It’s extremely telling that, for all the nonsense people are finding to condemn Academy for, I haven’t seen anyone leveling “Mary Sue” complaints at Caleb.
He’s been living on the streets since he was a child, but he has a heart of gold. He’s great at hand to hand combat. He’s an expert hacker and can effortlessly penetrate Starfleet computer systems. He’s the best debater in class by a mile. The school chancellor is obsessed with him. The visiting space princess falls instantly in love with him.
But instead of ragging on the objectively OP main character, it’s all about Ake and how she sits wrong. Meanwhile I’ll never stop hearing about how perfect Michael Burnham apparently was, even if her series showed her to be a perennial fuck up. The double standard is legitimately insane.
Meanwhile I’ll never stop hearing about how perfect Michael Burnham apparently was, even if her series showed her to be a perennial fuck up.
THANK YOU. putting aside how many people weren’t engaging with the show in good faith in the first place, you had to have been watching a completely different show to walk away with that impression. the whole point of her character in the early show is that she thought she was an infallible protagonist but learned over and over and over and over that she isn’t. spock more or less looks into the camera and says as much in S2!
Gary Stu. And yes they are.
Tarmina
“Please state the nature of your medical emergency.”
Miles obrien? Gary with a side helping of Stew
Michael Burnham was a legitimately terrible character, much less protagonist. Kurtzman Trek is trash. Bad writing, bad directing, JJ Abrams ripoff non-stop lensflare… It’s just an insult to EVERYTHING that made Star Trek great before these no talent hacks destroyed it.
Your short post history includes unironic use of “virtue signaling” and complaining about DEI. You won’t get much support here.
I guess you’re the winner by liking multiple bad TV series out of spite for people you disagree with.
Deciding by oneself if something is enjoyable or not? Yeah, I can see how that’d be bad.
The majority of pre-Kurtzman fans hate Kurtzman Trek and the new fans are a tiiiiny fraction of the fans lost. The final season of Enterprise that got it cancelled had higher ratings than ANYTHING Kurtzman Trek has produced, and merch sales are nonexistent. I have not decided alone. We are legion. We are the majority of Trek fans.
Example of absolutely not caring about other people’s opinions, and just liking what’s enjoyable to me: once The Big Bang Theory was over, I kinda had to check out Star Trek out of curiosity. That’s how I more or less binged all of it in chronological order up to the then latest stuff (Disco and Pic S1). I’ve yet to find a Trek I don’t like. Sure, Disco has the main issue of not being episodic and that brings it down the rankings for me. Since Trek turned out to be pretty good actually, that got me to catch up on all the other things I missed when they aired, see SG1, Babylon 5, Quantum Leap, Charmed, Monk, Friends and How I Met Your Mother to name a few. And you know what? I liked them. I liked Morbius (pretty low on the list of superhero movies, but perfectly enjoyable). I liked the Enterprise theme once they sped it up, it ended up going from annoying to hilariously silly. I liked the Suicide Squad game so much that I fell into my usual trap of burning myself out, but I miss the fun banter while traversing the city. I liked the first Destiny, and don’t like the second. I like Ghost Recon Breakpoint, but not Wildlands. You do you, but I enjoy whatever I want, regardless of other people’s opinions on the matter. You’re legion? Hi Legion, I’m dad.
I maintain that it is factually correct that the majority of prior Star Trek fans and overall humans don’t like Kurtzman Trek (as shown by the numbers) because it is poorly written, dumb, frantic, etc…
I’ve grown up on TNG and watched everything Trek. I do enjoy the new stuff. Is it silly sometimes and is the writing whacky? Yes of course. But let’s not act as if Trek ever took canon too seriously, and always had impeccable writing. It’s part of it.
I do not believe that that is true.
Kurtzman was writer and producer on the highest grossing Star Trek film of all time. Popularity is a shitty proxy for quality, but if that’s what we’re going with, I think Kurtzman comes out looking pretty okay.
Not with inflation and I would argue Trek was never a movie brand. Trek movies range from passable to awful, and they only made the first Trek movie because Star Wars made all the idiot executives chase that as the “real money.” There was supposed to be a 70’s Trek series, but the movie led to it being picked apart and divided up between the movie and eventually TNG (fun fact, the bald lady from the first movie and Troy are based on the same character from the 70’s series that the movie killed). Nobody who is a trekkie is a trekkie because they just LOVED The Undiscovered Country, they’re in it for the series, even Kurtztrekkies.
Not with inflation
But sure, you might be able to find a list that places it in second place instead, depending on their method. That hardly defeats my point. Are you really trying to argue that Into Darkness performed badly?
Nothing else you said is relevant if we’re judging Trek installments based on viewership, which is the metric you chose.
I literally thought this was satire until I saw the comment about post history. Amazing. No notes. Please keep doing your thing.
Satire because Michael Burnham is such a universally beloved character? Discovery is a poorly written show with major tone problems and that mushroom engine crap was just SO stupid it burns. Kurtzman Trek is universally just BAD because the man has no talent.
Beautiful. Stunning. My jaw is on the floor. It’s like a living youtube comment. My entire bingo card is full in one comment.
We’ve done it. We’ve achieved the Lazy Cliche Singularity.
Enjoy your subpar fake Trek series.
