Discovery 3x04 - 'Forgot Me Not' **Spoilers Within**

breezy1985

Smacruairi wrote: »

I was drunk, watched a random ds9 episode, grand no problem. I can't imagine doing the same with DISCO series 2 or 3. Start of season 1 up to the mirror universe maybe though.

Season 2 up until it's revealed that it's all about Burnham again when they unlock the red angel mystery is great. Absolutely love Pike seeing his future and the early.
Problem is these guys have used the same pattern in 3 seasons so far and the mystery is always ruined by a shockingly terrible reveal. Mirror universe, Burnham's mother and Picard Vs the Reapers from Mass Effect.
And like the Abrams movies it's supposed to be doing things a little different but so far the bad guys are the Klingons, section 31 and the mirror universe so not a single new idea

AllForIt

The only stand out episodes of disco for me is the Mudd episode (S1, time repeating itself) and the second last espisode of S2, where they catch mom. The rest of my memory cells of disco have been overwritten since.

Goodshape

I'd honestly mostly forgotten about the mom. Awful rubbish really. Think I'd zoned out by then.

The Mudd episode was decent alright. And I think episode 2 from season 2 was decent? Kind of our first adventure with Pike, felt like good ol' Star Trek again for a moment.

breezy1985

AllForIt wrote: »

The only stand out episodes of disco for me is the Mudd episode (S1, time repeating itself) and the second last espisode of S2, where they catch mom. The rest of my memory cells of disco have been overwritten since.

If you don't forget certain things about that show you'll go mad. Like the fact that Burnham is Starfleets first ever mutineer and gets her job back almost straight away after pulling a gun on her captain and starting a war

Banana Republic 1

Rawr wrote: »

Ahh, but this is scifi and nothing is really dead so long as the plot requires it.
Especially when we're talking about a living computer virus that knows how to hop between different hosts. They merely killed it's last host...the virus itself could still be operating in that pool of gore we saw them clean up in Episode 2.

I'm not saying that I actually want Control to return. Like many thinks in Discovery it was an interesting idea that was very poorly executed. However I think it's possible that they would bring it back as the big-bad of this show again.

I don’t doubt it because the writers don’t se to able to come up there own ideas. Now that’s in in discovery as we saw when the computer had a conversation with Saru they have put the whole space time continuum at risk. What they should have done was fly the ship into a star and then blow up the star turning it into a black hole so nothing could escape and take the entire crew with it to be sure.

Banana Republic 1

breezy1985 wrote: »

If you don't forget certain things about that show you'll go mad. Like the fact that Burnham is Starfleets first ever mutineer and gets her job back almost straight away after pulling a gun on her captain and starting a war

Agh but the fist fight she had with the cyborg girl justifies her presence on the ship.

The crew of TNG and Voy have several fights with cyBorg and won.
Just saying

~Rebel~

This ep was ok... I liked the idea of it more than the execution. Particularly on the planet, the pacing felt weird - everyone jumping straight into delivering their cultural point of view within seconds of them landing. I feel like all that could have been stretched out much longer and made more natural and interesting, and saved all that emotional bluster for later. Could have been welcomed at first and gotten to learn a bit about the trill over the past centuries. Then we find the yellow chap plotting against them and delivering his speech about her being an abomination, with the red chap appearing to save them from death/forced separation. Then the final act would have been in the caves.

I always feel like this show doesn’t trust their audience and want to throw heavy emotion at us up front all the time to hook us in, like a CW show or something - when if there’s one audience you can trust to hang in there and appreciate a good narrative build it’s the Trek audience.

Banana Republic 1

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This ep was ok... I liked the idea of it more than the execution. Particularly on the planet, the pacing felt weird - everyone jumping straight into delivering their cultural point of view within seconds of them landing. I feel like all that could have been stretched out much longer and made more natural and interesting, and saved all that emotional bluster for later. Could have been welcomed at first and gotten to learn a bit about the trill over the past centuries. Then we find the yellow chap plotting against them and delivering his speech about her being an abomination, with the red chap appearing to save them from death/forced separation. Then the final act would have been in the caves.

I always feel like this show doesn’t trust their audience and want to throw heavy emotion at us up front all the time to hook us in, like a CW show or something - when if there’s one audience you can trust to hang in there and appreciate a good narrative build it’s the Trek audience.

The writers ham up the emotions because there faux woke and also can’t write.

Rawr

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This ep was ok... I liked the idea of it more than the execution. Particularly on the planet, the pacing felt weird - everyone jumping straight into delivering their cultural point of view within seconds of them landing. I feel like all that could have been stretched out much longer and made more natural and interesting, and saved all that emotional bluster for later. Could have been welcomed at first and gotten to learn a bit about the trill over the past centuries. Then we find the yellow chap plotting against them and delivering his speech about her being an abomination, with the red chap appearing to save them from death/forced separation. Then the final act would have been in the caves.

I always feel like this show doesn’t trust their audience and want to throw heavy emotion at us up front all the time to hook us in, like a CW show or something - when if there’s one audience you can trust to hang in there and appreciate a good narrative build it’s the Trek audience.

I like your idea Rebel, it would have been better that way I feel.

I was somewhat disappointed with what they did with Trill. I do understand that productions have limitations with time & budget, and that my own imagination has a knack of building up things...but Trill was very clearly just some generic park they had access to and looked very "Earth-like".

They've done this back in the day with earlier Trek too, but something about Trill this time seemed somewhat phoned-in / lazy on the part of the producers. This was a core Federation world, and first re-contact with Starfleet and a joined Trill happens in someone's random garden? With only 5 or 6 Trill bothering to turn up? We do have those weird Trill-caves later, but all kind of felt underwhelming. I was initially excited that they were going to Trill....and then I really wasn't...

Interesting point about them not trusting the audience regarding emotion. Trek has had some moving moments over the years, and I get that they were trying to go for one here, but they just laid it on very thick. Too thickly I'm afraid. Overly tearful goodbyes and reunions are somewhat toothless when there's not much behind them. We don't really know Grey or Adria and they hadn't done the character development needed for us to really care yet. So it felt like a lot of emotional effort for no reward. They really need to get better at these scenes or just stop doing them.

The White Wolf

This episode and the preceding one made me realise the problem I have with the show; this episode was quite good when focusing on the story that they were trying to tell, but the constant pausing, smiling at each other and exclamations of "you're awesome, no, you're awesome" is so bloody irritating.

pixelburp

The show overall may constantly break the rule of "show don't tell" but I gave this episode a free pass this once given the episode tackled the PTSD of Discovery's time jump. Kinda makes sense in this case they would be more open in admitting folks are struggling. The little moment between Detmer and Culber at the end a nice capper on that.

I did laugh how Trek once again enjoys wallowing in early 20th century culture like it was the damn zenith of civilisation's cultural output. The more pragmatic answer is likely that the Buster Keaton stuff was public domain and so cheap to use, but I've always found it weird how frozen the universe's zeitgeist is. Bar the odd Klingon opera, everyone watches old crap from the early to mid 20th century.

I'm one episode behind the curve but this was one of the strongest episode of the show to date - there's just the small sense of the production finally getting to grips with itself. Notwithstanding the by now obvious contractual obligation to make Burnham the lead (or indeed having to use Michelle Yeoh, to no obvious benefit beyond said contractual necessity).

breezy1985

The White Wolf wrote: »

This episode and the preceding one made me realise the problem I have with the show; this episode was quite good when focusing on the story that they were trying to tell, but the constant pausing, smiling at each other and exclamations of "you're awesome, no, you're awesome" is so bloody irritating.

Its always been a ship crewed by insecure people. Watch how excited they all get when Pike tells em they are special when he meets them they are like school kids. Lorca and Clem Fandango were the only 2 with real interesting mental issues and they turned them into Scooby Doo villains the rest are all completely devoid of self confidence which might be Greta from a teen drama but these are supposed to be the finest of space sailors

Banana Republic 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGEdDBbeVYE

Sesshoumaru

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGEdDBbeVYE

Do fans really think the STD show creators are trying to 'fix the problematic past that is much too white and male' ?

pixelburp

It's not enough anymore to simply not like a Thing; the Thing has to be a strawman for whatever personally affronts you.

Banana Republic 1

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Do fans really think the STD show creators are trying to 'fix the problematic past that is much too white and male' ?

Apparently so, there a 3 or for bloggers like this. I’d agree about male thing but the other stuff I’d have to disagree with. I think the calibre of writing on this show is just to poor to label it agenda driven.

mikhail

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Apparently so, there a 3 or for bloggers like this. I’d agree about male thing but the other stuff I’d have to disagree with. I think the calibre of writing on this show is just to poor to label it agenda driven.

I think they do have an agenda. I don't really have an issue with that if it's well done. It's not well done.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

I think they do have an agenda. I don't really have an issue with that if it's well done. It's not well done.

Trek should have an agenda. It should always try to hold a mirror up to society.
They are crap at it though

CramCycle

mikhail wrote: »

I think they do have an agenda. I don't really have an issue with that if it's well done. It's not well done.

The YouTubers agenda is to get clicks and get the money in. Nothing else. I haven't watched it but I can imagine the tripe it comes out with having seen similar style channels. It's why I prefer boards and similar to talk about such shows. I may not agree with much of what's said but at least it's not clickbait sh1te with a sole purpose to rile people for views.

Sesshoumaru

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Apparently so, there a 3 or for bloggers like this. I’d agree about male thing but the other stuff I’d have to disagree with. I think the calibre of writing on this show is just to poor to label it agenda driven.

I just watched a few minutes of his live stream. Kind of shocked a bit at his commentary on episode 5. I'm not sure why this guy is watching the TV show at this stage! But there must be audience for this kind content?

ilovesmybrick

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I just watched a few minutes of his live stream. Kind of shocked a bit at his commentary on episode 5. I'm not sure why this guy is watching the TV show at this stage! But there must be audience for this kind content?

He's one of a string of youtubers whose entire stick is beating on any new Star Trek. I've seen a few of his before, and a handful of others, and they seem to be the most miserable, angry Trek watchers. Honestly I think part of it is a bit they're doing for youtube to get clicks.

Banana Republic 1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trek should have an agenda. It should always try to hold a mirror up to society.
They are crap at it though

They are now anyway.

silverharp

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

He's one of a string of youtubers whose entire stick is beating on any new Star Trek. I've seen a few of his before, and a handful of others, and they seem to be the most miserable, angry Trek watchers. Honestly I think part of it is a bit they're doing for youtube to get clicks.

without good reason or with good reason? If we are talking about Nerdrotic , he likes The Expanse , and the Orville and I assume all the old Trek series so by all accounts would be positive to SiFi shows if they stand up

There are clear reasons to see std as a fatally flawed series, why shouldnt people review it so online?

Banana Republic 1

silverharp wrote: »

without good reason or with good reason? If we are talking about Nerdrotic , he likes The Expanse , and the Orville and I assume all the old Trek series so by all accounts would be positive to SiFi shows if they stand up

There are clear reasons to see std as a fatally flawed series, why shouldnt people review it so online?

I agree the show is terrible and I do watch his reviews after I watched shows but I think he goes to far with his opinions at times. He’d say his is being sarcastic but others get a other vibes.

CramCycle

silverharp wrote: »

without good reason or with good reason? If we are talking about Nerdrotic , he likes The Expanse , and the Orville and I assume all the old Trek series so by all accounts would be positive to SiFi shows if they stand up

There are clear reasons to see std as a fatally flawed series, why shouldnt people review it so online?

Because, presuming its like similar reviewers, they don't review the show, the writing, the set pieces, flow, storyline etc. They loosely link something that shouldn't be an issue and often isn't an issue in the show and use it to drive up clicks by offending or pulling in agreeable people. i mean some of the sh1t that these channels come out with. 2 POC in high up positions in the cast, must be a desperate nod to BLM or racism, rather than, it just so happens that 2 POC were the most suitable cast members. A few females in positions of power, clearly a nod to feminism rather than, they are simply characters that happen to be women. It's complete BS and if they were genuine fans, they wouldn't notice these non existent issues, they would just critique the pacing, the poor writing and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a buffoon, and in the modern world it is important that people from various backgrounds, genders, orientations, races etc. are seen in more positive and high up roles but in regards the actual show, this does not affect the show. I am a big fan of the idea, if you can see it, you can be it, but again, this is not ssomething that affects the quality of the show. Christ on a bike, some of the sh1t spouted online, as if it was a statistical anomaly that 2 POC would bump into each other if she had to meet someone (the issue here is that I would have thought bumping into a human first was the statistically unlikely thing), or that there would be a variety of sexes and sexual orientations. People who give out about this stuff only hold a mirror up to themselves and their own lackings, I refuse to line their pockets by clicking on their youtube videos anymore
I'll give kudos to discovery in that they have more varied background characters than I remember in any other trek show ie aliens. Which makes sense, I know humans breed like rabbits but I find it hard to believe that in every ship the federation has we are in the majority.

pixelburp

Negativity sells on YouTube; rants do well, especially these days with "counter programming" material that likes to scream and shout about SJWs or whatever. Listening to one YT creator I subscribe to (Jim Sterling), he has noted that his videos where he really lays into a topic always - always - get more hits than videos with a positive slant. People like complaining, and if they don't do it themselves will get off on watching others screaming about SJWs, spoilers, continuity errors or whatever perceived "outrage" exists in the current zeitgeist. Like CramCycle I refuse to give those kind of "content" creators their hits for simply producing white noise for the sake of stirring the pot.

I doubt half the creators even believe the shít they spout anyway: they just know that ranting about POC in Discovery gets hits from all those utterly perturbed by something so utterly trivial like a bit of inclusivity. They're the same as those Fox editorial presenters; it's all well and good snarking about "woke" this and that, but there's plenty of performative demagogues out there too.

breezy1985

silverharp wrote: »

without good reason or with good reason? If we are talking about Nerdrotic , he likes The Expanse , and the Orville and I assume all the old Trek series so by all accounts would be positive to SiFi shows if they stand up

There are clear reasons to see std as a fatally flawed series, why shouldnt people review it so online?

Does The Expanse ever get much flak online for it's casting. Quite often Holden and Amos are the only 2 white people and the idea that most of the human race is mixed race is a big part of The Expanse universe.

Also if they follow the books there should be a full polygamous crew coming into the show soon

silverharp

CramCycle wrote: »

Because, presuming its like similar reviewers, they don't review the show, the writing, the set pieces, flow, storyline etc. They loosely link something that shouldn't be an issue and often isn't an issue in the show and use it to drive up clicks by offending or pulling in agreeable people. i mean some of the sh1t that these channels come out with. 2 POC in high up positions in the cast, must be a desperate nod to BLM or racism, rather than, it just so happens that 2 POC were the most suitable cast members. A few females in positions of power, clearly a nod to feminism rather than, they are simply characters that happen to be women. It's complete BS and if they were genuine fans, they wouldn't notice these non existent issues, they would just critique the pacing, the poor writing and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a buffoon, and in the modern world it is important that people from various backgrounds, genders, orientations, races etc. are seen in more positive and high up roles but in regards the actual show, this does not affect the show. I am a big fan of the idea, if you can see it, you can be it, but again, this is not ssomething that affects the quality of the show. Christ on a bike, some of the sh1t spouted online, as if it was a statistical anomaly that 2 POC would bump into each other if she had to meet someone (the issue here is that I would have thought bumping into a human first was the statistically unlikely thing), or that there would be a variety of sexes and sexual orientations. People who give out about this stuff only hold a mirror up to themselves and their own lackings, I refuse to line their pockets by clicking on their youtube videos anymore
I'll give kudos to discovery in that they have more varied background characters than I remember in any other trek show ie aliens. Which makes sense, I know humans breed like rabbits but I find it hard to believe that in every ship the federation has we are in the majority.

you might end up straw manning or cherry picking the criticism of the show. No one has a problem with inclusion in the show, Star Trek has always done that. Where recent Trek has gone “woke” is, they cant do it without taking down the white male characters. Contrast with Voyager , Janeway’s character didn’t have to belittle the male characters to somehow make her look good. This Trek does though. My memory is fading of the earlier 2 seasons but you could sum it up as Burham barking at Pike for the entirety. The show just falls into every predictable but boring modern Hollywood trope that just make shows less watchable and only seems to please a minority

Apart from all that clearly whoever made this show had little knowledge or love of any of the Trek history apart from some plot synopsis so a lot of original fans are never going to get past that.

Rotten Tomatoes are giving this series a 50% viewer rating, which is by definition meh so its not pleasing the audience.

breezy1985

silverharp wrote: »

you might end up straw manning or cherry picking the criticism of the show. No one has a problem with inclusion in the show, Star Trek has always done that. Where recent Trek has gone “woke” is, they cant do it without taking down the white male characters. Contrast with Voyager , Janeway’s character didn’t have to belittle the male characters to somehow make her look good. This Trek does though. My memory is fading of the earlier 2 seasons but you could sum it up as Burham barking at Pike for the entirety. The show just falls into every predictable but boring modern Hollywood trope that just make shows less watchable and only seems to please a minority

Apart from all that clearly whoever made this show had little knowledge or love of any of the Trek history apart from some plot synopsis so a lot of original fans are never going to get past that.

Rotten Tomatoes are giving this series a 50% viewer rating, which is by definition meh so its not pleasing the audience.

How are the white male characters belittled on Trek?

pixelburp

breezy1985 wrote: »

Does The Expanse ever get much flak online for it's casting. Quite often Holden and Amos are the only 2 white people and the idea that most of the human race is mixed race is a big part of The Expanse universe.

Also if they follow the books there should be a full polygamous crew coming into the show soon

I think it just comes down to a numbers game: Trek is one of the God Kings of sci-fi in pop culture and so just by sheer volume is a more likely target for Bad Faith YouTube'rs trying desperately to curry some clicks. Same with Star Wars and the freakouts 'cos of Black stormtroopers or the endless intellectual contortions over the dreaded "Mary Sue". The Expanse has always remained relatively niche - to the point it needed saving from cancellation after all - and like you said if these same Rantaholics got a hold of it would have collective aneurisms - especially once they get to the polygamous ship crew

silverharp wrote: »

you might end up straw manning or cherry picking the criticism of the show. No one has a problem with inclusion in the show, Star Trek has always done that. Where recent Trek has gone “woke” is, they cant do it without taking down the white male characters. .

FFS get a grip. Come one. "Taking down the white male characters" It's kind of hard to treat what you say with any degree of rationality when you come out with something so borderline histrionic, paranoid and - TBH - more than a little insecure as that. If you're searching narratives for something to get upset about, it's time to take up reading

Stark

Love how these rants start with "No-one has anything against inclusivity, BUT. blah blah "woke", blah blah blah blah "woke", blah blah, hey why are you all falling asleep on me, you're supposed to be WOKE".

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

ilovesmybrick

silverharp wrote: »

without good reason or with good reason? If we are talking about Nerdrotic , he likes The Expanse , and the Orville and I assume all the old Trek series so by all accounts would be positive to SiFi shows if they stand up

There are clear reasons to see std as a fatally flawed series, why shouldnt people review it so online?

I would say without good reason, it's pure negativity in the main. I would love, love to listen to these guys discussing the first couple of seasons of TNG, DS9, VOY when they came out, because those had major issues also.

There are Trek channels on yourtube that do criticise Discovery in a constructive manner, rather than just ranting into a microphone. Personally I'm quite enjoying TrekCulture, where the Irish lad seems to attempt to criticise where needed, and give it credit where it's due. Though he is very much a fan of the show from what I can see.

On the other side Lore Reloaded, who I do have issues with and is a bit heavier on the criticism of the show, but again, he gives more than just a "this is all awful, not my Trek" diatribes. There is a place for criticsm of Discovery, and I have plenty myself, but criticism solely for the sake of it is pointless and a cynical attempt to get clicks.

pah

I've watched Nerdrotic reviews a few times and I would agree with a lot of what he says. I also think there are plenty of plotholes and bad writing in older trek that seems to get a pass as it's held to this lofty place of Golden age of TV or whatever.

I think he tackles the plot issues and poor writing in STD and Picard but his delivery is a bit too agressive at times. The critical drinker is another one I watch from time to time, more entertaining but still a bit heavy on the diversity criticsm.
There is an audience there for people who want to hear critism as much as praise.

pixelburp

And just for the sake of balance, I do MYSELF listen to voices who hate Discovery, before anyone suggests I'm all about echo chambers; Red Letter Media's Rich & Mike haaaaaaaate the new Trek shows - and have published a number of videos absolutely tearing into the shows. I don't agree with their assessments and think they're one of those TNG junkies with a very specific vision of what Trek "is", but I like their style and them as people to listen to their criticisms

There is intellectual space to criticise - event rant - about the shows, without descending into tedious loops about "woke" or whatever. Apart from anything else, as I've said elsewhere, all of that is just the empty rhetoric of the Office Bore. It's fúcking tedious to read or listen to at this stage and reminds me of being cornered by that co-worker who won't STFU about that personal hill he will die on.

For instance, here's their dissection of some Picard episodes;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyGGW3tqNPY

Whereas, like I said, they love TNG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs13fJuP0F4

breezy1985

pah wrote: »

I've watched Nerdrotic reviews a few times and I would agree with a lot of what he says. I also think there are plenty of plotholes and bad writing in older trek that seems to get a pass as it's held to this lofty place of Golden age of TV or whatever.

I think he tackles the plot issues and poor writing in STD and Picard but his delivery is a bit too agressive at times. The critical drinker is another one I watch from time to time, more entertaining but still a bit heavy on the diversity criticsm.
There is an audience there for people who want to hear critism as much as praise.

One reason old Trek gets a pass is it's mostly stand alone episodes that reset at the end. So if you don't like a single episode you can just forget it or skip it but if one episode of DIS screws up that can sour a whole season. It's just a risk of having an arc

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

FFS get a grip. Come one. "Taking down the white male characters" It's kind of hard to treat what you say with any degree of rationality when you come out with something so borderline histrionic, paranoid and - TBH - more than a little insecure as that. If you're searching narratives for something to get upset about, it's time to take up reading

whats your argument, there is no trend ?, or there is but I shouldnt mention it?

seamus

I'm amused that in a show about a united egalitarian humanity, some people don't blink an eye when the ships are staffed almost entirely by white heterosexual people and led by men.

But be more realistic about what makes up "humanity" and apparently it's "trying too hard".

If anything ST for most of its history has tried too hard to pretend that humans in the future will almost entirely descend from middle-class Americans.

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

whats your argument, there is no trend ?, or there is but I shouldnt mention it?

That there is no trend in the first place and you're being utterly paranoid, operating under what reads like heavy Confirmation Bias; that because you're on high alert for Woke Crimes you're finding discrimination against poor whitey wherever you choose to look. Presumably, reckoning that any character deficiency is some sneaky conspiracy to Make Whites Look Bad. If you're calling it a "trend" you've obviously made your mind up either way.

OK, here are the prominent WM characters. Am I missing any below?
All have had more development and screen time (for better or worse) than the rest of the bridge crew

Paul Stamets: Dude is white AF physically, exceptionally competent, but is an ar$ehole. Happens to be gay so probably discounts him as "too woke"
Gabriel Lorca: Shone in the 1st half of season 1. Complex seeming captain, with moral shade to beat Sisko, who seemed to get the best out of his crew. Ruined by turning into pantomime villain
Christopher Pike: Stole the fecking show but gone.
Spock (Half Human but hey): Really good imagining of Spock but also gone. Probably discounted as "woke-ish" as only half a white male human.

I don't think you can say that there are not enough white male characters. DS9 only had O'Brien and nothing ever triggered people (different times, I know). He also was not in charge.
Voyager only had Tom Paris (at time insufferable) and the holographic Doctor.

I do think that it does stem back to the Lorca heel turn where they took the only "supposedly" straight white guy and made him a cartoon character bad guy.


Do I agree with it? No. Still think that the crew is ridiculously human, to be honest.
But it's the only place I can see them coming from.

Sleepy

A 53:14 long video review of a 55m episode? Thanks but no thanks.

breezy1985

seamus wrote: »

If anything ST for most of its history has tried too hard to pretend that humans in the future will almost entirely descend from middle-class Americans.

All these people who think DIS is too diverse too forget that the Enterprise only had 2 white male straight Americans in the main crew (characters not actors), Ent-D had 1, DS9 0, Voyager 1 and Enterprise NX had 2 and if you add white non American human men it's 4 , 2, 1, 1, 3 and compared to DIS season 1&2 had 1 and S3 O so the numbers never really change much

But yes many actors and the feel of the show was middle class America

Banana Republic 1

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, here are the prominent WM characters. Am I missing any below?
All have had more development and screen time (for better or worse) than the rest of the bridge crew

Paul Stamets: Dude is white AF physically, exceptionally competent, but is an ar$ehole. Happens to be gay so probably discounts him as "too woke"
Gabriel Lorca: Shone in the 1st half of season 1. Complex seeming captain, with moral shade to beat Sisko, who seemed to get the best out of his crew. Ruined by turning into pantomime villain
Christopher Pike: Stole the fecking show but gone.
Spock (Half Human but hey): Really good imagining of Spock but also gone. Probably discounted as "woke-ish" as only half a white male human.

I don't think you can say that there are not enough white male characters. DS9 only had O'Brien and nothing ever triggered people (different times, I know). He also was not in charge.
Voyager only had Tom Paris (at time insufferable) and the holographic Doctor.

I do think that it does stem back to the Lorca heel turn where they took the only "supposedly" straight white guy and made him a cartoon character bad guy.


Do I agree with it? No. Still think that the crew is ridiculously human, to be honest.
But it's the only place I can see them coming from.

I think this whole controversy is as a direct result of very poor screenwriting. All the characters are cliques and those with more than one dimension have characteristics crowbarred in. Either the writers are incapable of being
subtle or they are under the impression the audience needs to be spoon fed.

If they are deliberately being woke then how they've portrayed characters like Stamets or Georgiu does nothing for the cause, if there is such a thing. Personally I thought Pike was constantly undermined and that is happening again with the admiral fella. Some could say there is an agenda in this show because it is a woman who is doing the undermining mostly but I think its just bad screenwriters who have only seen trailers of the Star Trek.

breezy1985

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I think this whole controversy is as a direct result of very poor screenwriting. All the characters are cliques and those with more than one dimension have characteristics crowbarred in. Either the writers are incapable of being
subtle or they are under the impression the audience needs to be spoon fed.

If they are deliberately being woke then how they've portrayed characters like Stamets or Georgiu does nothing for the cause, if there is such a thing. Personally I thought Pike was constantly undermined and that is happening again with the admiral fella. Some could say there is an agenda in this show because it is a woman who is doing the undermining mostly but I think its just bad screenwriters who have only seen trailers of the Star Trek.

The admiral isn't white though so that upsets the argument for half of the people who think there is a "woke agenda"

GreeBo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Most likely cause the cast have made a tidy sum and can afford personal trainers now. I think it makes sense in The Expanse where working on a ship is supposed to be hard work. I would also expect Starfleet officers to be someway fit regardless of how big their arse is I want to know that when the Packleds attack the guy beside me won't be out of breath after 10 seconds

The lads are trim because they are basically all just eating MRE type rations, its not like they are heading to Silvios for a kebab!

breezy1985

GreeBo wrote: »

The lads are trim because they are basically all just eating MRE type rations, its not like they are heading to Silvios for a kebab!

Vat grown kebabs tasked crap anyway

Banana Republic 1

breezy1985 wrote: »

The admiral isn't white though so that upsets the argument for half of the people who think there is a "woke agenda"

Is that a rebuttal aimed at me ?

breezy1985

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Is that a rebuttal aimed at me ?

Not at all. Just pointing it out in general as you had mentioned him

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

That there is no trend in the first place and you're being utterly paranoid, operating under what reads like heavy Confirmation Bias; that because you're on high alert for Woke Crimes you're finding discrimination against poor whitey wherever you choose to look. Presumably, reckoning that any character deficiency is some sneaky conspiracy to Make Whites Look Bad. If you're calling it a "trend" you've obviously made your mind up either way.

Its not a poor whitey thing, Im just trying to figure why I prefer old Trek to new trek, old star wars to new star wars etc. if I put that filter on it, it ticks boxes. There is a pattern there and I dont think its accidental.

Its why the Michael Burham show is boring, she is no Kirk or no Janeway , there is simply no balance in the show and I doubt a show like this would have been written even 10 years ago

Banana Republic 1

silverharp wrote: »

Its not a poor whitey thing, Im just trying to figure why I prefer old Trek to new trek, old star wars to new star wars etc. if I put that filter on it, it ticks boxes. There is a pattern there and I dont think its accidental.

Its why the Michael Burham show is boring, she is no Kirk or no Janeway , there is simply no balance in the show and I doubt a show like this would have been written even 10 years ago

Bad screenwriting is the reason.