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

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.

breezy1985

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

Then maybe you don't like it cause its boring as you say. Why does it need a deeper reason.
Why yap on about men being belittled

~Rebel~

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Bad screenwriting is the reason.

Yes, but it’s more than that... the writing is bad at what we want it to achieve, but I don’t think old trek fans are the target. The target now is a younger audience who likely never really followed the old series. It’s for fans of arrow, and pretty little liars, and they’ve staffed their writers room accordingly.

pixelburp

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

You don't like the show, that's OK. Most here don't like Burnham TBH, you're not remotely alone on that front - including myself - but contending that there's some deeper cultural reason that's skewing the show is ludicrous - doubly so as you're the one who pondered some kind of anti-white-guy bias in the writing. Which is just daft. The writing is bad with Burnham, it's not specific to her or some dark agenda trying to undermine things.

Banana Republic 1

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yes, but it’s more than that... the writing is bad at what we want it to achieve, but I don’t think old trek fans are the target. The target now is a younger audience who likely never really followed the old series. It’s for fans of arrow, and pretty little liars, and they’ve staffed their writers room accordingly.

I think so too which makes me really worry about the future of humanity. Perhaps that film Idocracy will be right. :eek:

breezy1985

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yes, but it’s more than that... the writing is bad at what we want it to achieve, but I don’t think old trek fans are the target. The target now is a younger audience who likely never really followed the old series. It’s for fans of arrow, and pretty little liars, and they’ve staffed their writers room accordingly.

Much like confessed Star Wars but not Trek fan JJ Abrams attempt this is Star Trek written by people who are not on the same page as a lot of older Trek fans. Which is fine that's the show runners choice but I don't see us all still getting teary eyed over it in 30 yrs everytime we hear the theme tune or see a character dropped as an Easter egg or special guest the way Picard or Kirk's crew now get.

I don't think there will be a Lower Decks in 30 yrs about Discovery

~Rebel~

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I think so too which makes me really worry about the future of humanity. Perhaps that film Idocracy will be right. :eek:

I wouldn’t go that far... there’s plenty of brilliantly written intelligent TV out there - much more than there used to be in the days of TNG.

Just because this particular show is dumber than its older franchise variants doesn’t mean humanity is. Presumably they just saw a gap in the market for the slightly younger - and much wider - audience who expect more action and drama and aren’t bothered about Trek continuity and legacy.

It’s a shame, but I guess the things we love about Trek don’t appeal to a wide enough market to justify the budget it needs to be kept up to date. Hopefully Disco is bringing in enough money that they can give us little lower budget side shows like Lower Decks that satisfy the long term fans.

pixelburp

There's a good reason why this era is called "The golden age of TV"; standards have increased to the point where the truly creative, intelligent and informative work is on TV - not Film. Audience intelligence levels are generally considered much higher than they used to be and it can't be overstated just how awful TV scriptwriting used to be fadó fadó. TV Drama was generally quite insipid and obvious -it's not without reason very little persists to this day in the zeitgeist.

Even TNG wasn't flawless; maybe the scripts were "about" something, but it still had its fair share of knuckle-dragging idiocy by way of rapey space ghosts or schlock straight out of Dr. Who. The human drama was often utterly lacking a pulse and felt like the writers had never met another human before.

seamus

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

There are probably a lot of reasons why tbh. Same reasons why we tend to prefer the music of our youth rather than newer stuff.

Old Trek brings up nostalgia, not just of Trek, but of who you were at the time, what was going on at the time. If you were young, it's a more carefree time when you had less obligations, were more idealistic and less critical of those onscreen.

I don't really like TOS. There, I said it. The scripts are clunky and disjointed, the dialogue absolutely unrealistic and much of the acting completley over the top.

There is also the aspect here that there is more talk about Star Trek now than there was back then. When you saw the latest TNG you couldn't go online to discuss it with others, or watch a review of the episode that's longer than the bloody episode itself (FFS).
It's like when you come out of a movie that you enjoyed, and your mate immediately says, "Fvck that was crap. This scene was stupid, that scene was unrealistic, and what's up with the secondary character's mother?"

Your view of the movie is immediately poisoned and you come to the conclusion that you didn't enjoy it that much, cos your mate makes good points.

But if you didn't speak to him, you would have blown past those bits and been able to just enjoy it.

I think the same happens with Star Trek tbh, except instead of your mate, it's a few hundred Star Trek fans who have just decided that DIS is heresy and will take everyone opportunity to **** on it.

That doesn't mean you have to like Burnham or anyone else. I always found Worf the least accessible character in TNG* and would think, "Ugh, it's a Worf episode". Likewise any away team missions involving Riker wearing "casual" clothes....just no.

And I'm sure others felt the same at times, without allowing it to spoil the entire show for them. Burnham is a pain in the hole, but the growth of the rest of the cast is more than making up for that IMHO.

*Totally redeemed in DS9 though

Banana Republic 1

seamus wrote: »

There are probably a lot of reasons why tbh. Same reasons why we tend to prefer the music of our youth rather than newer stuff.

Old Trek brings up nostalgia, not just of Trek, but of who you were at the time, what was going on at the time. If you were young, it's a more carefree time when you had less obligations, were more idealistic and less critical of those onscreen.

I don't really like TOS. There, I said it. The scripts are clunky and disjointed, the dialogue absolutely unrealistic and much of the acting completley over the top.

There is also the aspect here that there is more talk about Star Trek now than there was back then. When you saw the latest TNG you couldn't go online to discuss it with others, or watch a review of the episode that's longer than the bloody episode itself (FFS).
It's like when you come out of a movie that you enjoyed, and your mate immediately says, "Fvck that was crap. This scene was stupid, that scene was unrealistic, and what's up with the secondary character's mother?"

Your view of the movie is immediately poisoned and you come to the conclusion that you didn't enjoy it that much, cos your mate makes good points.

But if you didn't speak to him, you would have blown past those bits and been able to just enjoy it.

I think the same happens with Star Trek tbh, except instead of your mate, it's a few hundred Star Trek fans who have just decided that DIS is heresy and will take everyone opportunity to **** on it.

That doesn't mean you have to like Burnham or anyone else. I always found Worf the least accessible character in TNG* and would think, "Ugh, it's a Worf episode". Likewise any away team missions involving Riker wearing "casual" clothes....just no.

And I'm sure others felt the same at times, without allowing it to spoil the entire show for them. Burnham is a pain in the hole, but the growth of the rest of the cast is more than making up for that IMHO.

*Totally redeemed in DS9 though

I always thought worf was belittled myself on TNG as being no more than a pee brained savage. I would take an episode of std over a DS9 or voyager pan pipes episode or a DS9 Vic Fontaine one, those were criminal.

breezy1985

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I always thought worf was belittled myself on TNG as being no more than a pee brained savage. I would take an episode of std over a DS9 or voyager pan pipes episode or a DS9 Vic Fontaine one, those were criminal.

How dare you belittle Vic