On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2019 01:02:54 GMT, mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> >Rhino wrote:
> >>I was watching some YouTube videos about Discovery and several former
> >>sailors and soldiers commented that if anyone had been as reluctant to
> >>follow orders as Burnham has been, it would have gone very VERY badly
> >>for them.
> >
> >"Reluctant to follow orders" is one thing. "Captain, you have a
> >multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder. " (goes
> >onto bridge) "The Captain's orders are (orders exactly opposite
> >of what the captain actually ordered)" goes a bit beyond that.
> >
> >With the caveat that that first episode that did not require
> >subscribing to CBS I'm Not Accessing It is the only episode
> >I've seen. I think I heard from somewhere that Burnham spent
> >some time in a Federation stockade, but nothing about who
> >sprung her, much less how flat-out mutiny got "overlooked"
> >and she's back on the bridge of a Federation starship.
>
> She wasn't "sprung" in any episode I saw--she was commandeered for
> reasons I don't recall and not trusted.
>
> However I gave up on it when they did the Groundhog Day
> episode--Stargate didn't go there until Season 4 and Xena until Season
> 3.
Yes. It is kind of crazy to see this series regurgitating the very worst ideas
from previous series in the very first season.
Personally, I don't think that anyone knows how to simultaneously make Star
Trek series both have mass market appeal and appeal to Trekkies. It can only
happen by happy accident. I think that the smart move is to go for the
Trekkies and let the thing
grow by word of mouth if it is going to grow. They seem to be going for mass
market appeal from the get go. I think that this series is failing for the
same reasons that _Enterprise_ failed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
