I totally agree. It was really annoying that loads of "trekkies" wrote this off before an episode had been aired. Wait till it comes out. Watch it and decide whether you like it or not. Just watched the 1st episode and i really enjoyed it. Tried reading other critical threads but they can be so annoying and picky. Yes, it's different but that doesn't mean bad. After watching the 1st episode i thought the 1st officer Michael Burnham reminded me of kirk a little bit in the way the actress played her and i liked the klingons as well.

Also made it relevant, like Star Trek always is, focussing on the Klingons isolationism, slightly right wing views...

Yes and alot of early criticism which annoyed me was the "it's too pc" well star trek has always been like that. I really don't know what the problem is. Just watched the 2nd episode and they've given it a very cinematic feel. It's like i'm watching a film rather than a series. I really like the direction they've taken and i'm enjoying the ride. I hope they can keep it up and that people give it a chance rather than going on about minor continuity errors (like that hasn't already happened in the other star trek series and films) and pc characters also happened before(uhura,sulu,sisko,janeaway). I thought the acting and writing have been very good.

@gooner73 said:

Yes and alot of early criticism which annoyed me was the "it's too pc" well star trek has always been like that. I really don't know what the problem is. Just watched the 2nd episode and they've given it a very cinematic feel. It's like i'm watching a film rather than a series. I really like the direction they've taken and i'm enjoying the ride. I hope they can keep it up and that people give it a chance rather than going on about minor continuity errors (like that hasn't already happened in the other star trek series and films) and pc characters also happened before(uhura,sulu,sisko,janeaway). I thought the acting and writing have been very good.

facepalm

PC didn't exist in 1966. Uhura and Sulu, for sure, were not - could not have been - PC character choices. Indeed, just the opposite. And there was never any doubt that both of them were highly competent and capable for their positions. Neither of them was any kind of "quota" or "affirmative action" position within the show, as opposed to - for example - a female "firefighter" who can't carry another person out of a burning building, but the standards/requirements were lowered so that women could qualify.

You're right, its not PC if its always been diverse. Someone picked a plot point about the holographic communications being 90 years early because it was invented and used once in a DS9 episode?? That's more of a criticism of DS9 really, its not gonna take us 300 years to nail holographic communications, but now I'm just being picky about the picky people....

holographic communication in general, like sitting here on earth where nobody can be more than a few thousand miles from anyone else? or holographic communication over perhaps light-years of distance? perhaps between starships traveling at warp speed? do tell how you know all this stuff. while you're at it we'd like to know how to build transporters too. (or at least some people would. I'm still convinced they actually duplicate, not really transport.)

@PiploWaterMelon said:

You're right, its not PC if its always been diverse. Someone picked a plot point about the holographic communications being 90 years early because it was invented and used once in a DS9 episode?? That's more of a criticism of DS9 really, its not gonna take us 300 years to nail holographic communications, but now I'm just being picky about the picky people....

Thank-you for your reply. In today's terminology. Those characters would be considered pc if made now. Like you said, diverse is the proper term to use. Pc is just a right wing propaganda term used to criticise in this instance. I rember the furore when voyager announced it would have a female captain. Also this is tv. So comparisons with real world jobs is a complete strawman. Tv and films have always played hard and loose with what is capable in in their universes. Especially with sci-fi

@PiploWaterMelon said:

Its been 12 years since our last episode, maybe give it a break?... a chance? You lot keep jumping on the nearest band-wagon and get perfectly good shows cancelled. I enjoyed it, special effects and cast were great. Looking forward to the next episode, that's right, next episode, Star Trek has always been about individual stories and should be judged as a body of work.

I'm a fan. I've been given no reason not to be.

Some people are just chronic complainers. I believe it's in their DNA.

I get that one can watch a show and be critical on certain aspects of a show. But man...some of the critiquing is like listening to someone in their clinical therapy session. The shit gets old. Change the damn channel already!

@Knixon said:

for example - a female "firefighter" who can't carry another person out of a burning building, but the standards/requirements were lowered so that women could qualify.

You had me until you said above. There are many men who can't perform that task. May I also add that there are women that can.

Ill keep watching, but im not expecting much. So far im seeing a boring melodrama with dull uninteresting characters. And Just having a the name Star Trek isn't enough to keep me interested anymore. Especially since Star Trek has been creatively bankrupt for the last 10 years. Really i don't even like Serialized TV shows. Because they usually rely too much on pointless melodrama and run out of ideas about half way through the shows run. That why i stopped watching Battlestar Galactica. Also i figured out that i hated all the characters. Its good thing i stop watching that before the whole Angle BS started. Frankly this just seems like Star Treks equivalent of Stargate Universe. And we know how that turned out.

@Nubyan said:

@Knixon said:

for example - a female "firefighter" who can't carry another person out of a burning building, but the standards/requirements were lowered so that women could qualify.

You had me until you said above. There are many men who can't perform that task. May I also add that there are women that can.

I expected someone to make that claim. But men who couldn't meet the strength requirement, didn't get to be firefighters. Then it became necessary for women to be firefighters because... well, because. So strength and other normal requirements were lowered to make it easier for women to pass. Even if the requirements for men WEREN'T ALSO lowered. But there still aren't 50% women firefighters, which cause some to still cry "Discrimination!" It's crap.

@Knixon said:

I expected someone to make that claim. But men who couldn't meet the strength requirement, didn't get to be firefighters. Then it became necessary for women to be firefighters because... well, because. So strength and other normal requirements were lowered to make it easier for women to pass. Even if the requirements for men WEREN'T ALSO lowered. But there still aren't 50% women firefighters, which cause some to still cry "Discrimination!" It's crap.

That doesn't mean a woman shouldn't be allowed to do the job if she wants to.

If standards are lowered, as you say for women concerning the ability to lift a certain amount of weight, then it is further lowered when you have fat overweight men still attempting to do the tasks that they are no longer physically fit to do.

The same goes for police officers. I recently saw a male officer in uniform that was so overweight that it affected his ability to walk. How is a person in such poor physical state able to serve the public? He can't chase anyone. But I guess he can still shoot. There's been a lot of that.

Nevertheless, the focus is still on women not able to lift the same weight as men.

@Nubyan said:

@Knixon said:

I expected someone to make that claim. But men who couldn't meet the strength requirement, didn't get to be firefighters. Then it became necessary for women to be firefighters because... well, because. So strength and other normal requirements were lowered to make it easier for women to pass. Even if the requirements for men WEREN'T ALSO lowered. But there still aren't 50% women firefighters, which cause some to still cry "Discrimination!" It's crap.

That doesn't mean a woman shouldn't be allowed to do the job if she wants to.

"Wants to" is insufficient.

If standards are lowered, as you say for women concerning the ability to lift a certain amount of weight, then it is further lowered when you have fat overweight men still attempting to do the tasks that they are no longer physically fit to do.

That's a reason to do more re-testing etc, not to lower standards for political reasons so women can get in too.

The same goes for police officers. I recently saw a male officer in uniform that was so overweight that it affected his ability to walk. How is a person in such poor physical state able to serve the public? He can't chase anyone. But I guess he can still shoot. There's been a lot of that.

"A lot of shooting" is crap too. Police shootings are down something like 90% over the past few decades. And over that time, black people are actually less likely to be shot than whites, specifically because of "racism" complaints etc. The real issue seems to be, people on the left including most black people and their "leaders" are looking for another new excuse for their problems, after the previous excuses have worn out.

Nevertheless, the focus is still on women not able to lift the same weight as men.

For some occupations that is a life-or-death issue.

@Knixon said:

"A lot of shooting" is crap too. Police shootings are down something like 90% over the past few decades. And over that time, black people are actually less likely to be shot than whites, specifically because of "racism" complaints etc. The real issue seems to be, people on the left including most black people and their "leaders" are looking for another new excuse for their problems, after the previous excuses have worn out.

I'm assuming you're not black. I'm also assuming you have no empathy towards a group of people so long as you're not among that group. At least, you come off as such. And, not sure where you are getting your stats. I've not seen any cases of white people being shot by the police playing out in the media time and time again.

In addition, racism exists in America and has been around for a very long time and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. It isn't a previous excuse, it is a continued problem.

You can thank the current administration led by an inept egomaniac for keeping it front and center.

@Nubyan said:

@Knixon said:

"A lot of shooting" is crap too. Police shootings are down something like 90% over the past few decades. And over that time, black people are actually less likely to be shot than whites, specifically because of "racism" complaints etc. The real issue seems to be, people on the left including most black people and their "leaders" are looking for another new excuse for their problems, after the previous excuses have worn out.

I'm assuming you're not black. I'm also assuming you have no empathy towards a group of people so long as you're not among that group. At least, you come off as such. And, not sure where you are getting your stats. I've not seen any cases of white people being shot by the police playing out in the media time and time again.

Does that surprise you? It's the MEDIA.

But facts are facts, and facts don't care about your feelings. The fact is that ALL police shootings are WAY down, and the whole time - but especially now - shootings of black people are the minority of those. Media portraying the opposite is evil, and parents teaching their children the opposite could possibly be considered child abuse.

You really should listen to that Stacy Washington (black woman) audio I posted before.

https://www.adrive.com/public/7vMUuB/Hewitt%2007-08-16%20clip%20Hour%204%20Aftershow%20with%20Generalissimo%20Duane%20Patterson.mp3

In addition, racism exists in America and has been around for a very long time and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. It isn't a previous excuse, it is a continued problem.

You can thank the current administration led by an inept egomaniac for keeping it front and center.

So the actual fact that the situations for black people got worse under 8 years of the first (half-)black president, should just be ignored - apparently BECAUSE he's (half-)black (which by the way is actually racist); and the fact that increasing employment etc for those same people thanks to the policies of a president many people hate for visceral rather than factual reasons, should be covered up. (Which is also racist.) Interesting mind you have there. You can keep it.