Corgana

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.

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?

OMG you're so right.

Honestly I'm so used to hearing the same tired old arguments I didn't even process that.

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.