Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - III - Spock's Beard

[JetsFan815]

The new season hasn't been bad so far. Much better than Picard.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

I like Michelle Yeoh but her mirror universe character is up there with GOT's Euron Greyjoy as one of the most cartoonish bad cosplay characters I've ever watched. Ugh.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

It was really bad. All episode long, it tried exceedingly hard to tug at emotional heart strings.

Agreed. They lingered so long on these moments almost like they are trying to tell us "you're supposed to have the feels right now". Downright bad.
Seriously, are there any likeable characters on this show that we could ever care about at some point?

Burnham is retched.
Georgiou is a ridiculous caricature.
The albino is whiny.
Tig Notaro's character is annoying.
Tilly is annoying in another way (at least she seems good hearted).
The Doctor I don't really notice (so like a referee in a hockey game, I guess that's a good thing loll).
There is only Saru that I don't really mind.
All the others we don't really know anything about them and just seem like fillers.

The only thing that brought me back to this show was I thought the premise of jumping 900 years into the future was an interesting one but that interest is quickly fading. I don't see this show surprising us à la TNG and getting better as it matures.

 

[The Nemesis]

Agreed. They lingered so long on these moments almost like they are trying to tell us "you're supposed to have the feels right now". Downright bad.
Seriously, are there any likeable characters on this show that we could ever care about at some point?

Burnham is retched.
Georgiou is a ridiculous caricature.
The albino is whiny.
Tig Notaro's character is annoying.
Tilly is annoying in another way (at least she seems good hearted).
The Doctor I don't really notice (so like a referee in a hockey game, I guess that's a good thing loll).
There is only Saru that I don't really mind.
All the others we don't really know anything about them and just seem like fillers.

The only thing that brought me back to this show was I thought the premise of jumping 900 years into the future was an interesting one but that interest is quickly fading. I don't see this show surprising us à la TNG and getting better as it matures.

I have yet to even start watching this season. I'm almost afraid to.

But you're right about the cast. The issue is that they have tried so hard to make these characters and go "look at this one, they're <insert character trait/quirk> isn't that great!?" but they mostly suck. Saru is the only one who's really consistently tolerable and even that they kind of played with when they took away his species' trait (their overly cautious nature) and seemed to turn it into a weird sort of parable about the need to be brave and daring and just like all the humans. Tilly does seem like she's supposed to be the sort of goofy, quirky, "isn't she wacky and fun and endearing?" one but it makes her annoying. Stamets actually got kind of better as the series went on, almost like they realized they can't just have him be an abrasive asshole the whole time.

And you're right about the doctor. His character is so shallow beyond being a) the doctor, b) Stamets' husband, and c) dead for a while that I honestly can't even remember what his name is.

Tig Notaro's character feels like she was meant to be a guest star and then people liked her so they kept her on. Except her kind of character really only works in short bursts. She was funny at first but got more grating as we progressed.

 

[Jussi]

Tig Notaro's character feels like she was meant to be a guest star and then people liked her so they kept her on. Except her kind of character really only works in short bursts. She was funny at first but got more grating as we progressed.

They kind of put Tig Notaro's real life spine issues in the previous episode. She had major surgery and I guess she might not be seen for a while because of it.

 

[Osprey]

The only thing that brought me back to this show was I thought the premise of jumping 900 years into the future was an interesting one but that interest is quickly fading. I don't see this show surprising us à la TNG and getting better as it matures.

This season is basically the same as the first two seasons. It's "Burnham saves the Federation" again, except that she's doing it from the future this time. After this, all that's left will be for her and Discovery to go back in time to before the Federation exists or when it's in its infancy in order to save it from never evolving in the first place. That'll probably be Season 4.

Stamets actually got kind of better as the series went on, almost like they realized they can't just have him be an abrasive asshole the whole time.

...

Tig Notaro's character feels like she was meant to be a guest star and then people liked her so they kept her on. Except her kind of character really only works in short bursts. She was funny at first but got more grating as we progressed.

I think that the writers were hoping that Stamets would be their McCoy: a character that we love even though he's abrasive. When that didn't work out, they toned him down and introduced Tig Notaro's character (whatever her name is). So far this season, he's been especially meek and she's been mostly by his side and the jerk in the partnership, like McCoy was to Spock, except more irritating than amusing. When that gets old or if they have to retire her because of what Jussi just mentioned, the writers will probably introduce a new abrasive character or re-shuffle personalities to try again. I'd like to see Tilly suddenly become the sarcastic and abrasive character on the show .

 

[johnjm22]

I haven't been watching. I stopped early in season 2.

Is this real?


And is this intentionally meant to take a shot at Gene Rodenberry?

 

[Osprey]

I haven't been watching. I stopped early in season 2.

Is this real?


And is this intentionally meant to take a shot at Gene Rodenberry?

Yes, that's real. I didn't catch it at the time, but I just went back and verified it. I even checked the subtitles and he says "Gene."

I imagine that they intended to pay respect to Roddenberry with an amusing Easter egg and didn't have the sense to realize that they weren't being respectful or funny.

 

[Morbo]

It's terrible. hopefully this is the last season. I've never seen a less compelling or interesting starship crew on a Trek series.

 

[johnjm22]

Yes, that's real. I didn't catch it at the time, but I just went back and verified it. I even checked the subtitles and he says "Gene."

I imagine that they intended to pay respect to Roddenberry with an amusing Easter egg and didn't have the sense to realize that they weren't being respectful or funny.

I don't know. Sounds like an intentional insult to me.

"My name's Gene."
"I've already forgotten that."

 

[Osprey]

I don't know. Sounds like an intentional insult to me.

"My name's Gene."
"I've already forgotten that."

I doubt that they'd be writing for the show if they felt that way about the founder of the franchise. I think that they're just that out of touch.

 

[johnjm22]

I doubt that they'd be writing for the show if they felt that way about the founder of the franchise. I think that they're just that out of touch.

I think, they think, Star Trek is problematic and needs to be fixed.

Part of the point of Star Trek Picard was to "check" Picard's privilege. Humble him. They say it on StarTrek.com: The Humbling of Admiral Picard

It's a bizarre premise for a show, and it gives you insight into the mindset of the people running Star Trek now.

Rodenberry was known as a womanazier. It makes sense they would dislike him. One of the constant criticisms of this iteration of Trek is that it doesn't fit Gene's vision of the future, so I think this scene was taking a shot at Gene, his "outdated" views, and the fans who are critical of this aspect of modern Star Trek.

We've already heard a writer say he wrote something into a script just to piss off and provoke certain fans.

Seems to fit a pattern of behavior.

 

[Blender]

I think, they think, Star Trek is problematic and needs to be fixed.

Part of the point of Star Trek Picard was to "check" Picard's privilege. Humble him. They say it on StarTrek.com: The Humbling of Admiral Picard

It's a bizarre premise for a show, and it gives you insight into the mindset of the people running Star Trek now.

Rodenberry was known as a womanazier. It makes sense they would dislike him. One of the constant criticisms of this iteration of Trek is that it doesn't fit Gene's vision of the future, so I think this scene was taking a shot at Gene, his "outdated" views, and the fans who are critical of this aspect of modern Star Trek.

We've already heard a writer say he wrote something into a script just to piss off and provoke certain fans.

Seem to fit a pattern of behavior.

It's like these people didn't watch anything from TNG onward. TOS was extremely progressive for its time, but still had issues, especially with sexism. The way some of the people in charge of current Star Trek talk it's as if having a woman as the lead and being in an authority position is some amazing leap in the Star Trek universe, despite all the evidence in the franchise to the contrary. I would even argue that Kira Nerys, while not the lead of DS9 but one of the main characters, is a top 3 Star Trek character of all time. Voyager had a female captain who was the lead of the show, and from seasons 4 to 7 had 2 of the main 3 characters (Janeway, Seven, and The Doctor being the mains) be female.

 

[Osprey]

I think, they think, Star Trek is problematic and needs to be fixed.

Part of the point of Star Trek Picard was to "check" Picard's privilege. Humble him. They say it on StarTrek.com: The Humbling of Admiral Picard

It's a bizarre premise for a show, and it gives you insight into the mindset of the people running Star Trek now.

Rodenberry was known as a womanazier. It makes sense they would dislike him. One of the constant criticisms of this iteration of Trek is that it doesn't fit Gene's vision of the future, so I think this scene was taking a shot at Gene, his "outdated" views, and the fans who are critical of this aspect of modern Star Trek.

We've already heard a writer say he wrote something into a script just to piss off and provoke certain fans.

Seems to fit a pattern of behavior.

Now that you point that out, I agree that it fits a pattern. I've noticed since Season 1 of Discovery that the writers seem to have a agenda, so you could be right that they were disrespectful because Gene was known as a womanizer.

 

[johnjm22]

It's like these people didn't watch anything from TNG onward. TOS was extremely progressive for its time, but still had issues, especially with sexism. The way some of the people in charge of current Star Trek talk it's as if having a woman as the lead and being in an authority position is some amazing leap in the Star Trek universe, despite all the evidence in the franchise to the contrary. I would even argue that Kira Nerys, while not the lead of DS9 but one of the main characters, is a top 3 Star Trek character of all time. Voyager had a female captain who was the lead of the show, and from seasons 4 to 7 had 2 of the main 3 characters (Janeway, Seven, and The Doctor being the mains) be female.

I think the contemporary progressive social ideology of today believes in moral absolutism: What's wrong today, was wrong 500 years ago, and will be wrong forever.

The truth, as always, is more complicated. Morality to a large degree is relative to your time and circumstances.

The absolutists also tend to believe in the falsehood of the good person / bad person paradigm. As if people are all good or or all bad. Looking at the world this way, Gene has to be a dirtbag. How could a womanizer not be?

Most of the people working on Star Trek today aren't fans of it. They go back and watch TOS so they can mine every memberberry out of it they can, and when the do, they see a show that's sexist and patriarchal, with minorities cast off into side roles.

Star Trek through the lens of today is conservative. The Federation is a stand in for America and The West. That's why modern Star Trek portrays the Federation so negatively.

Star Trek is problematic. Alex Kurtzman and his band of talentless hacks are here to fix it. If you don't like it, you must be problematic too.

 

[Osprey]

I think the contemporary progressive social ideology of today believes in moral absolutism: What's wrong today, was wrong 500 years ago, and will be wrong forever.

The truth, as always, is more complicated. Morality to a large degree is relative to your time and circumstances.

The absolutists also tend to believe in the falsehood of the good person / bad person paradigm. As if people are all good or or all bad. Looking at the world this way, Gene has to be a dirtbag. How could a womanizer not be?

Most of the people working on Star Trek today aren't fans of it. They go back and watch TOS so they can mine every memberberry out of it they can, and when the do, they see a show that's sexist and patriarchal, with minorities cast off into side roles.

Star Trek through the lens of today is conservative. The Federation is a stand in for America and The West. That's why modern Star Trek portrays the Federation so negatively.

Star Trek is problematic. Alex Kurtzman and his band of talentless hacks are here to fix it. If you don't like it, you must be problematic too.

I think that a lot of people don't realize that future generations are going to judge them just as they judge past generations. As you said, what's "moral" is constantly evolving. For example, just 100 years ago, society tolerated racism, but not abortion. A century later, it's the other way around. We're liable to appear as old fashioned and immoral to people in 2120 as people in 1920 appear to us. Perhaps eating animals will be viewed as barbaric by then and meat eaters, including a lot of today's progressives, will be looked down upon and punished posthumously. You never know. A lot can change in 100 years.

I think that it's important to separate the person from the behavior. You can still judge Gene Roddenberry's womanizing to be bad, but be careful about condemning the person without knowing or considering all of the facts or context (including the era) and, especially, not doing so out of pride (i.e. to make yourself look and feel morally superior). Punishing someone for his or her moral failings, especially long after death, is an example of that bad kind of judgment. It takes a lot of hubris to do that, IMO. Only a person who thinks that he's perfect would condemn others for their imperfections. Roddenberry wasn't perfect, and neither was early Star Trek, but we can address both while still having humility and respect instead of righteousness and disrespect .

 

[archangel2]

David Croenenberg acting

Now that is unusual

 

[NyQuil]

Star Trek is supposed to be an aspirational show.

Even at its darkest moments, like in DS9, the characters were wrestling with balancing morality with expediency. Ultimately, to turn one's back on the morals of the Federation always came at a cost.

But ultimately, it's going to be hard to hold it up as utopian when you look under the hood a bit. I liked this interview with Paul Krugman:

What dark side could be lurking in a post-scarcity economy like the one imagined in “Star Trek”?

"Well, first of all, it turns out there’s lots of room for things to go wrong. There’s lots of room for evil. Do we have examples of post-scarcity economies in miniature out there? And we do in various versions. Some of us live — actually college professors — live in an environment where there isn’t that much disparity in salaries but there’s lots of disparity in prestige and how you’re regarded…. People still compete over certain jobs. Is that really the end of the problem? And in the “Star Trek” universe, there’s violence, there’s war, there’s an amazing number of holodeck malfunctions. But anyway, leaving that aside … making money is not the root of all evil is one of the lessons of “Star Trek,” kind of an unintended one."

Economist Paul Krugman ponders the sci-fi economics of 'Star Trek' - Marketplace

Krugman said even if objects are freely available, it doesn't mean everyone is satisfied.

"In 'Star Trek,' there are replicators that can make anything you want. But it can make any THING that you want," Krugman said. "We spend only 30 percent on our income on goods and 70 percent on services. The replicators won't help with [services]." He added that if services are freely available through "servitors," it becomes "a world where it's hard to tell the difference between sevitors versus slaves."

What we can learn from the economics of Star Trek

Sometimes you just have to admire the spirit of the show - something that I think has been eroded away to a certain extent.

 

[NyQuil]

Perhaps eating animals will be viewed as barbaric by then and meat eaters, including a lot of today's progressives, will be looked down upon and punished posthumously. You never know. A lot can change in 100 years.

Or people who own animal slaves that we refer to as "pets".

 

[Ducks in a row]

Spoiler

 

[Osprey]

Or people who own animal slaves that we refer to as "pets".

I almost went with that example, instead, but I don't really see that going away in the next 100 years. Companionship is harder to replace than dietary elements, I figure. Besides, they like being our slaves. I just tested with my puppy by opening the front door and saying "You're free!" as she ran outside. A few minutes later, I opened the door and she was looking up at me with sad eyes, begging me to enslave her again. What kind of a cruel master would I be if I refused?

 

[johnjm22]

Spoiler

View attachment 376222

LOL.

This show is so desperate.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Or people who own animal slaves that we refer to as "pets".

Unless you live in San Francisco, then you are a pet guardian. (At least, that is what I have been told).

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

LOL.

This show is so desperate.

No kidding.

 

[NyQuil]

I almost went with that example, instead, but I don't really see that going away in the next 100 years. Companionship is harder to replace than dietary elements, I figure. Besides, they like being our slaves. I just tested with my puppy by opening the front door and saying "You're free!" as she ran outside. A few minutes later, I opened the door and she was looking up at me with sad eyes, begging me to enslave her again. What kind of a cruel master would I be if I refused?

Stockholm syndrome.