If she's NOT the ISSUE, then WHY MENTION her???

I mention Janeway and the others as example where the general audiences did not have any issues with main characters being female.

In other words, the claim has also been made that characters in DISC are BETTER than those in THE ORIVILLE (which one also DISAGREES with). But he also claims JANEWAY is a better character and CAPTAIN than KIRK and PICARD (which one also AGREES with due to the way she has a BETTER BALANCE of BOTH MASCULINE and FEMININE PERSONALITY TRAITS than they do).

Whether the characters in DISC are written better than those of the Orville I can't judge fairly because I haven't seen The Orville yet but from what you have described it seems like The Orville (despite it being a Star Trek spoof) seems to be far better and more creative at bringing across and showing us to look at certain topical issues from a different perspective than Discovery has shown so far.Also he also claims that this is the best Trek show ever which would mean that the characters like that of Michael Burnham are written better than for example Janeway who IMO was written as a far more balanced(like you mentioned) character than Michael Burnham who the writers when they want to try to have her act in a "more in balanced manner " show her acting in extremes(hence me mentioning Bi-polar in previous posts). In other words despite The Orville being a Star Trek spoof to most Trekkies it feels and represents the TRUE ESSENCE of what Star Trek is about rather than the show that claims to be part of that legacy while in fact is as far removed from Star Trek as Star Wars is from Dr Who.

Balanced well thought out female characters with depth who we can relate to =Janeway

Unbalanced, overly feminine/masculine bland stereotypical female characters = Michael Burnham

Again your GENDER AGENDA remark also doesn't take into consideration how we ALL have BOTH a MASCULINE and a FEMININE SIDE to our PERSONALITIES.

Me mentioning this has to do with the fact that the studio in the case of GB2016 was lying about the fact that GB2016 failed at the box office because of male misogyny ,while the studio and Pascal and Feig in particular even prior to GB2016 into production were pushing for this all female character swap knowing that this would come under criticism ,they sidetracked Harold Ramis (the writer of the original and the one who had be luring with the idea for a sequel to the other GB movies for more than a decade) they also deliberately side tracked Ivan Reitman (the original movies director) to give Paul Feig freehand in promoting this agenda and of which they knew they could use this as a means to divert criticism if the movie tanked .It is like knowing that waving a red cloth in front of a bull will make it charge at you,waving the red flag and when the bull comes charging at you ,blaming the bull for not being colour blind.

And how much Bill Murray was paid to appear in some FILM that one hasn't seen also doesn't seem to be RELEVANT to the TOPIC at hand either.

It was mentioned to illustrate that Sony knew the movie was bad prior to it's release and as damage control shoehorned members of the original cast into appearing in the movie(as fan service)and having them endorsing the movie on talk shows in a very awkward manner(while knowing the movie was crap).

In other words, it would also help if you could stick to TV SHOWS like the ORVILLE that one has seen (which the OP also invited us to compare with DISC).

I hope that what I wrote here above will clarify what I meant.

And as far as one can see the person who began the topic also doesn't mention other issues that you have either.

But what I keep mentioning is the fact that those that LOVE DISCOVERY AND THE STUDIO/PRODUCERS OF THE SHOW ARE USING THE SAME TACTICS LIKE THE PRODUCERS OF THE MENTIONED MOVIES DID WHEN THEY ADDRESS THOSE THAT DON'T LIKE THE SERIES OR THOSE THAT VENT VALID CRITICISM ON THE SHOW THEY DRAW THE GENDER/RACE CARD AND START GENERALIZING ALL CRITICISM AS SUCH WHILE KNOWING BEFORE HAND THAT THESE FILMS/SERIES HAD ISSUES which the OP and our friend Philippe the Hellraiser Box maker (which incidentally also features strong female lead actresses Kirsty/Julia which no one ever criticized)keep coming back at.

What they mention is being in space with familiar plots, enemies, ships and storylines.

That's their complaint Nex (not characters we see in MOVIES).

If that is their criticism of the other Trek shows I already explained that that is an inherent trait of franchises in general that they have a certain amount of familiarity otherwise they wouldn't be part of the franchise in the first place.What the defenders of DISC and it's producers are basically doing is the same thing as having a MacDonalds restaurant were they only sell Chinese takeaway and claim it is in the same vein/the same thing as the MacDonalds restaurants where they sell hamburgers and fries.

Like I said so many times before that those that have criticism on DISC have no issues with the gender/race thing but it is those that defend DISC that keep bringing that up as the sole reason for the majority not liking it and that is why they prefer The Orville which I tried to disprove by using various sources of information and to show that that reaction is part of a widely used tactic within the industry when movies or series come under criticism of fail.

What I was trying to explain Invidia is that the OP and Monsieur Philippe here are keep bringing up is that it is because of the gender/race thing why most people and Trekkies in particular do not like DISC or won't watch it for that reason which I with clear examples was trying to refute as nonsense since most of the criticism is about the things you wrote about (why Trekkies prefer The Orville over DISC) and various other issues discussed in the posts on this thread.

The reason why I mentioned these movies was to illustrate that the producers and those that defend DISC are using the same tactic as the studios did with these movies when these movies received criticism or tanked at the box office they use the gender/race card as means to fend off valid criticism which seems to be the tactic to go to in Hollywood nowadays when your movie bombs or receives criticism.And the Orville may not be spoof but it's design and the stories it is bringing seem to be very heavily inspired by Star Trek in general.

Also the so called dark look of DISC was not specifically or intentionally done to be more edgy(and besides after wave of wave of darker reboots the whole newness of that gimmick to be different has become stale as well)but rather born out of necessity because of what I wrote about which company held which particular piece of IP of the Star Trek franchise also the look was inspired by the look (lens flares ,dutch angles etc)of the Abrams reboot movies in the hope to ride on the success of those movies.

Here is a video where the whole legal issues regarding which company owns which part of the Star Trek IP has been the reason why the reboot movies and the new series looks so different from the Trek we were familiar with .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojtX_Oz4WsU

And here a video explaining the troubles during production false continuity claims,issues with cannon etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcLLfzzKWA

More info about the troubles and issues that were responsible for why Discovery has been troubled during it's production.And the response I was alluding to from the studio when fans had criticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLl17YXrAZY

The dark and gloomy may also be an inheritance from Les Moonves(the man who doesn't understand Star Trek or SF) who probably thought that since most shows nowadays are dark and gloomy that the new Trek should also be dark and gloomy because it is popular.And since most of this dark and dreary stuff is popular now wouldn't a show like Discovery be making a statement by going against the grain and rather do something different and provide some thought provoking,bright and hopeful substitute for all this darkness.

Here a video discussing the role of Les Moonves and the sacking of him and the season one showrunners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuMyfI_WM7E

After watching those videos you wil see that most of the things I wrote about DISC previously are confirmed and are most of the times (when things can be confirmed and checked) over the months have been proven to be accurate and this poster bases his arguments on what he reads in articles in the industry related magazines press releases by studios ,what is happening behind the scenes based on inside information and statements made by persons related to the subject of DISC and in all the years I watched his videos his arguments /predictions have turned out to be quite accurate.

Sorry but there is no short way of explaining all the issues with Discovery without delving deep inside of the material but like I said the videos are not based on one single article,but various articles in the movie related press ,interviews,press releases ,studio press releases and various other sources some of which are involved behind the scenes of the show and within CBS .Also the things he talks about have proven to be quite accurate so I am afraid you will have to do with the videos.

Nexus71,

Thank you for trying to keep the discussion on this thread squarely centered on what I started it for: to discuss why people dislike DSC.

I know you disagree with my main thesis which is that the dislike expressed by MANY critics of DSC is based largely on their misunderstanding of the original intent of ST and their relying on a myopic view of the world: mainly white , male and hetero-sexual. I have not come to this conclusion based on a mere hunch, rather I have reviewed many, many public comments of regular, so called ST fans. This is what they are saying.

I am eager to listen to 'reasoned' arguments why I am wrong. I use The Orville as a useful foil because (again) many of these same detractors have claimed it is more ST than DSC. Your Coke analogy crystallizes the issue well. Is ST created to express a view of humanity? Or it is made to express the view of a certain SEGMENT of humanity? If the correct answer is the latter, then you are correct, The Orville is more ST.

For it's time, the original ST was created to reach ALL humanity, hence it's world wide popularity. TOS broke many barriers to show more of humanity. 50 years hence a new ST series HAS to push that boundary to keep to the original intent. This is NOT the mission of The Orville, it's producers are only concerned with plagiarizing some general concepts of ST, adding some barroom humor and...making money!

Thank you for trying to keep the discussion on this thread squarely centered on what I started it for: to discuss why people dislike DSC.

I know you disagree with my main thesis which is that the dislike expressed by MANY critics of DSC is based largely on their misunderstanding of the original intent of ST and their relying on a myopic view of the world: mainly white , male and hetero-sexual. I have not come to this conclusion based on a mere hunch, rather I have reviewed many, many public comments of regular, so called ST fans. This is what they are saying.

Your welcome Oduntola glad to be of service and please do understand I and I think many Trekkies with me don't want a Trek show to fail,but there were and in some cases there are still issues with the show which in many cases have very little to do with the gender/race thing which I tried to illustrate by delving deeper into the history of DISC the set up of the show ,the production and it's reception.And after you have watched these videos you wil hopefully come to the conclusion that a whole lot of things went wrong even before DISC went into production. Also the issue of legal rights on which company holds certain pieces of the Star Trek IP ,the financing of the show(Netflix/CBS) ,having a head of production at CBS(Les Moonves) wanting to make HIS version of Star Trek,while knowing very little about what Star Trek is about and has very little knowledge of SF at all and the same head of production who played a major (and some say willfully)role in the demise of Enterprise.Add these things up and one understands better why in the opinion of many Trekkers there are all these issues that don't make sense.And as I also said if there are "fans"that hold these views in my opinion these aren't real Trek fans or have very little knowledge of the franchise since these things were never an issue before and most die hard Trek fans will have no problems with a character being black,female or being gay.The only problem they have is with badly written characters ,who are one dimensional,underdeveloped,based on stereotypical views of strong female characters or are solely there to ponder to a specific target group in the audience,just because these characters happen to be the female lead or Stamets has very little to do with gender/race/sexual preference of the character but rather because of what I wrote here before .It is CBS that keeps up this myth that all fanboys are white male misogynist cellar dwellers as an excuse not having to face the issues that are really at the heart of the problems of the show.

I am eager to listen to 'reasoned' arguments why I am wrong. I use The Orville as a useful foil because (again) many of these same detractors have claimed it is more ST than DSC. Your Coke analogy crystallizes the issue well. Is ST created to express a view of humanity? Or it is made to express the view of a certain SEGMENT of humanity? If the correct answer is the latter, then you are correct, The Orville is more ST.

What these video also shows is that the producers of the show have been lying to the fans from the get go with all kinds of claims that they later on couldn't substantiate or turned put to be false or untrue.And I solely lay the blame of bringing up the issue of gender/race being a thing on the Studio who keeps making this outrageous claim while in fact most of the criticism has very little to do with gender being an issue but have more to do with the things that were described in the videos.Star Trek has always been a view of Humanity in general where the shows on occasion would deal with matters of gender/race/religion/political views to hold up a mirror to the viewers in order to have them look at certain issues of the times through a different perspective the show has always done that so claiming that these issues are the sole domain of DISC is just untrue.The whole Gender/race thing was a result of Les Moonves who wanted to make a show that would bring in new viewers(which is something to be applauded) by introducing things he thought were relevant in our current society but while doing so disregarded wishes and opinions of fans and people who did know a few things (Brian Fuller for example)or two about Star trek Lorre and cannon.And even worse is when we finally see these gender/sexual orientation/race related characters in the show they turn out to be nothing more than badly written,stereotypical representations,token characters rather than using these characters or the issues one would expect when dealing with such matters in an engaging thought provoking manner which could shed a whole new angle to these issues to challenge the viewers preconceptions or views.

For it's time, the original ST was created to reach ALL humanity, hence it's world wide popularity. TOS broke many barriers to show more of humanity. 50 years hence a new ST series HAS to push that boundary to keep to the original intent. This is NOT the mission of The Orville, it's producers are only concerned with plagiarizing some general concepts of ST, adding some barroom humor and...making money!

Well the problem with DISC is that it claims to address these issues but in reality doing very little with this premise in portraying characters or using these matters to tell interesting thought provoking stories that the general viewer can relate to and might alter the viewers preconceptions on such matters .All previous shows did this DISC on the other hand does very little in that respect.The producers misconception was that just having these gender/race/sexuality fluid (for lack of a better word)characters on the show makes the show more aware of gender race or sexuality while for the viewers to understand these issues or the problems these individuals are facing one has to do more with these characters and that premise rather than just being token characters on a show who are there just to ponder to these groups.And that The Orville has so many similarities with Trek was to be expected MacFarlane is an genuine Star Trek freak(he had two cameos on the Enterprise series and frequently uses Star Trek references and actors in Family Guy,the Ted movies and American Dad) and the show's producer is none other than Branon Braga who has been involved in Star trek for 17 years(TNG,DS9,VOY, ENT) and it seems to me these people have a far better understanding of what Star Trek is about and how to write Star Trek type stories so I think that explains the success of The Orville.And money making is on the mind of most studios and the whole reason why DISC was green lit was to capitalize on the popularity of the reboot movies,the fans of the franchise and the income coming from the merchandise,and wanting to use the popularity of the franchise to launch CBS all access.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXQIC9EyPTU (Macfarlane doing a very good Shatner imitation)

I want to thank you for a civilized discussion Oduntola and I hope my input has cleared up things that he reasons why people dislike the show are not that black and white as the studio might want us to believe and that a lot of these issues stem from the problems that were at the core of the show from the first place even prior to it going into production. And that criticizing a character is not the same as not liking a character because of it's gender/race or sexuality(which is the error the producers of DISC are making and it is they who are responsible of causing the rift between fans that like the show and those that don't and rather watch The Orville)And I still watch the show and I think that the show has improved since the final episodes of season 1 and the previous episode of season 2 actually showed us that these writers can write a Star trek type of story so I hope these improvements continue.I may not have altered your point of view but at least I tried to explain why most trekkies don't like the show ,what the core issues with most of these fans are and what caused these problems in the first place and to illustrate that some of us have genuine issues with the show that have very little to do with race/gender/sexuality of certain characters by giving examples and explanations where these issues stem from.

Sorry Invidia but I have explained my issues with DISC thoroughly provided several examples and reasons why things don't work and why Burnham as a character fails if you would watch the show you'll see that the character is anything but rounded she has two settings 1)depressed on the verge of crying 2)angry,loud,obnoxious and being an a-hole so much for that Vulcan upbringing and promoting from the Vulcan academy.So whoever wrote about Burnham being well rounded knows jack about Star Trek and even less about writing well rounded characters.And why you keep on hammering with issue of race/gender sexuality at me?If you keep on assuming me being biased towards female characters like the studios do feel free to but that is drawing attention from the real issues here which is bad,sloppy,lazy stereotypical,non cannon writing(which is exactly what the studio wants) Watch the videos and the series and one cannot help oneself getting the impression that DISC was written by a committee rather than by people who actually understand Star Trek and have worked for the franchise in the past.

You still don't get it Invidia the problem with Burnham I was using two illustrate two points about her character 1) If she was a well rounded character she would display more emotions than two the issue was not being her angry,loud and obnoxious and behaving like an a-hole it was to illustrate that how low standards obviously have fallen when being sad and angry is cnsidered well rounded. 2)The depressed and angry setting also reveal how little the writers obviously know about Vulcans ,that since Michael was raised on Vulcan and was the first Human to graduate from the Vulcan Academy one would think Burnham would have been thought the all important lesson of keeping ones emotions under check even though she is not Vulcan one would think that upbringing might have rubbed off on her.

And the so called critics nowadays can't be trusted if you want a dependable opinion it is better to check Rotten Tomatoes and if one sees how far the critic approval score varies with that of the actual viewers and there is a big discrepancy one should ask oneself how reliable can these critic reviews be and last time I checked RT for DISC the viewers approval rating compared to those of the critics is almost half than one should ask oneself which to rely?Also the mentioned movies show similar discrepancies in the RT ratings and compare those with the rating of movies Like Wrath Of Khan,Empire Strikes Back,Star Trek Voyager and one will see that the critic approval rating compared to the viewer rating in most of those cases are almost similar .

Sorry but I can't understand you defending a character you haven't seen yet and whatever nonsense the writers or some critic comes up with afterwards shows how very little respect the producers have of the franchise and it's fans .Burnham caused all this shit with the Klingons and was responsible for her captain's death and her relationship with Lorca results in diddly squat since he turns out to be a traitor from the Mirror Universe who uses Burnham as a means to lure and kill off Mirror Georgiou(Empress) so whatever this Goldman dude writes is just fabricated nonsense he was probably given a memo from CBS what to write in his review /article.Sorry but if a show like DISC is given 81% critic approval rating and a viewer approval rating of just 49% on Rotten Tomatoes then you should ask yourself which of those is accurate seen in the light of all the(negative) information that has been released on-line and through various other media.Also that line about family is nonsense because when one watches DISC one doesn't feel the bridge crew is or acts like a family(in season 2 we see little hints of it).And if that doesn't convince you maybe simple number of viewers will tell you Enterprise during it's final season was stil able to pull in around 3 million viewers with DISC the average number of viewers on CBS All Access is around 750,000 (some insiders even claim it's between 250,000-500,000 with it actually being far closer to 250,000)which is (at least)four times less than Enterprise.Add one and one together and one comes to the conclusion that most of the claims made by the studio or those critics are just utter nonsense

To put it shortly DISC claims to be part of the Star Trek franchise but for the most times it fails at that,it also claims to be this progressive show when dealing in matters of race/gender and sexuality while it also fails at that .DISC is neither fish nor flesh and that is it's biggest problem it doesn't know what it wants to be or for which audience it is targeted at.

The point is Burnham should not have reacted the way she did at all and she was not in a mind melt when she begged her captain to fire on the Klingon ship so that doesn't make any sense she had a Vulcan upbringing and was educated in a Vulcan manner she should be able to control her emotions better and for her acting in extremes is not a well rounded character as that Goldman guy was yapping about also this is the same Akiva Goldman that was sacked last year so that tells you what the new executives at CBS thought of of this executive producer also if one stands so close to the production one could ask oneself whether that person is unbiased and executive producer means he is assisting the producer in getting the money for the show so it is in his interest for the show to make money so he won't be the one to honestly tell you the show is crap.and Akiva Goldsman was one of at least five other executive producer and when one sees in the credits that Bryan Fuller is credited(even in season 2) but the truth is Bryan Fuller was sacked even before production of season 1 had started so that also makes one wonder in what degree Eugene is involved or is just for show to lure in Fans.

It may feel like Star trek to you but to me and many others this show doesn't fill the criteria to make us think it is part of the franchise .And there numerous examples we can name why this is the case and Burnham is the least of the problems but emblematic for the overall problems with the show it's a mish mash of what producers thought what would look neat in a Star Trek show and what we as fans would want to see. Which btw were the same issues when the same head office was trying to have their way with Enterprise thank god for Berman and Braga who at least prevented a lot of these bad ideas otherwise we would be having this discussion over at the Enterprise boards.But when Discovery went into production there was no one who had ties with the franchise so all these bad ideas ended up in DISC.Also the main reason why Fuller was sacked was because he and Moonves had serious disagreements over the same things Berman and Braga had disagreements about with Moonves when they worked on Enterprise,and when Moonves had free hand we ended up with DISC which is a mess since it breaches the rules of basic trek cannon and stil isn't clear in which time line and what universe it exists since it is neither the Original Timeline or The Kelvin Timeline or whether the show takes place in a mirror Universe or not?

Supporting strong female characters is fine by me but a badly written show which doesn't know what it wants to be or to which audience it is aiming at can't be excused because of the fact that it is trying promote female lead characters.If I want to watch a Trek show with a strong female lead I'd rather watch VOY a 100 times over DISC since that at least has well rounded female characters and with clever stories and have the genuine feel of a Star Trek show.If you want to see a movie with a well rounded almost all black female main cast go and watch Hidden Figures where you have a very good example of well rounded characters,characters with a good arc,it is an empowering movie since it shows black women who overcome racism and gender discrimination within NASA and ending up in very important positions vital for getting men to the moon it also shows women who don't have special gifts or powers over men or are overly masculine they overcome hardship and prejudice by perseverance and using their intellect also this movie is based on a true story.All inclusiveness and equality for all is fine by me but it shouldn't serve as an excuse for bad and uninspired script writing or as a means to silence valid criticism.Which CBS has done regarding DISC trying to use the same gimmick as GB2016 and TLJ have done when faced with criticism.Also that fact there is such a dramatic change between season 1 and 2 shows that the new producers are well aware of the issues and have taken the criticism to heart and are now trying to undo some of the damage of season 1 which is a change for the better (I hope).

I think we are not going to agree on this Invidia and I have my reasons to have issues with season 1 in particular ,season 2 is turning out better so far but still has issues.And if you like the show is fine be me . I will keep on watching it in the hope that it will eventually turn into a version of Star Trek one is familiar with and from what I have read and seen about The Orville I can understand why Trekkies would feel more drawn to that since it gives them more of the feeling of watching a Star Trek show.And maybe it's just a matter of tastes if you like the doom and gloomy DISC is your cup of tea and if you don't like it The Orville is more your cup of tea.And with that I would like to thank you for an engaging discussion and hope DISC may turn into a show we both can like.And that is all I have to say about it.

So your assertion is that if someone writes a character whose background is similar to another character that was (arguably) well written, by completely different writers over 20 years ago and in the course of 4 seasons to develop the character, that somehow proves that the similar-background new character is automatically well written too?

Sheesh.

I think there are vast differences between 7 of 9 and Michael Burnham .Seven acted and reacted as we would expect from a human who had been assimilated since early childhood and had spend the majority of her life being part of the Borg hive collective.She was too young when she was assimilated to remember or to understand basic human bonds,family,relationships or social rules and behaviour since that wasn't needed in the collective so yes with her character and background we can understand her actions and reactions.

Burnham was orphaned when her parents were killed in a Klingon attack but she was adopted and spend most of her youth within a family structure,rules ,behaviour,social interactions,friendship,love PLUS she was raised on Vulcan within Vulcan society were things like logic and keeping ones emotions in check are the norm so if she had to function within this society she would have adapted to these norms and since the beginning of logic within Vulcan society and in specific the scientific community is keeping ones emotions under control. Also being the first Human to ever to attend The Vulcan Learning Center and The Vulcan Science Academy one would expect that since logic and keeping ones emotions under control are an integral part of Vulcan Society and sciences ,you would expect that would also be part of the curriculum.And therefore Burnham despite her traumatic experience when she was child ,still spent most of her time within the confines of a family structure and within a Human like society and despite her traumatic youth and being Human had been able to attend these prestigious institutes.So when Burnham acts in extremes and reacts very emotional she is acting contrary to her upbringing and education otherwise the whole Vulcan background makes no sense and was just an excuse for fan service.

Also I mentioned several times before that I Like to watch Starbuck and that she is an interesting engaging well written character who I enjoy watching but she is not my favorite despite her traumatic childhood she is an unlikeable character and like I said since 99% of the BSG crew are unlikeable characters that shouldn't be the issue and I think that she never was meant to be likeable or sympathetic.Just because somebody has had a traumatic childhood doesn't give her the excuse to act to others like the way she does,we can understand why she does it but it doesn't just make her a sympathetic character or the reason why she should be our favorite character. And the same applies in some degree to Burnham in particular seen from the perspective that she has had a Vulcan upbringing and education. But to give somebody a pass or bomb them favorite character just on the sole basis of that somebody having a traumatic past seems a bad and odd criteria doesn't it ?If we were going to extrapolate further on that criteria into the extreme one could also say that we should feel sorry for Kevin Spacey and give him a pass because he had an abusive alcoholic father or that we shouldn't condemn Michael Jackson for sexually abusing small boys because he had an abusive father and never had known a normal childhood.

And when you claim a show is part of the Star trek franchise and takes place within the Original Timeline (ENT,TOS,TNG,DS9 and VOY)it should abide to the cannon of that period so it can't introduce things like hologram communication or too advanced technology for the time period in which the show is situated like the Spore drive which after Discovery nobody mentions in all the series that come after it again(would have been particularly handy if Janeway had known about it?)or events happen that in respect to that timeline that make no sense it may help us to have familiar things in the show but when those things make no sense in the presumed timeline or act contrary to what had been established before the show acts contrary to established cannon.

The OTHER MALE character (SARU) in DISC is also someone who EXHIBITS FEMININE PERSONALITY TRAITS when he NURTURES other CREW MEMBERS like TILLY , like when he LECTURES her in SICK BAY about how she's too IMPORTANT to them to take RISKS, and then places his hand upon her shoulder (after she's INJURED by the piece of the ASTEROID she removes).

But for some reason NEX also finds NOTHING WRONG with that character and LIKES HIM???

Because Saru is a sympathetic character who despite having had to adapt to an Alien environment(he's the only member of his species to ever have left his world )and having to overcome limitations( such as his extreme sensitivity for danger)and isolation from his own species has turned out to be a constructive,emphatic,friendly and sympathetic member of the crew which is a typical Star Trek character at the core of the Star Trek philosophy it has nothing to do whether he is an effeminate male or an overly manly female.

And when he says he PREFERS the OLD FASHIONED form of ADDRESS that uses LADIES and GENTLEMEN instead of more MODERN ways of ADDRESSING people, that also HINTS at the way he (like YOU YOURSELF KNIX) LIKES it BETTER when FEMALES remain being in TRADITIONAL ROLES that were previously ASSIGNED to them instead of having them PROGRESS to the point where they have EQUAL STATUS to a MALE.

Alea iacta est;

Sorry now you are lying because that is not what I have said about that topic and wanting to stick to traditional roles was never an argument for me not liking the change but something totally unrelated to gender issues.Stop bringing in all these things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.Here above I again explained my views on these various characters which have nothing to do with strong female characters or too masculine females.I also gave you links to insightful videos on what caused these issues with the show and who was responsible for it all . And still I have to underline it's a PERSONAL VIEW you may not share that view and I respect that and whether you think it is right or not that is your opinion but so far you haven't convinced me to change my views and one doesn't understand the constant need for devalueing my views just so one can claim moral superiority it's a Star Trek board for Pete's sake not a pissing contest. If you had read my previous and hopefully this post one sees my views and arguments have little to do with them being female in any shape or form .You are accusing me of being emotional Invidia while it is actually you who is acting emotionally when one dares to say a bad word about Starbuck or Burnham or when neither of them is your favorite character.You are the first to call out Knix for his behaviour but you are actually acting in a similar fashion towards me.So let's end our discussion respectfully since I respect your opinions for liking the show although they aren't mine so at least have the common courtesy to respect my opinions on the show even if you do not share them.

And that's all I have to say about it.

Nexus71,

You said " I have my reasons to have issues with season 1 in particular ,season 2 is turning out better "

I read thru your previous response to me though I did not watch the videos you left. There is no need. We simply come to different conclusions. Btw can I strongly suggest that if you notice someone here is being particularly difficult/unreasonable you simply stop trying?

I understand the problems with licensing that affect how each ST series or film looks. I also understand that someone can make reasonable criticism of a character or show which have nothing to do with any particular racial or gender animus. However when you make the point that your objection to DSC or to Burnham's character is solely based on non racial, non gender objections and that you don't think most of the fan base did react negatively to an all female, minority led bridge....I think...thou dost protest too much... Why do you ascribe 'pure' motives to fans who haven't asserted them?

First: Many of these "fans" have plainly posted their objections to DSC based on race and gender of the stars. Remember, the backlash I refer to started before any single episode was seen. This backlash continued with the complaints more about canon, lore and other things. It became obvious to everyone that some changes had to be made for DSC to survive. What we see now is a direct response to a fan reaction you appear to be denying!

Second: Your words above confirm my thesis. Please consider carefully what the MAIN differences are between season 1 and season 2 are. I think they mainly boil down to a heroic looking white male (Kirk, Piccard) on the bridge. When Lorca moved from 'unconventional, militarily brilliant strategist' to evil-to-the core alternate universe villain', that was the last straw!!! If you think this has NOTHING to do with NOTHING then.....I don't know!

Third: DSC planners went to great lengths to explain what they were TRYING to do differently in this new ST series and why. Do you honestly think people gave them the time and space to do those things? I am referring now to things like: a) the characterization (more ensemble style cast with a deep dive into each individual as time goes on); b) the seasonal story arc (as opposed to the one hour episodic structure); c) a more rounded, realistic portrayal of the antagonists (Klingons speaking Klingon). These are things the producers announced, ahead of time, as departures from the established ST norms in order to create a better, more realistic storytelling experience. Sadly, they became the unintended casualties of season 1 as the white male fan base freaked out because they did not see THEMSELVES in the chair on the bridge of DSC.

What you are doing now Nexus71 is simply trying to deny the obvious, imho. Maybe you don't realize it yet yourself. Perhaps you convinced yourself you had OTHER real objections to the show, perhaps you did! Even if this were so, you have to admit that you (plural) really did not give the show much of a chance now...did you?

After a season and a half of DSC I can say this much. There were things I did/do not like about DSC. I still dislike the flashy, glossy look of the film but am gradually getting used to it. I never really got to see the dynamic of two females on the bridge and I feel some of the characterization is rushed, not appearing organically. I was particularly excited to hear about a more "lower deck" approach to the characterization , where a fuller picture of the non principals were presented. I haven't see that either. Rather what I am seeing is ST revert back to what I use to see in TOS and NXT GEN and what is blatantly copied in The Orville.

Speaking of which, I get that The Orville is an homage to ST in some sense. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Also there is nothing completely new of completely original in art. Even the best artists borrow. Those who understand dance can see flashes of James Brown, Fred Astaire even native African dance in the moves of the late Michael Jackson. What made us all stare at Michael was the fact that he ADDED SOMETHING NEW to JB, FA or AD. He made something new , something different. THAT is NOT what The Orville is doing. How do I know? If it were, the fans of the show would be saying " The Orville is NOTHING like ST it is different.!"

They, you are saying the EXACT opposite! They are most commonly saying that The Orville represents what they consider to be ST And what exactly is The Orville? Well, it is an exaggeration of TOS ( with some more humor generously sprinkled in)...a spoof mostly. What that spoof shows is useful however. Let me tell you what I see in The Orville. White male hegemony firmly in command with characters who have some minor enduring flaws and EVERYBODY else around them being the ones with the SERIOUS character flaws. No wonder it is preferred by the fanboys.

I appreciate the spirit of our discussions. Please consider my point of view as a useful counterbalance you MAY not have by yourself. "We don't see things as they are, we see them as WE are." Anais Nin.

Hi I am a final year film student and I need to collect some audience data for my course, I have a little survey that takes 1 minute to do if you have a spare moment! Thank you so much! https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Q2FM82P