this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
293 points (97.4% liked)

BestOfLemmy

10444 readers
326 users here now

Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://startrek.website/post/35769143

Hi StarTrek.website, I'm Karim Diané aka Jay-Den Kraag from Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, AMA! (Responding to questions Thursday @4pm!)

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

I just wanted to say I really enjoyed the first episode. Good pacing, good drama, and Giamatti was great. Lots of great callbacks, and it avoided a lot of "drama for the sake of drama".

I do want to complain about the guy freezing in space. That's not how space works. :) Also, I can't see a shuttle losing control just because the passengers shifted around a bit.

Ultimately those are minor quibbles and I've put up with much worse Trek plot-driven engineering failures! :D

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (4 children)

This show has not been very well received by the fans but its not his fault of course.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 hours ago

I see plenty of hate, but a lot of it seems to be coming from disingenuous places. Videos that hate stuff are much more likely to go viral than ones from people who are loving the show (or people whose take is "it's pretty mid").

Having deep disagreements over which Trek is best Trek is a part of Trekkie cultural heritage, so I have no problem with people who genuinely do hate the show. What I have a problem with are the people whose criticism is clearly coming from a disingenuous place. An example of what I mean is that I've seen a few people criticise episode 5 as simultaneously being too nostalgic for DS9, but also not nostalgic enough? People are contradicting themselves in their own reviews, and it makes their goal completely transparent.

Besides that, people who have been into Trek for longer than I've been alive have emphasised that this is fairly typical for whenever a new Trek show releases. Initial reactions are often disproportionately negative, because it's different than what people are used to — but then over the years, the series comes to be viewed in a more positive light. I'm too young to have seen much of this play out first hand, but it does resonate with my own experience; TNG was what made me fall in love with Star Trek, and so when I first watched DS9, I hated it — it felt like an affront to Star Trek. Now, years later, DS9 is probably my favourite series, and I feel like it captures so much of what makes me call myself a Trekkie.

I have been enjoying Starfleet Academy, but even if it wasn't my cup of tea, I think I'd still respect it for being bold enough to go where no Trek has gone before. It's trying to do something different, and I appreciate its contribution to the wider conversation of what Star Trek is, or should be. It's been such a long running franchise precisely because of this willingness to adapt with the times, and I am glad to see Starfleet Academy continuing that tradition

[–] Todd_cross@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I've been enjoying Starfleet Academy so far.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I havent but thats fair. Some people will like it, some wont. Its for sure more like a teenage version of star trek in my opinion. What do you like about the show?

[–] spamfajitas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 hours ago

Not op but I've been steadily enjoying it more with each episode that comes out. It's got a pretty decent cast and Holly Hunter facing down Paul Giamatti makes for some really intense scenes. It's a more hopeful version of Trek which I think is pretty nice in these times. Some of the jokes are extremely cringe but I've found myself laughing out loud at times. Oh and the plot usually makes sure to focus on the students as a crew, giving time to flesh out the large cast a decent amount.

Only real complaint I have is they could tone down the lens flares a bit.

Most of the angry reviews I've read are from people who will never be happy because of the "woke" crowd. I just instantly disregard those. Then there are people who clearly aren't paying attention when watching the episodes.

People seem to think Caleb is just another Michael Burnham but the writers clearly establish in each episode he's pretty foolish and isn't always right. The show is doing a decent job of keeping Discovery at arms length, only really referencing it like Strange New Worlds did.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Pretty much all I've been hearing is praise. I think it's more reflective of which places we go for discussions than reflective of the quality of the show.

With a small but vocal minority hating on the (in best ferengi impression) feeeeeeeemale characters, it's been mostly "it's great" or "it's not my cup of earl Grey but it's being done well for the most part and I hope it does well"

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 4 points 7 hours ago

Its because you are in a filter bubble. Its not a small and vocal minority disliking the new star trek. Its actually one of the most popular topics right now on YouTube, with tons of people discussing why they hate it. But your feed probably wont serve you that. We all live in these bubbles now. :)

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Pretty much all I’ve been hearing is praise.

You're in a bubble that is actively trying to love it for political reasons, despite its many faults. Another bubble is actively hating it, for similar political reasons. Most people just don't care.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like online discourse about media is spoiled by loud fringes. There's a distressing amount of people who don't like women, queer folks, minorities, etc. They won't say that's why they don't like a show. Some of them might not even realize. They just feel unconsciously uncomfortable when there's a woman in charge or two men holding hands, and they reach for a more socially acceptable reason to reject it.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I feel like discourse is not worth having, its too many people being upset by opinions they dont agree with.

But yes, if you tell people that certain opinions are not allowed to be expressed, then they will tell you another reason they dont like the show. That is what happens. If you want the actual reason, you have to allow it to appear.

Many fans are seeing this star trek as being a vehicle for removing masculinity from the show, because the creators think its bad. But some of the new audience will say "whats the big deal, why cant we have a women be feminine and why cant we have gay klingons".

So yeah, different perspectives, and a large reason why so different opinions about it.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

if you tell people that certain opinions are not allowed to be expressed, then they will tell you another reason they dont like the show. That is what happens. If you want the actual reason, you have to allow it to appear.

This is interesting. I feel like people are allowed to say "I don't think women should lead". They just don't like the consequences of having that opinion. They want to say something cruel or afactual without anyone uninviting them from parties.

Many fans are seeing this star trek as being a vehicle for removing masculinity from the show,

If that's true, it's another example of conservatives having atrocious media literacy. There's ample masculinity in the show. Perhaps they're upset that it's not exclusively the kind they want to see. Conservatives are not known for enjoying other perspectives and new takes.

Which I guess is your first point again. They have unwelcome beliefs so they'll contort them into something they feel has less consequences. That's easier than admitting maybe they're wrong or their beliefs are bad.

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is interesting. I feel like people are allowed to say “I don’t think women should lead”. They just don’t like the consequences of having that opinion. They want to say something cruel or afactual without anyone uninviting them from parties.

I agree, but would add that in some cases it's a little more subtle than that. A fair number of people are fundamentally sexist but feel uncomfortable within themselves about their beliefs, so:

  • see something that goes against a belief
  • feel revulsion
  • subconsciously realize their belief contradicts other (more charitable) beliefs that they themselves hold
  • seek another reason for feeling that revulsion
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Right. Cognitive dissonance. We all suffer it sometimes. I guess it takes uncommon courage and clarity to work through it. Most people would rather do the least effort to preserve their sense of being a good person.

Being sexist is bad

They are good

They don't like this show because it has a woman lead

That's sexist

But they're good

Can't change "sexism is bad". Can't change "they are good". Only thing left to change is the reason they don't like the show. Easy-peasy.

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

Most people would rather do the least effort to preserve their sense of being a good person.

Well, it's like that Occam's Razor, right? It's simpler to believe: "I don't like it because of (excuse)" instead of "Some of my fundamental beliefs are completely wrong and I need to re-examine them." Such a person may feel that this is not quite the full story, but are all our thoughts completely examined? It's not necessarily malicious to say: I've figured this out 'well enough' for now, and I can move on to something else.

This is an important distinction because then to tell such a person that they're "bad" or that they "hate" is completely meaningless to them. They don't consciously hate, they just adopt oppressive philosophies and they've never needed to examine them.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Shouldn't the paper be crumpled ?

[–] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Did this already start? I'm not seing a single response from him.

[–] Skunk@jlai.lu 10 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Nah, it’s at 4pm east murican time.

Starfleet should talk in UTC, so 2100z

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Specifically Stardate -296789.04

[–] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago