I get the impression that many commenters here are from Europe, where the show is streamed a part of Netflix. Here in the States it's hard to invest in a new Trek franchise that requires a subscription of equal cost to Netflix but with very few other offerings that make that fee worthwhile to Trekkies.

I haven't watched it, and have been greatly tuned off by both what I perceive as pandering to PC culture and the massive changes to races like the Klingons. I will likely give it a look when it's available as a complete season on Blu Ray, provided it ends its first year with positive word of mouth.

But if the goal - or at least one of the goals - is to not reward CBS etc for their perfidy by giving them money, you shouldn't buy a Blu-ray set either. Just download it somewhere for free, if you want to check it out. THEN buy it if you decide it's not so bad after all.

I after watch SGU I , really wonder why modern Sci-Fi is sooo poor.

Demographics of the SGU crew only starting to approach real-world demographics , All humans on Trek should be of Asian decent or Hispanic with a token European. Why bring in all these aliens- if they cant even get earth right? Hell THE EXPANCE did a much better job on demographics.

In SGU they used drones to do all there searching , especially in danger areas, to avoid unwelcomed surprises. Most of the threats were from massed drone attacks....Drones should be a given in modern Sci-Fi !

The only thing they missed was passive thermal imaging as part of soldiers gear instead of ridiculous flash lights that telegraph the victim's location well ahead of time.

That probably because no one cares about demographics And frankly who knows what the demographics are going to be hundreds of years in the future. People might wind up have the same monotone color like in that Gooback episode of South Park.

@Knixon: The situation got worse under the first black president? Really now?

The situation was bad already. But it's not surprising that there are many that continue to suffer from amnesia. It has always been the responsibility of POTUS to help bridge a gap...not create and perpetuate a divide. Countless, highly important responsibilities continues to escape the current occupant's awareness. As a result, an entire nation of people suffers. Which could also lead to global suffering. It's become much more important to tweet like a petulant child.

Yes, my mind is interesting. And, I am happy to keep it. I am confident in knowing that it will continue to remain open! Open to tolerance, empathy, inclusiveness, freedom, love, etc.

Part of the problem is that the people - on the left - who most loudly insist on "tolerance" define the term in their own way that wouldn't pass any kind of dictionary muster. Which leads to things like "universities" having "free speech ZONES" (now there's an oxymoron!) where free speech is still actually suppressed if the speaker isn't also from the left.

True family income (adjusted for inflation, etc), especially among blacks and other minorities, actually decreased during 8 years of Obama, despite - or I would say because of - the lefty policies he pushed. And black unemployment went up, etc, especially for younger people. But a lot of people, apparently including you, decide that's just impossible because Obama is (half-)black. As I've mentioned before, though, facts don't care about your feelings. By objective measurements, Obama's presidency was a failure. And it's entirely possible that regardless of how you and many other people feel about him personally, Trump's presidency might be a big success based on real things like employment, family income, etc that will actually do more to help the people you claim to care about, more than anything Obama ever did. Sorry if that ruins your day, but again, facts don't care about your feelings.

By the way, just to be clear to anyone else reading who may not have realized it, "interesting" was not a compliment. Along the lines of the old Chinese curse.

@Knixon said:

True family income (adjusted for inflation, etc), especially among blacks and other minorities, actually decreased during 8 years of Obama, despite - or I would say because of - the lefty policies he pushed.

No, that's wrong. Obama pushed very few "lefty" policies. The ACA is Romneycare AKA right-wing healthcare system. He made the banks bigger instead of breaking them up after the recession. He deported more immigrants than Bush 2. Obama's policies were very much moderate Republican and he's even said so, publicly, on tape.

The Democratic party IS NOT a left wing party, it is a centrist right wing party.

Also about free speech on universities, I don't see any conservative colleges allowing actual left wing speakers to have an audience. I also don't see these right wing free speech warriors defending Chelsea Manning from being disinvited from Harvard. Speakers should be allowed an audience regardless of politics, but you can't complain about one situation and ignore another when the speaker doesn't share your views. That his called hypocrisy.

Please, stop playing the "red team vs blue team" game. They're both bad because they're both basically the same team, one is just more okay with gays.

Wow. So much BS to wade through. Obama said his policies were moderate republican, on tape, so that means it's true? Or that I should even believe he meant it no matter how wrong he was? c'mon. What about Obama saying that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" under his plans, which he said to a newspaper editorial board almost a year before the election? If things like that had been covered more in advance, as a warning rather than trying to cover up after the fact, he might not have been elected at all. (Which of course is exactly why it wasn't widely reported.)

The Democrat party used to be far more moderate. It's now more of a lefty/leftist party, in terms of the people running it and running for office under it, even if the bulk of voters don't fully agree. Remember, JFK - the original, not the cheap copy that ran for president a few years ago - was anti-tax, anti-communist, anti-abortion... Heck, FDR probably couldn't win if he ran as a Democrat now either, if even were even allowed to win the nomination. (And remember too, with the super-delegate shenanigans etc, Hillary basically had the nomination sewn up even before the primaries started.)

Chelsea Manning wasn't making a speech at Harvard, he was being given an honored position on the faculty. For a convicted criminal/traitor. But you see, that's actually consistent. Conservatives/republicans actually push their violators out of office. Democrats/leftists adulate theirs, like Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn...

@Nygma-0999 said:

That probably because no one cares about demographics And frankly who knows what the demographics are going to be hundreds of years in the future. People might wind up have the same monotone color like in that Gooback episode of South Park.

Well all us lefty's care about it....

@Knixon said:

Wow. So much BS to wade through. Obama said his policies were moderate republican, on tape, so that means it's true? Or that I should even believe he meant it no matter how wrong he was? c'mon. What about Obama saying that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" under his plans, which he said to a newspaper editorial board almost a year before the election?

I'm not talking about things he said or did before he got elected. He said a lot of things to get elected he didn't stick by. I'm talking about what he did in office, some of which I pointed out, and you ignored.

@Knixon said:

The Democrat party used to be far more moderate. It's now more of a lefty/leftist party, in terms of the people running it and running for office under it, even if the bulk of voters don't fully agree.

No they're not. They might speak the language but aside from a handful (less than a handful) many are blue dog Democrats who vote like Republicans (and brag about it) while the rest are neo liberals like Chuck Schumer, Nacy Pelosi and especially Hillary Clinton who wouldn't know a left wing policy if it bit them in the face.

They fight tooth and nail to prevent actual progressive left policies while they treat Republicans with kid gloves because it's hard to fight someone you agree with. They just voted for a $700 billion dollar military budget increase yet they won't fight for Medicare for All. They're Republican-lite. Sure they like gays and they're okay with women's right to choose, but aside from those few issues the Dems are firmly in the right side of the center.

@Knixon said:

Chelsea Manning wasn't making a speech at Harvard, he was being given an honored position on the faculty. For a convicted criminal/traitor.

She. And she's not a traitor. Do you even know what she did? She revealed rogue troops shooting innocent unarmed people which included two journalists and also first responders who came to help. If you revealed a murder and they put you in jail instead of the murderers, would you consider that just? Because that's what happened. The shooters were not punished but Chelsea Manning was. Dude, do some research before you post.

@Knixon said:

By the way, just to be clear to anyone else reading who may not have realized it, "interesting" was not a compliment. Along the lines of the old Chinese curse.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am well aware of what you meant by the use of the word "interesting". For which I could care less.

But thanks for revealing yourself and your feelings toward people of a darker skin tone.

@cswood said:

@Knixon said:

Wow. So much BS to wade through. Obama said his policies were moderate republican, on tape, so that means it's true? Or that I should even believe he meant it no matter how wrong he was? c'mon. What about Obama saying that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" under his plans, which he said to a newspaper editorial board almost a year before the election?

I'm not talking about things he said or did before he got elected. He said a lot of things to get elected he didn't stick by. I'm talking about what he did in office, some of which I pointed out, and you ignored.

@Knixon said:

The Democrat party used to be far more moderate. It's now more of a lefty/leftist party, in terms of the people running it and running for office under it, even if the bulk of voters don't fully agree.

No they're not. They might speak the language but aside from a handful (less than a handful) many are blue dog Democrats who vote like Republicans (and brag about it) while the rest are neo liberals like Chuck Schumer, Nacy Pelosi and especially Hillary Clinton who wouldn't know a left wing policy if it bit them in the face.

They fight tooth and nail to prevent actual progressive left policies while they treat Republicans with kid gloves because it's hard to fight someone you agree with. They just voted for a $700 billion dollar military budget increase yet they won't fight for Medicare for All. They're Republican-lite. Sure they like gays and they're okay with women's right to choose, but aside from those few issues the Dems are firmly in the right side of the center.

@Knixon said:

Chelsea Manning wasn't making a speech at Harvard, he was being given an honored position on the faculty. For a convicted criminal/traitor.

She. And she's not a traitor. Do you even know what she did? She revealed rogue troops shooting innocent unarmed people which included two journalists and also first responders who came to help. If you revealed a murder and they put you in jail instead of the murderers, would you consider that just? Because that's what happened. The shooters were not punished but Chelsea Manning was. Dude, do some research before you post.

Thousands of classified military documents, all about being a "whistle blower" for one event? Sure, sure.

@Reasonable Kermode said:

@Nubyan said:

@Knixon: The situation got worse under the first black president? Really now?

Yep, sure did: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men

It is obvious that the police enjoy gunning down and killing black people. They've been doing that long before the nation's first black president. I believe I spoke to that.

The importance and focus should be placed on OUTRAGE that these deaths are occurring in the first place.

If it's only affecting one group of people and that group isn't white...then I guess there's no problem.

Thank you for the link. We all needed to be reminded that the color of a person's skin will determine whether the police shoots to kill vs. not shoot at all.

But the facts prove you wrong. And the facts don't care about your feelings, or anyone else's. Try that Stacy Washington (black woman, so if you disagree with her you're a racist) audio, among other evidence. 4,000 shootings in Chicago last year, about 20 were by police. Police shootings in New York and elsewhere down 90% over the last few decades and blacks actually LESS likely than whites to get shot by police. Getting all worked up about a "problem" that is factually SMALLER THAN EVER, is unlikely to be anything but trying to divert attention from the real problems that especially people on the left don't want to deal with because it proves they've been wrong for at least 50 years.

Knixon said...

"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"

Knixon also said...

"Police shootings in New York and elsewhere down 90% over the last few decades and blacks actually LESS likely than whites to get shot by police"

So which is it? Black lives are worse off or better?

Because according to you...there's a mourning and a celebration happening simultaneously.