It's just weird to me that you and so many others frequently direct these same criticisms only at this one specific character? Discovery is bad because it has a main character? It's bad because that character is "special?" Am I meant to understand that you don't like any shows with a main character or "special" characters? If so I apologize for the interrogation, but again, it just seems odd that I have never in my life until this one specific show heard the existence of a "main character" described as a bad thing.
If I can produce examples from the show of Burhnam being wrong would it change your opinion? Because while I'm sure you do not mean it this way, it feels icky to single out this particular character for the crime of "being special" when that "criticism" is (in my experience) almost never applied to other characters who's actors have lower amounts of melanin in their skin.
I get what you're going for, but any in-universe question that asks "why did the writers choose to..." can be answered the same way: "because the writers chose to do it that way". There is no evidence (as far as I know) that any of the writers were trying to communicate the idea that Federation ideals were not resilient to external forces. in fact, seasons 3 and 4 were explicitly about the Federation's ideals being able to sustain after one cataclysmic event, and be necessary to thwart another.
I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners’ head-space.
With all due respect, I think this is more likely an example of you looking for concepts to support your preconceived notions. Example A:
I believe you, but I also remember those exact same words being applied to Sisko and Kirk, and in my experience they were not ever presented as a bad thing when applied to Kirk.
I'm actually not a big Discovery fan, but my reasoning has nothing to do with the average screentime of a particular character.
It's a really good well made philosophical movie, it just doesn't have a lot of the action and drama I think a lot of fans expect in a "movie". I appreciate that Trek's film debut wasn't just some extended episode but a bold™ move.
I was just thinking the same thing. It's rare that the bullshit from tech companies is so quickly identified packaged and labeled like that (even if we are still calling it "AI").
I agree! Don't run your mouth in public then complain when someone asks you how do you know the thing you're running your mouth about is true. If in 2034 someone who has never seen snow wants more evidence than some idiot on the Internet's feelings on the topic then asking is totally justified.
I do not think the future of the fediverse lies in general purpose instances but that said, IMO Beehaw is the gold standard of a general purpose instance.
Corgana @ Corgana @startrek.website Posts 76Comments 1,285Joined 2 yr. ago
It's just weird to me that you and so many others frequently direct these same criticisms only at this one specific character? Discovery is bad because it has a main character? It's bad because that character is "special?" Am I meant to understand that you don't like any shows with a main character or "special" characters? If so I apologize for the interrogation, but again, it just seems odd that I have never in my life until this one specific show heard the existence of a "main character" described as a bad thing.