I mean, it ain't exactly The Honeymooners or Dukes of Hazzard, is it? That's the standard that we're measuring "woke" against these days!

The ones who aren't being dishonest pieces of shit feeding into divisivism are usually complaining about the lack of quality of the writing and/or the overt nature of 'leftist' messaging. Meaning anything remotely progressive like gay people existing or touchy-feely things coming from guys in a manner where those things are not directly relevant to the plot or don't actually change anything end up feeling forced, and thusly feel like they're sprinkled in just to "be progressive".

Often times there is some credibility to the complaints of the quality of writing, it's just the 'woke' thing that triggered them to think about why the thing on screen is happening. Instead of noticing that it's a general ham-fisted nature to the writing (which Trek basically always has in quite a few episodes of all series), they stupidly blame 'woke'.

That is the power of the brainwashing coming from the dishonest propagandists like Ben Shapiro and their ilk: Legitimate shortcomings become things caused by "the other", instead of basic variability of quality.

IMO, the bigger problem with Trek is Hollywood dumbasses like Kurtzman like pushing messaging more than writing good stories to challenge the alternate POV, which plays right into the shitty propagandists' hands.

There are plenty of old episodes that would embarass modern Trek with being progressive since they didn't make it an overt declaration (tell the audience), but showed why the bigoted view was bad. Whereas new Trek loves to just... declare the progressive view as good, and then go on to Main Character the problem away: Poor writing even when you agree with the message.

Sure, there are also quite a few hamfisted episodes of old Trek, but I'd much rather take 24 episode seasons smattered with ham than 10 episodes with an overarching story that loves to simply declare itself superior. It's so much easier to ignore the poorly written episodes in old Trek when there is so much to take in, especially when there are some gems to find.

IMO, the overproduction is also hurting a lot of newer IPs even beyond being a huge cost. It sets the expectations higher. It's so much easier to gloss over a 6/10 in writing which is inevitable in a long running series no matter the message, when the visuals and the rest aren't a 10/10 in every scene. If the episodes weren't insanely expensive, long productions, they'd be able to put out a lot more episodes to drown out the bad ones. Instead, they give us 10, in a season that's almost always a bit rocky to begin with in every series.

I think setting expectation is one reason why Lower Decks gets so much love. It's "just a cartoon", so when the writing nails a mature topic, it feels like a proper treat.

If anything, Discovery was way more "woke".

Academy is honestly less "woke" than Discovery, or even SNW.

Basically though, these jokers HATE the gay Klingon.

So if it had been popular would it have continued? Serious question, because it sounds like they weren’t going to continue SFA after season 2 in the first place.

Okay. Still doesn’t explain why they’d announce this now.

Code of Honour also sounds like it was written for TOS and just recycled. I think a lot of TNG season 1 was like that because they didn’t have characters defined well enough to write for yet.

Plot-driven sci-fi has always been quite bad TV. People need characters to identify with and follow. Season 1 TNG was plagued with plot-driven shows.

At least he weren't trying to show teenage drama down my throat.

What I want to know is what market research they did to come to the conclusion that this would be positively received, who was the show aimed at, because it certainly isn't Star Trek fans.

Not just because they're new though. But because they're badly written.

What does the amount of episodes per season have to do with anything? The creator knows how many episodes they'll have to deliver and that they need to make it compelling enough to get the S2 renewal. It doesn't matter if you have 8 or 28 episodes to do that.
Additionally, the UK has been able to make very memorable TV shows for decades and they get 6 episodes total.

And what type of excuse is "TNG was legit pretty wonky for the first 20-30 episodes"?? So because that show took a while to get its footing 89 years ago, shows today are also allowed to take a couple years before getting good? Are we just not supposed to expect improvements?

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement "if it takes two whole seasons for a show to “just get good” it was a shit show.". We should have higher expectations.