a sassy response... but you're right. They weren't "interesting". I just resonated with them. And I'm not interesting. Dangit, misery loves company.

For the cyborg - I just knew from the outset she was a spring-loaded plot device for later.

Also the plot is generally awful, so there's that.
 
Back
Top