[Sul-Matuul]

Meh...i'm a bit tired of these whining videos that people keep throwing out there.
Nothing wrong with being passionate about a show or whatever just stop with all the ridiculous gatekeeping and banging on about canon this and canon that.

Discovery is being made in an era when shows like Game of Thrones, Westworld etc can create a hugely popular and cinematic standard for only 10 or so episodes and are all still at the mercy of ruthless studios looking to kill of anything not making money.
The days of a 24 ep run with a story and background only long term Trek fans will "get" are long gone, studios just cannot do that anymore with some many competitors. They need a show that is aimed at more than just the traditional Trek fans and it also needs to be big and flashy to compete with things like GoT which has really raised the bar for quality.

Also, regarding canonicity...well Trek has ALWAYS played a dangerous game with this aspect of the show. Some many things have been retconned, forgotten, totally changed or simply made up on the spot out of all logical context that we'd need a whole website just to discus them.
So for people to loose their minds over a makeup change for Klingons (something that already happened once before!) or the use of tech that is clearly showcasing a much more massive FX budget (e.g. the original view-screens were meant to be holograms in TOS anyway but tech was not there yet for FX) is just being plain pedantic to the point of silliness.

I do think DSC has some issues with us not really knowing the characters that well outside of a few main ones, but that is something i hope S2 will address. And sometimes it's been a bit disconnected in terms of how an episode flows, with events happening very fast with not quite as much build up as one would like. But that's probably a result of only having 10 episodes to cover everything.
In terms of the cinematography and quality of production it's lightyears ahead of stuff like TNG and even the later ENT.
And really, a lot of what DSC is covering is an area of time we've got no real experience with. We just had the odd allusion to what the Klingons are like, or a mention of the early years of Starfleet. But no real exploration of that period to look back on. So i think the show deserves a chance to do its thing.

[LogicalLeopard]

In terms of the cinematography and quality of production it's lightyears ahead of stuff like TNG and even the later ENT.
And really, a lot of what DSC is covering is an area of time we've got no real experience with. We just had the odd allusion to what the Klingons are like, or a mention of the early years of Starfleet. But no real exploration of that period to look back on. So i think the show deserves a chance to do its thing.

I agree with everything you said, basically. But this last bit brings up an interesting fact I heard someone mention on another forum. A lot of things we know about Klingons come from Worf. But Worf is not the most reliable narrator, because he's grown up outside of actual Klingon society, and has romanticized it to a high degree. We hear Worf talk about honor and everything, but when he actually interacts with Klingons, such as the ones on the High Council, their actions are frequently less than honorable. And like you said, some things we know about Klingons have been alluded to in the shows, but now we have a chance to see some of that stuff actually occur.

[Vox]

The thing with Canon is that most of the other shows and changes that were made in them came in shows set after the one that came before it or at least during the same time period in the case of TNG, DS9 and VOY. Enterprise was a prequel series and although they made their own changes in terms of most of the already established canon the big picture stuff they mostly kept in line for the sake of continuity. DSC doesn't apply the same...care as some might say in that regard, like Burnham, fine as a character on her own but if you were to watch all the shows in chronological order starting with DSC and moving through VOY, Spock has a sister that once DSC ends will never be mentioned again like she never existed.

The JJ universe can get away with whatever it wants because it's an alternate universe, which is fine. Anything they did on DSC would also be fine if it was an alternate universe, the issue for a lot of people is that it's officially the Prime Timeline and if they say this happens and that happens without at least having little hints that the future of the Trek universe remans intact there's a lot of damage that can be done for something that has had a passionate fanbase for half a century.

But with the way things are it all depends on your own head canon to a degree, just because CBS and the showrunners say that it's set in the Prime Universe if what they do offends you so much just imagine it's an alternate universe and keep it seperate from the Prime one if that's your issue. I liked season 1 of Discovery and once I start watching Season 2 it will be interesting to see what they do this year.

[Sul-Matuul]

I agree with everything you said, basically. But this last bit brings up an interesting fact I heard someone mention on another forum. A lot of things we know about Klingons come from Worf. But Worf is not the most reliable narrator, because he's grown up outside of actual Klingon society, and has romanticized it to a high degree. We hear Worf talk about honor and everything, but when he actually interacts with Klingons, such as the ones on the High Council, their actions are frequently less than honorable. And like you said, some things we know about Klingons have been alluded to in the shows, but now we have a chance to see some of that stuff actually occur.

Oh totally.
Worf is looking at the Klingons through his "rose tinted glasses" almost as he sees what he aspires to be seen as; the honorable warrior from the race of honorable and powerful warriors.
But in reality the first Klingons we ever saw were more like Romulans than the Klingons of TNG era. And even in the TMP films they were hardly all the shining examples of honour Worf proclaimed, nor the deadly warriors people assumed they were either. They fly round shooting space junk or helpless science vessels and freighters. Or they are plotting with Romulans. Or they are even chasing for peave with their supposed "sworn enemies".
And where to begin on TNG era Klingons.....lol. They seem to have no issues acting in the shadows like the Duras house, or chasing down scientific advances to better themselves. Hardly shining examples of what Worf portrays them as.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing with Canon is that most of the other shows and changes that were made in them came in shows set after the one that came before it or at least during the same time period in the case of TNG, DS9 and VOY. Enterprise was a prequel series and although they made their own changes in terms of most of the already established canon the big picture stuff they mostly kept in line for the sake of continuity. DSC doesn't apply the same...care as some might say in that regard, like Burnham, fine as a character on her own but if you were to watch all the shows in chronological order starting with DSC and moving through VOY, Spock has a sister that once DSC ends will never be mentioned again like she never existed.

But the thing with Burnham is that we don't know what will happen to her and Spock. We have no idea where or how long the DSC story will go on. If it lasts 8 seasons like GoT then we could have any number of reasons why she is not mentioned ever again. She might even die this season for all we know and we get a new lead character.
I mean we have a Short Trek that shows DSC gets abandonned in space for 1000 years so they have a lot of story to tell and comparing a clearly unfinished story with decades old background is foolish and doesn't give the show a chance to have its say on things.

[Arno12]

I like Discovery, I liked DS9, I liked TNG from season 3 on wards, I liked the last season of Enterprise, I hated Voyager, TOS was hit or miss for me, though truth be told when I first started trek the shift between klingons from TOS to TNG was a Bit Jarring for me..

[Shadowmeph]

I first started trek the shift between klingons from TOS to TNG was a Bit Jarring for me..

same thing I still am not sure how they pulled that off now in Discovery they did it again.

I am not racist or gender bios But one of the things for me is that they seem to be push Strong Black woman I have nothing against race or gender hey I would love to have such a woman in my life so that I dont have to handle most things . To me it seems that it is the new thing or Fad at least in North American because of what is going on less woman in power ok Discovery story linewe should check that box checked next ..Black people not being treated as equal ok Discovery story line decided lets just get a Strong Black woman as main character. to me it just seems to fake. Star trek was the first TV show to have multiculturalism everyone was treated as equals which was probably part of the reason why TOS didn't make it to far because it was a little ahead of its time . the Discovery writers seem to be trying to please people. I do enjoy the story's ( I try to forget that is supposed to be Star trek) and I dont care what race gender or whatever just follow the Cannon please if you cant do that dont call it Star Trek if you are going to be using other characters from the Star trek past or technology please dont change it to much.

[LogicalLeopard]

The thing with Canon is that most of the other shows and changes that were made in them came in shows set after the one that came before it or at least during the same time period in the case of TNG, DS9 and VOY. Enterprise was a prequel series and although they made their own changes in terms of most of the already established canon the big picture stuff they mostly kept in line for the sake of continuity. DSC doesn't apply the same...care as some might say in that regard, like Burnham, fine as a character on her own but if you were to watch all the shows in chronological order starting with DSC and moving through VOY, Spock has a sister that once DSC ends will never be mentioned again like she never existed.

Well, honestly, Spock never mentioning he had a sister is the MOST canonological, Spockish thing in Discovery! *LOL* Spock is notoriously private about his private life. Let's not forget the most famous lost sibling, Sybok. From Star Trek Five:

SPOCK: You do not understand me, Captain. Sybok, also, is a son of Sarek.
KIRK: He's your brother brother? You made that up.
SPOCK: I did not.
KIRK: You did too. Sybok couldn't possibly be your brother because I happen to know for a fact that you don't have a brother.
SPOCK: Technically, you are correct. I do not have a brother.
KIRK: You see?
SPOCK: I have a half-brother.
KIRK: I've got to sit down.

So, at this time, Spock has been Jim's friend for YEARS. Kirk says that he knows for a FACT that he doesnt have a brother. And Spock said hes right, he has a half brother. Burnham is essentially less than that, shes a foster sister. Or at least that's what humans call it. Would a Vulcan continue an orphan raised in their house a sibling of any type? But that's not all. Kirk should be used to it, because he gave him no information about his parents beforehand either. From Journey to Babel:


KIRK: Our pleasure, madam. As soon as you're settled I'll arrange a tour of the ship. Mister Spock will conduct you.
SAREK: I'd prefer another guide, Captain.
KIRK: As you wish, Ambassador. Mister Spock, we'll leave orbit in two hours. Would you care to beam down and visit your parents?
SPOCK: Captain, Ambassador Sarek and his wife are my parents.

No, "Hey Captain, just so you know, the Vulcan ambassador beaming aboard is my father, and were estranged. It would be best to limit our interaction." He just left him hanging. He also didnt tell Kirk he had a fiance either. Maybe this is a Vulcan thing, because Vulcans didnt tell humans about a serious medical condition that would arise from a lack of mating, or that the alien race that went to war with Earth were actually an offshoot of Vulcans.

So basically, if you watch Trek in order, you'll see an emotional Spock on a mission with the Enterprise to Talos IV, you'll see (a presumably) somewhat emotional Spock who tells Pike about his foster sister, and then you'll see some shift in Spock where he becomes colder and more logical and doesnt tell his new captain about his parents, wife, or half brother, in that order.

The producers have said they will explain why Burnham isn't mentioned by Spock again, as I recall. So I hope this season shows how he adopted a more logical path, period, and became more closed off.

But with the way things are it all depends on your own head canon to a degree, just because CBS and the showrunners say that it's set in the Prime Universe if what they do offends you so much just imagine it's an alternate universe and keep it seperate from the Prime one if that's your issue. I liked season 1 of Discovery and once I start watching Season 2 it will be interesting to see what they do this year.

I totally agree with this. Sometimes it takes a shift in head canon to digest things better.

- - - Updated - - -

same thing I still am not sure how they pulled that off now in Discovery they did it again.

I am not racist or gender bios But one of the things for me is that they seem to be push Strong Black woman I have nothing against race or gender hey I would love to have such a woman in my life so that I dont have to handle most things . To me it seems that it is the new thing or Fad at least in North American because of what is going on less woman in power ok Discovery story linewe should check that box checked next ..Black people not being treated as equal ok Discovery story line decided lets just get a Strong Black woman as main character. to me it just seems to fake. Star trek was the first TV show to have multiculturalism everyone was treated as equals which was probably part of the reason why TOS didn't make it to far because it was a little ahead of its time . the Discovery writers seem to be trying to please people. I do enjoy the story's ( I try to forget that is supposed to be Star trek) and I dont care what race gender or whatever just follow the Cannon please if you cant do that dont call it Star Trek if you are going to be using other characters from the Star trek past or technology please dont change it to much.

Honest question: If you dont care about gender or race, then why does it matter that Burnham is a black woman, or strong black woman? How is that "fake?" You said that the Discovery creators are trying to please people. Weren't they doing that with TOS as well? It had minorities, true, but Kirk was intentionally created as a strong white man, as were virtually all the heroes of the time. The character of Number One was intentionally axed because she was a strong white woman.

Minorities and women in leading roles is not the "new fad." We have simply progressed to the point in our society where people are more accepting of these characters in major roles. Some people.

[Three of Seven]

The one positive thing I can say Discovery has done is spark debate, no matter what you opinion on the show, it has gotten people talking, which is a good thing!

[Taku]

TL;DR:

I'm not that deep into it.
I'm out.

[Shadowmeph]

Honest question: If you dont care about gender or race, then why does it matter that Burnham is a black woman, or strong black woman? How is that "fake?" You said that the Discovery creators are trying to please people. Weren't they doing that with TOS as well? It had minorities, true, but Kirk was intentionally created as a strong white man, as were virtually all the heroes of the time. The character of Number One was intentionally axed because she was a strong white woman.

Minorities and women in leading roles is not the "new fad." We have simply progressed to the point in our society where people are more accepting of these characters in major roles. Some people.

well it is a very poor word used here Fad it doesn't matter II am just stating that if you look at things like Black lives matter and all the racism that is apparently all over especially in the US I dont see it where I live but it is all advertised every where on the news every were Woman dont make as much money as men only a small percentage of boss's are female and then they start talking about Blacks. to me it doesn't matter but it seems to me that the writers of discovery are choosing the supposed minority's like woman that are strong and of colour is all I am saying it is like a again poor choice or word Fad . if it were something else going on say purple people existed and they were transgender then I bet that the writers would have put in a Purple transgender person as Burny is all I am saying to me it is lazy character writing why not be more original in character development of the main character.

[LogicalLeopard]

well it is a very poor word used here Fad it doesn't matter II am just stating that if you look at things like Black lives matter and all the racism that is apparently all over especially in the US I dont see it where I live but it is all advertised every where on the news every were Woman dont make as much money as men only a small percentage of boss's are female and then they start talking about Blacks. to me it doesn't matter but it seems to me that the writers of discovery are choosing the supposed minority's like woman that are strong and of colour is all I am saying it is like a again poor choice or word Fad . if it were something else going on say purple people existed and they were transgender then I bet that the writers would have put in a Purple transgender person as Burny is all I am saying to me it is lazy character writing why not be more original in character development of the main character.

Just on a personal note, it always amazes me that people see characters of color or female characters as being agenda driven, and fail to recognize that the exclusion of these characters in the past was definitely agenda driven. It disappoints me that in a series like Star Trek, in which humanity has transcended things like racism and sexism (at least by TNG times), the diverse characters are treated as characters that fulfill some sort of agenda, instead of fulfilling the purpose of the series.

Acceptance of black, white, Asian, Male, female, and yes, even purple transgendered persons is kind of what Star Trek is about. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, as the Vulcans say. But it seems like some of the fans are disturbed by that. This is a very interesting time to be a Star Trek fan.

[Sul-Matuul]

I don’t think Burnham being black or a woman is remotely relevant to anything. Yes she is those things but they do not affect her behaviour in any way. She’s not going round trying to act like a space age Rosa Parks or some sort of feminist. In fact the only aspect of her character that is played up is really her being a mutineer and also her Vulcan upbringing. Literally nothing else about her is made to be important so I always find all these claims of SJW stuff utter tripe.
Same with the claims about homosexuality being covered with the relationship between the Doctor and Stamets; it’s literally no different to the relationship Paris and Torres had in VOY but yet people loose their minds over it.
Honestly I think if you get wound up by seeing what you claim to be SJW actions being taken then I think you’re probably not as open minded and tolerant as you think.

[LogicalLeopard]

I don’t think Burnham being black or a woman is remotely relevant to anything. Yes she is those things but they do not affect her behaviour in any way. She’s not going round trying to act like a space age Rosa Parks or some sort of feminist. In fact the only aspect of her character that is played up is really her being a mutineer and also her Vulcan upbringing. Literally nothing else about her is made to be important so I always find all these claims of SJW stuff utter tripe.
Same with the claims about homosexuality being covered with the relationship between the Doctor and Stamets; it’s literally no different to the relationship Paris and Torres had in VOY but yet people loose their minds over it.
Honestly I think if you get wound up by seeing what you claim to be SJW actions being taken then I think you’re probably not as open minded and tolerant as you think.

This.

People get so wound up by this whole "SJW" concept, that it's even bled over to Star Trek, of all places. The character of Burnham's race and gender has no effect on character itself. None. She could have easily been a white man, a Hispanic man, an Asian woman, it doesn't matter. However, in real life, the casting of a black woman as a lead and the casting of gay men has excited people who crave representation. It's important to remember that diversity is not something that people are just "doing now," it was something that people are no longer PREVENTING. The reason why shows weren't diverse before is because of ACTIVE racism, sexism, and homophobia.

These are all things that both the concept of Star Trek, and the production of Star Trek has always been against. So why is it a sticking point with fans? They say that having a black woman as the lead feels forced. And that having a gay couple feels forced. Have we forgotten that Gene Roddenberry literally FORCED black and Asian characters onto the show? The first interracial kiss was literally FORCED by William Shatner. Star Trek should always be ahead of the curve, production wise, but it fell sadly behind the curve as far as gay people. Seems like production wise, and character wise, Star Trek is literally all about social justice.

Which is why I say, this is an interesting time to be a Star Trek fan, when the whole idea behind the show has become vilified in modern society.

[Three of Seven]

I don't care if Burnham was white, brown, blue, or leopard print, the character at the writing level is bad, she's like Wesley Crusher if he got all the screentime. People making an issue of race and/or gender are not the overwhelming concerns raised in this thread against Discovery, a lot of the points are based on canon, writing, and how they have changed things that shouldn't have been changed.

Characters are only as good as what the writers produce, and in the case of Burnham, the writing is awful, does not support the strengths of the actor, and do nothing to help the character. Maybe it's written in a way some people like, that's fine, personally, her character is one of the reasons I don't like Discovery, she is front and centre of everything, and is never wrong, this is bad writing, even Data and Seven of Nine were wrong.

[Mack]

As I mentioned in my post previously - in the name of 'change', stretching it to other side of graph and making the change drastic - then criticizing ALL old trekkies for not liking it, is ridiculous. But captain obvious, yes, there is a shift in the opinions of the demographic - surprised?

That has nothing to do with age,color,race of a character and more with the continuity and the way its being written and directed. I ain't got issues with cinematography, fancy animations - all welcome. I'm someone who likes sequels based on already set precedence / continuity. Yes previous Trek also did some changes (esp DS9 comes under fire where it shows the war side of Fed) but there have been so many episodes within exploring the whole concept of morality despite being in war of an individual (In the Pale Moonlight). That was change while respecting the already set precedence all-in-all. The over-all precedence of other shows was still respected and in-effect till the events of DS9 as well within the show. Precedence was respected by show writers. Precedence is very key for me, what's the point otherwise?

Discovery is not even on the same graph for me, it's something completely different.