Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We’re both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
“I’d love to hear some of these examples of badwriting in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors.”
and I respond
“Well if I skip the ‘overwrought metaphors’, I seriously doubt I’ll have anything left to talk about!”
then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I’m here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that’s actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you’re just sea lioning. It’s not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994’s It’s Pat, you would tell me “uh, fucking everything, piss off” and you’d be right to.
I know, because there wasn’t a typo the first time I wrote it. You see, gotchas like that usually work better when I haven’t already used the term before in a comment that you previously responded to. Don’t worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to pay attention to what passes in front of your eyeballs.
I do, however, take it as an admission that you had to resort to making fun of me to have something to say, just like how I already expect your next comment to be an attempt at affecting aloof detachment.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I’m going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
Invincible main character: Michael Burnham survives even the most extreme hardship, where anyone else would have died.
Perpetually high stakes: everything’s always life or death, in a somewhat escalating way where they don’t leave room to establish normal crew life. I would speculate the producers do this so as to avoid “boring” episodes - but such episodes do have significant value in fleshing out a rich and complete world.
Michael Burnham is everything: she’s always central to the core plot, everything is centred around her perspective.
Lack of professionalism: the characters are more emotive, sure, but their emotions often come before their careers as Starfleet professionals. Starfleet is supposed to be this ideal society, but the characters don’t really portray this. They’re more like modern day people living in a Starfleet world.
Inconsistent character development: many characters should have developed and progressed from the experiences we’ve witnessed them go through, but they still stick to some of their Flanderised tropes.
Incompetent crew: everyone’s clueless until the main character (Michael) tells them what the solution is.
Inconsistent technology: the show is set in the early days of Star Trek, yet is more flashy and modern looking than much of 90s Trek.
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn’t really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I’d still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible show, but it’s far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We’re both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
“I’d love to hear some of these examples of bad writing in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors.”
and I respond
“Well if I skip the ‘overwrought metaphors’, I seriously doubt I’ll have anything left to talk about!” then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I’m here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that’s actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you’re just sea lioning. It’s not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994’s It’s Pat, you would tell me “uh, fucking everything, piss off” and you’d be right to.
So that’s a “no?”
I believe I made it quite clear that I get to do the pithy bot mot that’s actually nonsense, stay in your lane.
The term is “bon mot.” Don’t worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to judge what is or is not good writing.
I know, because there wasn’t a typo the first time I wrote it. You see, gotchas like that usually work better when I haven’t already used the term before in a comment that you previously responded to. Don’t worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to pay attention to what passes in front of your eyeballs.
I do, however, take it as an admission that you had to resort to making fun of me to have something to say, just like how I already expect your next comment to be an attempt at affecting aloof detachment.
I’m actually still just waiting for you to give some examples of bad writing in Disco.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I’m going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn’t really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I’d still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible show, but it’s far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
Again, I’m aware of how sealioning works. Will that be all…?
I’m sorry to say, but your behaviour here has been more like a circus seal jumping up and clapping around. You haven’t really delivered any substance.
I think you have a point, but you’ve not taken any opportunity to articulate it.
If you hit context you should see my reply one step above, I’d appreciate if you jumped in and commented towards that.
I’ve engaged with a bad-faith question more candidly than it deserves.