Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9017286" data-attributes="member: 18">And I think that's where Discovery has been somewhat weak. Adira really stands out for me - they're doing a lot of representation there, great! - but the character is just blehhhh. And they didn't have to be - using a Trill as a non-binary, great, that makes sense on multiple levels, and Trek has touched on it before ("old man") - but the writers made Adira just very young and quite boring/annoying.Whereas Stamets/Culber were great. I mean, I gotta be honest I love a gay couple a little more than a straight one, but either way. But I never heard any of the "THEYRE SHOVING GAY IN MAH FACE!" like you're saying. Not on actual Trek forums or reddits or the like. Not from Trekkies - and not really on general forums even, actually. The only thing I heard a lot of (justified) complaints about was Kill Your Gays. They just weren't even near the center of ire.Burnham has been hampered by the writing and bizarre-yet-dull character decisions, and ended up as probably the least-interesting Black character in Trek, well, okay, after Mayweather from ENT. Sometimes they manage to get her to shine for a bit (more as the show goes on), but too often they just write her as nearly bland and boring as Archer was, but in a different way. Also Booker, really the blandest supposed "rogue" in sci-fi history, which is saying something given how many utterly bland "rogues" we've had. They gave him like nothing to work with, because he's such an all-round nice guy in terms of what his character actually does yet the show is trying to act like he's a dashing rogue. That's just bad writing.When characters are really solid, people don't start saying tokenism (an accusation rarely coming from the right, I note - the right doesn't care if representation is worthwhile) - and again I have literally never heard that about Stamets/Culber. Or Tilly, who let's be really real, was "fat" representation, something we'd basically never seen in Trek before. Because people loved her though, that didn't get commented on (or rather, a few people tried a "there won't be overweight or fat people in the future!" lines but were shut down so hard that never came up again after the first few weeks of the show).Also again, let's not confuse whole fake-ass Trek fans saying stuff like "Trek has gone woke!!!" deal, which was always essentially false flag stuff because those people obviously were not Trekkies given Trek was always high-grade "woke" for its era, with weak characters.What is unfair is when people act like it's worse than ENT/VOY, and there has been plenty of that.Paris and Torres were terrible characters, because they chose to write both with terrible personalities. Paris is arrogant, pushy, and just wildly slappable. He has no real likeable or redeeming traits. He's not even good at stuff for the most part. He's like a weedy, unattractive, uncool, nerdy dude who thinks he's James Bond. Those people exist - the UK is full of them. But I don't need them on TV being presented as if I should respect them. Torres was just he biggest downer long-time character Trek has ever had. Just endlessly moaning and moping. I get that Worf did a bit of that too, but he managed to increasingly undermine it with a twinkle in his eye as time went on and eventually they just wrote him that way. They could have had both grow as people significantly, change, improve, but they mostly didn't after the initial S1/2 changes.Chakotay was was a wildly racist stereotype based on the work of a literally-fake pretend Native American, and who only survived because the actor had infinitely more charisma than the awful character. Neelix... clown with pedo vibes. Why did you make "pedo vibes" into a character on your show, Berman, Piller? Explain yourselves. Why did you go to considerable lengths to make like a clown-ish character (bad enough to start with) also have massive pedo vibes? Why?!?!!??!!??! WHY?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!? It's like they were doing a bit. Again, the actor tried to make what he could of it, but goddamn, the material he was working with. He's got like one good episode (the war crimes one - we don't talk about Tuvix).Poor Harry man, they meant to kill him off, but they found out younger teenage girls absolutely loved him because he was the living ideal of "non-threatening boy". It was totally real and amazing because my much-younger sister would like sit down and watch VOY if she saw Harry, and actually watched it with me for a couple of seasons. But they also failed to give him any real character development.VOY was always in trouble because they didn't have many good/likeable characters, in stark stark contrast to TOS/TNG/DS9. Imagine a VOY where they didn't bring Seven on to the show? I don't think they'd have made it five seasons. Yeah she was objectified and sexualized by the ridiculous outfits, but they also gave her an actual character, who was genuinely compelling and yes it did kind of become the Seven/Janeway/EMH show and I guess that was for the best.</blockquote>

Verification