Replies

In Discovery, war breaks out and the Klingons leading the charge have some ideological ideas inspired by the 2016 electoral divide. “The allegory is that we really started working on the show in earnest around the time the election was happening,” showrunner Aaron Harberts says. “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.”

Okay, this is turdsville up to eleven. In fact, I’m wondering if the scriptwriters have even seen the original show. Isolationism? The Klingons aren’t isolationist, they’re expansionist! The whole freakin point in the old show is that they’re conquerors. If any major power in the original show has shown isolationism, it’s the Romulans, and of course they can’t be used here because they don’t make an appearance in the Kirk era until “Balance of Terror.”

And if it’s the Federation that’s isolationist…how? To whom? The Klingons? Why the hell wouldn’t you close your borders to an enemy? I know the showrunner claims the Klingons aren’t the enemy, but that’s bunk. Spock said in Star Trek VI that there had been 70 years of unremitting hostility between the Federation and the Klingons. So yeah, there should be some hostility around the time of this show, no?

And racial purity? When was that ever a thing with Klingons? They’re about personal honor and the glory derived from fighting in battle. They’re basically space Vikings with some Samurai mixed in. Now there’s different races of Klingon? Except for the “forehead-less” Klingons of the old show (explained later as a genetic mutation), nothing of the kind was shown or discussed.

But again, I’m guessing these folks never watched the old show or the movies.

“The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Sounds like they are gonna try and make season 1 of "Enterprise" look good in comparison.

>> Okay, this is turdsville up to eleven. In fact, I’m wondering if the scriptwriters have even seen the original show. Isolationism? The Klingons aren’t isolationist, they’re expansionist! The whole freakin point in the old show is that they’re conquerors. If any major power in the original show has shown isolationism, it’s the Romulans, and of course they can’t be used here because they don’t make an appearance in the Kirk era until “Balance of Terror.”
And if it’s the Federation that’s isolationist…how? To whom? The Klingons? Why the hell wouldn’t you close your borders to an enemy? I know the showrunner claims the Klingons aren’t the enemy, but that’s bunk. Spock said in Star Trek VI that there had been 70 years of unremitting hostility between the Federation and the Klingons. So yeah, there should be some hostility around the time of this show, no?
And racial purity? When was that ever a thing with Klingons? They’re about personal honor and the glory derived from fighting in battle. They’re basically space Vikings with some Samurai mixed in. Now there’s different races of Klingon? Except for the “forehead-less” Klingons of the old show (explained later as a genetic mutation), nothing of the kind was shown or discussed.
But again, I’m guessing these folks never watched the old show or the movies. <<

Even worse than this idiotic reinvented Klingons idea is the show wants us to buy the idea that Sarek "adopted" a black female from earth and Spock had this human stepsister raised with him all this time that he never mentioned and we never heard about until Discovery. Naturally, the long lost stepsister is first officer of the Discovery and the "lead character" of the show.

Defenders of STD are trying to justify it by citing Sybok from Star Trek V (yes, pointing out what is widely considered to be one of the dumbest, most cringeworthy moments in Star Trek history to use as precedent for the new show). Audiences hated the idea of retroconning Spock with a fully Vulcan "half brother" in 1989, and they STILL hate it today, and that's why "Sybok" has NEVER been mentioned again SINCE Star Trek V.

Worse, as stupid as the concept for Sybok was, they at least had a valid explaination why Spock, Sarek, and everyone else had never mentioned Sybok once and always acted like Spock was an only child: Sybok had embraced emotion and was kicked off the Vulcan homework and ostracized by every Vulcan who ever knew him, so he was essentially dead to Sarek. I can't imagine they have a similar justification for nobody ever mentioning "Spock's human stepsister, Michael Burnham" before.

Bizarre thing, they keep trying to market this show by saying it takes place in the prime timeline and they're "strictly following canon", while everything they show us about Discovery demonstrates the exact opposite. This show has messed with the Klingon's and Spock's family free WORSE than the Abrams "reboot" did.

When I read the description, I realized this is nothing but another leftist attack full of lies. A tv show wrapped up in Communo-fascist propaganda. It’s a damn shame, I’ve watched Star Trek for 4 decades since I was a little kid. I will not be watching this despicable, non-canon, bit of leftist propaganda attacking patriotic Americans. This isn’t Star Trek, and it deserves to die a quick and painful death.