Picard, and Disc had major issues focusing on one character. It tried to have a massive arch which then failed horribly in the eyes of some (S2 Picard, even S1 picard had me like wtf) Disc was fun as hell, and I enjoyed the time jump. Beyond that though, it just… Stops being coherent.
Compared to Voy, DS9, or TNG where they do have an over reaching arxh, but every show is just a story, and the plot maybe progresses just a bit. Worked great, we got to love all the characters, and they each had their own personal touch you could fall in love with.
All of that to say; LD, and SNW are top tier 10/10 and don’t have the issue of centering the show on one character. Please give me more of that.
Don’t worry, I’m not the type of person you think I am. I have queer friends. My partner’s a bi she/they. I drive a Prius. I’m gonna vote for the woman of color here in a few weeks. Pretty cool of you to make that assumption, though.
I actually really liked Disco S1 and kinda S2. But the whole “one special person across time and space” thing got kinda old. One person is always right. No matter what. That and the Discovery-is-special-ex-machina Burn alongside the ridiculous constantly-reconfiguring-geometry ships made me lose interest. I hear half the Disco bridge crew had like zero character development in the last season, and they just didn’t even bother having Detmer there for a lot of it.
Strange New Worlds? Lower Decks? Hell yeah. Perfect Star Trek. 10/10. Disco and Picard? Trying too hard to make “prestige TV” and ending up forgetting why Star Trek is good: ensemble casts working together.
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.
If one person says hey we should do this thing, and everyone else says no we shouldn’t based on the information we have, and it turns out that the one person was right because of things nobody knew at the time, that’s a boring plot device. When it happened multiple times, and then kinda all the time, I stopped watching.
Kirk and Sisko sometimes disagreed with their crews. Sometimes they were wrong. Burnham was always right. And it got old.
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.
My dude, I am literally praising the writing they did on DS9 and LD with Sisko and Freeman. Two people of color who are in charge.
I am not criticizing Disco or the writers for the existence of the characters. I think it is very cool that there’s a woman of color running the ship. And that the mushroom engineer has a loving marriage with his doctor husband. And that they picked up a cool enby person with a ghost boyfriend who plays the cello.
I am not criticizing the existence of these characters. I am criticizing the execution.
I am saying that the writing was bad, the plots made no sense, and the characters’ motivations were all over the place. And yeah, the main character thing was bothersome. Not very Star Trek. The show about an ensemble cast doing space stuff.
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.
That’s not a counterpoint that’s just like, your opinion, man.
I don’t suppose you can elaborate on what makes a main character bad without using the word woke?
Picard, and Disc had major issues focusing on one character. It tried to have a massive arch which then failed horribly in the eyes of some (S2 Picard, even S1 picard had me like wtf) Disc was fun as hell, and I enjoyed the time jump. Beyond that though, it just… Stops being coherent.
Compared to Voy, DS9, or TNG where they do have an over reaching arxh, but every show is just a story, and the plot maybe progresses just a bit. Worked great, we got to love all the characters, and they each had their own personal touch you could fall in love with.
All of that to say; LD, and SNW are top tier 10/10 and don’t have the issue of centering the show on one character. Please give me more of that.
Don’t worry, I’m not the type of person you think I am. I have queer friends. My partner’s a bi she/they. I drive a Prius. I’m gonna vote for the woman of color here in a few weeks. Pretty cool of you to make that assumption, though.
I actually really liked Disco S1 and kinda S2. But the whole “one special person across time and space” thing got kinda old. One person is always right. No matter what. That and the Discovery-is-special-ex-machina Burn alongside the ridiculous constantly-reconfiguring-geometry ships made me lose interest. I hear half the Disco bridge crew had like zero character development in the last season, and they just didn’t even bother having Detmer there for a lot of it.
Strange New Worlds? Lower Decks? Hell yeah. Perfect Star Trek. 10/10. Disco and Picard? Trying too hard to make “prestige TV” and ending up forgetting why Star Trek is good: ensemble casts working together.
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.
If one person says hey we should do this thing, and everyone else says no we shouldn’t based on the information we have, and it turns out that the one person was right because of things nobody knew at the time, that’s a boring plot device. When it happened multiple times, and then kinda all the time, I stopped watching.
Kirk and Sisko sometimes disagreed with their crews. Sometimes they were wrong. Burnham was always right. And it got old.
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.
My dude, I am literally praising the writing they did on DS9 and LD with Sisko and Freeman. Two people of color who are in charge.
I am not criticizing Disco or the writers for the existence of the characters. I think it is very cool that there’s a woman of color running the ship. And that the mushroom engineer has a loving marriage with his doctor husband. And that they picked up a cool enby person with a ghost boyfriend who plays the cello.
I am not criticizing the existence of these characters. I am criticizing the execution.
I am saying that the writing was bad, the plots made no sense, and the characters’ motivations were all over the place. And yeah, the main character thing was bothersome. Not very Star Trek. The show about an ensemble cast doing space stuff.
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.
It is equally baffling to me that because you don’t understand why I have an opinion, it must be because I’m a racist.
I’m kinda done trying to explain to you why I have an opinion. It’s not that I haven’t explained it well enough. It’s that you refuse to believe me.
I have not accused you of being racist, just pointing out that you are repeating the exact same “concerns” that racists frequently do.