Honestly this is the type of content I would prefer to hear a Trekkie’s perspective on.

Just seeing this post, I didn’t know this was a thing that could happen, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some Pre-S1 TOS. I don’t think Season 1 was ever canonically the first year of the five year mission.

You can throw darts at her photograph on your own wall.

Wait what? lol I like Burhnam. I was arguing with the guy who was making shit up to hate on her!

Was it the neighborhoods?

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I looked it up and I didn’t see anything about “redemption” necessitating the fawning over of the redemptee by others, so until someone claims otherwise I’m going to believe Mr. Webster.

I’m so confused by this comment. Season three is literally (literally) about “a Federation that keeps adapting, improving, and ultimately continuing as a positive force moving forward through the dedicated collaboration of an infinitely-diverse collaboration of peoples” even in the face of overwhelming odds to the contrary.

Well said, Enterprise is my least favorite… until Season 4 which I consider to be some of my favorite Star Trek.

But same goes for Discovery! I appreciated what they were trying to do but it didn’t click with me. And then seasons 4 and 5 I consider to be some of Trek’s best.

Thank you for the sanity. I get so tired hearing Burhnam being held to such an obvious double standard. I wonder why? What is different about the character?

You’re suggesting that redemption from disgrace is the same as “everyone else fawning over how great she is and what they’d do without her”?

It just feels awfully weird to me that your list of criteria that makes a show “hateable” only applies to this particular show. And when another show checks off the items, the list suddenly stops being “hateable items” and instead becomes a list of minor nitpicks.

I just can’t figure out what the difference is, what could it be about Discovery in particular that would cause you to hold this list of criteria with such gravitas, but when the listed items appear on a different show, you don’t seem to mind? What could the difference be?

Why is it when those things you listed show up on other Star Trek series you consider them to be “flaws” on an “overall quality” show, but on Discovery they become “reasons to hate”? Why the double standard?

You didn’t say Discovery villains didn’t “have nuance and development”. So no, I didn’t say that either.

I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!

I’m sorry, but if you truly watched the entire season, you’d know that your description of the events is incongruous with the events as presented on screen.

everyone else fawning over how great she is

Did we watch the same show? She is literally demoted and sent to prison in the first episode.

If I can present examples to you of those things happening in other Star Trek series would it change your mind about those other series?

Or does this list of criteria selectively apply specifically to Discovery?

Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise

• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future

Do you have any examples of the Nihilism? I’m struggling to think of any… In fact Season 3 was about maintaining optimism and faith in the strength of the Federation against unbelievable odds.

• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions

Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?

• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode

I agree that there was a main character, but I also enjoy a lot of media with a main character so I don’t see that as a bad thing.

• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of science

I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!

She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.

For clarity’s sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it’s described on TVTropes:

[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.

I’m curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam’s many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.

Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn’t actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.

Semi-related but I lost count of the number of times someone on Reddit described Adira’s coming out (a ten second moment in a larger unrelated scene) as a “huge story arc” or being comprised of “multiple episodes” being “shoved in the audiences faces”. I felt like I was taking crazy pills until I learned that’s exactly how the outrage-tubers were presenting it. If you’d never watched the season you’d have no idea it was such an inconsequential moment.