Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[New haven america]

We are getting a ST 4 though.

Just not the original time travel one involving Chris Hemsworth.

Are they making another movie?

Yes.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Are they making another movie?

Yes.

Huh... ive forgotten all about this.

Yay

[Vassenor]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

Yeah, but if they were gonna keep going with rebooting Star Trek, they should have just kept the Kelvin Timeline going. By Nimoy's passing, we already knew and loved Zachary Quinto, and there had been an official "passing the torch" between Nimoy and Quinto in 2009.

If Pine hadn't wanted so much money, we would've gotten a fourth film after Beyond. Considering Beyond was so good, it seems like the Kelvin Timeline was finding its own footing when they just cancelled it. Reminds me a bit of Enterprise...

I mean, don't get me wrong, more Anson Mount would be awesome, but it feels a bit weird to keep going with this new premise of semi-rebooting the Prime Timeline.



Also this sounds hella cool.

Actually the reason the original ST 4 got canceled was because Chris P. was annoyed that everyone would be taking a substantial pay cut to fund Chris H.'s return, who in turn would be the higher earner despite only having previously appeared for 3 minutes in 09.

TBH, I have no idea why Chris H. is so in demand, he's only been in like 2 good movies, and has the worst saga in the MCU, so... It's because he's hot, isn't it?

Also, Bad Robot probably couldn't wait to bastardize the Prime Timeline.

Yeah. I'm actually convinced Discovery requires the most intelligence to watch, because it takes such mental prowess to accept how any of the show could fit into the Star Trek universe.

I wish we got a star trek 4 from the kelvin movies. Beyond was such a surprisingly fun movie.

We are getting a ST 4 though.

Just not the original time travel one involving Chris Hemsworth.

Well, it'll be too little, too late. I think too many people have just given up on the franchise, what with Klutzman and his posse running the scene with Discovery and its spawn. With all the producer changes and the current pandemic, it'll probably come out in 2030. Even if it does come out, literally nobody will go and see it, because Into Darkness killed the Kelvin Timeline (as seen with Beyond) and cinemas are dying anyways. Trek is going through such franchise fatigue right now its actually frightening.

Honestly, they should save their money.

[New haven america]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

No need to wait I've already declared it as such.

You're welcome.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

Two minutes after the first trailer is released.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

Buddy, anything after 2017 is not Trek.

[Morrdh]

Pretty meh about the new Pike show, haven't watched any of Discovery (then again haven't really heard alot of great things about it).

Saw the first episode of Picard and was really intrigued by it, though there seems to be mixed reviews for the rest of the series.

Looking more towards the release of Axanar.

[Myrensis]

I heard someone asked Kurtzman about the idea of actually doing something new with Star Trek, and he just started sobbing uncontrollably and pissing himself in abject terror.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

I heard someone asked Kurtzman about the idea of actually doing something new with Star Trek, and just started sobbing uncontrollably and pissing himself in abject terror.

"Orciiiiii! Orci, where are youuuu?!"

"Mr Kurtzman, I-"

"Help, I used my last idea on Into Darkness and it suuuuuucked!!!"

[Jedi Council]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

Buddy, anything after 2017 is not Trek.

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

Buddy, anything after 2017 is not Trek.

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

[The Alma Mater]

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

The Orville felt pretty Trek to me.

[Morrdh]

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

Still, Axanar is finally releasing this year....long as they have a convention to premiere at instead of them all getting cancelled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uua_wl9ZH_I

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

Still, Axanar is finally releasing this year....long as they have a convention to premiere at instead of them all getting cancelled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uua_wl9ZH_I

...I'll make that my one exception.

But Axanar is an empty victory, considering CBS has nearly stifled Trek fan creativity under its big, ugly boot.

In my mind, Star Trek should become an open domain. There's clearly fans who love Star Trek and want to build stories around it. I mean, Star Trek already encompasses a massive storyverse with probably hundreds of alien species, hundreds of planets, spanning the course of multiple centuries over three major distinct universes. You can tell any number of stories to expand the universe, using any of these aliens, any of these planets, anything. There is an epic to be told with Star Trek, but that epic is in the hands of CBS, who has dumped it into the lap of Kurtzman.

But, no. Axanar had to be made an example of, because it conflicted with Star Trek Disaster. So, now nobody can tell a Trek story longer than thirty minutes. It's sad, really, to see such a formidable story be reduced to mushroom highways in the span of, like, a year. Seriously, it went from Beyond to Discovery in probably the span of a year. What a drop in quality.

If only a fourth Kelvin film had been produced, maybe we would have been spared from Discovery. Oh, what might have been!

Either way, Trek needs to have more fan involvement.

[New haven america]

Buddy, anything after 2017 is not Trek.

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

In name only.

[Morrdh]

I believe the fan production agreement from CBS is half hour long episodes, might be a limit on the actual number of episodes.

[Jedi Council]

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

In name only.

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

In name only.

But it is though. Says it right in the title.

It might not be Star Trek as you like it, but it is still Star Trek.

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

Again, while you may not like it, you cannot deny that it is Star Trek.

I do not understand this sect of Fandom, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Game of Thrones, or anything like it. Just because you do not like a series, or a movie, or a book it does not automatically become an entirely different product. I really disliked The Rise of Skywalker, and as a hardcore Star Wars fan, I was disappointed by that. But I dont go running around saying "Star Wars is dead, TRoS ruined the entire franchise, even a super congregation of everything I loved about previous installments would not be enough to win me back" like a petulant child.

Instead of banging on about Trek "being dead," why not just say "I do not like that show, I prefer the other series" and move on? Why is there a need to tear down a show like this? Why not offer constructive criticism or something more interesting than just writing it off.

Not liking Discovery is fine, it is not everyone's cup of tea. I find it very mediocre. It has some good things, (Michelle Yeoh, Saru, etc) and some bad things (Spore Drive? Really?). But I just accept that it is a Trek that does not live up to TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9.

Speaking to the specific criticisms about Discovery, I do understand some of what you say. Of course, Discovery could not pull off such a staid, but impactful episode as say "The Measure of a Man" from TNG. But there are still some very interesting story arcs and ethical questions within the first two seasons so far.

As an aside in response to you're issue about the excess violence and "lazer pew pews," I would argue that if Rodenberry, or anyone involved with TNG, DS9 and Voyager had the budget Discovery has, and the ability to create such effects, they would have used it with gusto. That's a problem of the times, not of this specific show.

In any case, let's not forget how tepid people were about alot of the other series at their beginnings too. DS9 for example was quite controversial among the Trek fanbase when it was released because it seemed to veer so far from Roddenberry's original concept, in both format and story. Now, it is considered to be one of, if not the best, series. Who knows, Discovery could very well improve beyond the mediocrity it is mired in right now. Hell, with the amount of clamour there was for Strange New Worlds, it's clear there is some demographic that it already appeals to.

This strange radicalization of die hard fans of any series, such as Star Wars and Star Trek is silly to me. Media evolves over time; what was popular in the 1960s was different than the 1990s, which is different from now. Quality likewise fluctuates between shows, and even between episodes. No one is forcing you to watch Discovery. No one is saying you cannot criticize it. But I am sick and tired of this strange, "I must approve of it or it should be burnt down" mentality, something that has been growing within lots of different fandoms for a while now. It's not productive in any way shape or form.

[New haven america]

In name only.

In name only.

I've given up on the whole franchise after Discovery.

Even if they gave me the most Roddenberry-esque, ethical Trek melodrama with no lazer pew-pew guns and the return of Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Bill Shatner, with a thoughtful perspective on the human condition and a moral dilemma to challenge the world's great philosophers, even if they gave me the most Trek-faithful production since the Motion Picture, it still would not be Trek. The most it can ever be at this point is a cold reproduction.

Sorry, but the way I see it, Trek is dead, and Kurtzman is holding the phaser.

1. Again, while you may not like it, you cannot deny that it is Star Trek.

2. I do not understand this sect of Fandom, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Game of Thrones, or anything like it. Just because you do not like a series, or a movie, or a book it does not automatically become an entirely different product. I really disliked The Rise of Skywalker, and as a hardcore Star Wars fan, I was disappointed by that. But I dont go running around saying "Star Wars is dead, TRoS ruined the entire franchise, even a super congregation of everything I loved about previous installments would not be enough to win me back" like a petulant child.

3. Instead of banging on about Trek "being dead," why not just say "I do not like that show, I prefer the other series" and move on? Why is there a need to tear down a show like this? Why not offer constructive criticism or something more interesting than just writing it off.

Not liking Discovery is fine, it is not everyone's cup of tea. I find it very mediocre. It has some good things, (Michelle Yeoh, Saru, etc) and some bad things (Spore Drive? Really?). But I just accept that it is a Trek that does not live up to TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9.

Speaking to the specific criticisms about Discovery, I do understand some of what you say. Of course, Discovery could not pull off such a staid, but impactful episode as say "The Measure of a Man" from TNG. But there are still some very interesting story arcs and ethical questions within the first two seasons so far.

As an aside in response to you're issue about the excess violence and "lazer pew pews," I would argue that if Rodenberry, or anyone involved with TNG, DS9 and Voyager had the budget Discovery has, and the ability to create such effects, they would have used it with gusto. That's a problem of the times, not of this specific show.

In any case, let's not forget how tepid people were about alot of the other series at their beginnings too. DS9 for example was quite controversial among the Trek fanbase when it was released because it seemed to veer so far from Roddenberry's original concept, in both format and story. Now, it is considered to be one of, if not the best, series. Who knows, Discovery could very well improve beyond the mediocrity it is mired in right now. Hell, with the amount of clamour there was for Strange New Worlds, it's clear there is some demographic that it already appeals to.

This strange radicalization of die hard fans of any series, such as Star Wars and Star Trek is silly to me. Media evolves over time; what was popular in the 1960s was different than the 1990s, which is different from now. Quality likewise fluctuates between shows, and even between episodes. No one is forcing you to watch Discovery. No one is saying you cannot criticize it. But I am sick and tired of this strange, "I must approve of it or it should be burnt down" mentality, something that has been growing within lots of different fandoms for a while now. It's not productive in any way shape or form.

1. Again, In Name Only.
2. STD/STP/Whatever the Hell else Bad Robot decides to lazily shit out and slap the ST moniker onto is an entirely different and downright perverse product. I've already been over this before.
3. I and many others I know offer constructive criticism all the time, so I don't know why this point is here.

[Jedi Council]

1. Again, while you may not like it, you cannot deny that it is Star Trek.

2. I do not understand this sect of Fandom, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Game of Thrones, or anything like it. Just because you do not like a series, or a movie, or a book it does not automatically become an entirely different product. I really disliked The Rise of Skywalker, and as a hardcore Star Wars fan, I was disappointed by that. But I dont go running around saying "Star Wars is dead, TRoS ruined the entire franchise, even a super congregation of everything I loved about previous installments would not be enough to win me back" like a petulant child.

Instead of banging on about Trek "being dead," why not just say "I do not like that show, I prefer the other series" and move on? Why is there a need to tear down a show like this? Why not offer constructive criticism or something more interesting than just writing it off.

Not liking Discovery is fine, it is not everyone's cup of tea. I find it very mediocre. It has some good things, (Michelle Yeoh, Saru, etc) and some bad things (Spore Drive? Really?). But I just accept that it is a Trek that does not live up to TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9.

Speaking to the specific criticisms about Discovery, I do understand some of what you say. Of course, Discovery could not pull off such a staid, but impactful episode as say "The Measure of a Man" from TNG. But there are still some very interesting story arcs and ethical questions within the first two seasons so far.

As an aside in response to you're issue about the excess violence and "lazer pew pews," I would argue that if Rodenberry, or anyone involved with TNG, DS9 and Voyager had the budget Discovery has, and the ability to create such effects, they would have used it with gusto. That's a problem of the times, not of this specific show.

In any case, let's not forget how tepid people were about alot of the other series at their beginnings too. DS9 for example was quite controversial among the Trek fanbase when it was released because it seemed to veer so far from Roddenberry's original concept, in both format and story. Now, it is considered to be one of, if not the best, series. Who knows, Discovery could very well improve beyond the mediocrity it is mired in right now. Hell, with the amount of clamour there was for Strange New Worlds, it's clear there is some demographic that it already appeals to.

This strange radicalization of die hard fans of any series, such as Star Wars and Star Trek is silly to me. Media evolves over time; what was popular in the 1960s was different than the 1990s, which is different from now. Quality likewise fluctuates between shows, and even between episodes. No one is forcing you to watch Discovery. No one is saying you cannot criticize it. But I am sick and tired of this strange, "I must approve of it or it should be burnt down" mentality, something that has been growing within lots of different fandoms for a while now. It's not productive in any way shape or form.

1. Again, In Name Only.
2. STD/STP/Whatever the Hell else Bad Robot decides to lazily shit out and slap the ST moniker onto is an entirely different and downright perverse product. I've already been over this before.

Well I am not going to reply to the idea of "leftsploitation" because that is just ridiculous, so I will focus on the other two.

1. The Federation is not perfect. It never was. We have seen it have numerous failings over the years. Hell, In DS9, Starfleet was moments away from a successful military coup! Data was almost murdered by Maddox before Picards desperate legal ploy. Countless Admirals have been seen to be shit heads, often at the behest of the Federation. If you truly have a problem with this, the I hope you dislike TNG and DS9 as much as you do Discovery or Picard.

2. If you cannot see a hopeful premise in Discovery or Picard, we have been watching very different shows.

Discovery's first season was entirely based on characters grappling with the means justifying their ends. Without giving too many spoilers for those who havent seen it, we see a big shift in one characters views on this issue, such that they take the opposite course of action than we would have expected then in the early episodes of the season. I could go on with other examples (Tardigrade, Stamets, etc).

Picard is an entirely optimistic story. It's about a society, a good, ostensibly perfect society, that has lost its way. It's about the human failures that can come when we make knee jerk decisions, and it ends with a message of sacrifice and moral rectitude. It's about how even the best people can make wrong decisions, but that it is never too late to fix them, or to show others the better Angel's of your nature.

However, having seen your history commenting here over the past few pages, I am sure you will disagree. You seem to have an implacable hatred for Kurtzman and the new Trek crew. But please be aware that continually tearing down a show, especially in a thread that is supposed to be discussing said show, and even more especially in a thread where its seems most people are at least fine with said show, does not make you "edgy," nor will it convince anyone. It makes you annoying as hell and someone most people will probably just ignore in the future. Which, is why I recommend you take my advice and be more constructive in your critiques and more aware that your opinion is not the only metric by which something is measured.

[New haven america]

1. Again, In Name Only.
2. STD/STP/Whatever the Hell else Bad Robot decides to lazily shit out and slap the ST moniker onto is an entirely different and downright perverse product. I've already been over this before.

1. Well I am not going to reply to the idea of "leftsploitation" because that is just ridiculous, so I will focus on the other two.

2. The Federation is not perfect. It never was. We have seen it have numerous failings over the years. Hell, In DS9, Starfleet was moments away from a successful military coup! Data was almost murdered by Maddox before Picards desperate legal ploy. Countless Admirals have been seen to be shit heads, often at the behest of the Federation. If you truly have a problem with this, the I hope you dislike TNG and DS9 as much as you do Discovery or Picard.

3. If you cannot see a hopeful premise in Discovery or Picard, we have been watching very different shows.

4. Discovery's first season was entirely based on characters grappling with the means justifying their ends. Without giving too many spoilers for those who havent seen it, we see a big shift in one characters views on this issue, such that they take the opposite course of action than we would have expected then in the early episodes of the season. I could go on with other examples (Tardigrade, Stamets, etc).

5. Picard is an entirely optimistic story. 6. It's about a society, a good, ostensibly perfect society, that has lost its way. It's about the human failures that can come when we make knee jerk decisions, and it ends with a message of sacrifice and moral rectitude. It's about how even the best people can make wrong decisions, but that it is never too late to fix them, or to show others the better Angel's of your nature.

However, having seen your history commenting here over the past few pages, I am sure you will disagree. You seem to have an implacable hatred for Kurtzmen and the new Trek crew. But please be aware that continually tearing down a show, especially in a thread that is supposed to be discussing said show, and even more especially in a thread where its seems most people are at least fine with said show, does not make you "edgy," nor will it convince anyone. It makes you annoying as hell and someone most people will probably just ignore in the future. 7. Which, is why I recommend you take my advice and be more constructive in your critiques and more aware that your opinion is not the only metric by which something is measured.

1. Good, we're in the denial phase, that's the first stage of grief and with time you'll come around and see how I'm right about that.
2. However, The Federation was never a xenophobic spineless populous state that allowed drugs and corruption to run rampant. Usually problems like that got pushed onto other species because The Federation was an organization that we should all aspire to create and want to live in. I want to live in TNG's Era Federation, while STD and STP's Federation is just a rip off of The Expanse's solar system of BSG's 12 Colonies, places and countries I would very much dread living in.
3. Yes, you've been watching something that doesn't exist in this timeline.
4. STD's first season is bollocks that has no idea where it wants to go and continually stumbles drunkenly about until it passes out in a field somewhere. Which isn't surprising if you read any of the behind the scenes drama like how the main showrunner got fired because CBS wanted to release their streaming service ASAP and he was taking too damn long, which lead to the hiring of 2 new showrunners with their own visions of the series and like 3 re-writes (Mostly done by Kurtzman) and needing to bring in a bunch of producers for the series after CBS realized that the show was going way over the series' per-episode budget. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they got anything out with that type of work environment.
5. Take it away Bender~
6. It's a social commentary made by idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. It's a show that' superficially deep and meaningful (Constantly droning on about hope and faith and blah), while under the surface it makes absolutely no logical sense. How did the Romulans not know their star was going Nova even though stars give off warning signs thousands of years in advance while the Romulans are on equal footing to The Federation tech-wise? How did the Federation go from an accepting and generally anti-discriminatory society to wanting to genocide all the Romulans over the course of only 30 years (If you didn't know, the fact that Romulans even asked for help is a massive sign of trust considering how paranoid they are)? Why does the Federation suddenly have a criminal underground big enough that they're able to run raids of intra-Federation outposts and colonies (Not even The Orion Syndicate had the manpower or gall to try something so idiotic)? Furthermore, why was said criminal organization seemingly totally taken down by 1 blonde chick with some phasers? Why does poverty exist in a post-scarcity society? Why does the series put such a high focus on Picard and Data when they barely interacted in the series? Where's Geordie (You know, Data's actual best friend)? Why did 7's search for humanity lead her to becoming a whisky chugging, phaser blasting, lesbian psychopath?

In order to write a good story you need a stable foundation while STP has no foundation.

You know that scene where whoever the fuck android chick is going on about "In my dreams I see a planet with 2 moons and a blood red sky."? I can't help but think of Data responding with "There are approximately 2,587 known planets that match that criteria. Would you like me to list them in alphabetical order or by date of discovery?"
7. Well if we're gonna get needlessly personal then the reason why you don't like what I have to say is because you can't handle my constructive criticism and you know I'm right, so as a defense mechanism you dig a hole deeper trying to defend works that are wholly undeserving of the majority of praise they get because at least it's something instead of nothing, right?

I suggest you take my advice and become more open minded to those around you.

[Vassenor]

Also, for all this complaining about excessive violence... where were you when Nog had his leg blown off?

[New haven america]

Also, for all this complaining about excessive violence... where were you when Nog had his leg blown off?

A. Here's the scene of Nog losing his leg
B. Here's the scene of Icheb getting his eye ripped out. Oh wait, it's not there because I'm not sure I'd be able to post that video without getting slapped by the mods for gore posting.

You know, the fact that I can't even post the latter video because of the risk of getting a warning should say enough about how ST's views of violence has changed under the management of Bad Robot and CBS.

[Juristonia]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

Kurtzman is involved, so people are already pissing their pants over it.

[ snip ]

Don't even waste your time. You're up against an amount of borderline obsessive hate that you're literally better off talking to a brick wall.

[New haven america]

So how long before Strange New Worlds gets declared to be "not true Star Trek"?

Kurtzman is involved, so people are already pissing their pants over it.

[ snip ]

Don't even waste your time. You're up against an amount of borderline obsessive hate that you're literally better off talking to a brick wall.

It's funny how they say I'm incapable of providing constructive or valid criticism when I've honestly almost never been able to get people who claim to like the shows to explain what they actually like about the shows other than it has the ST name attached and having STD/STP is better than nothing. What do you like about the characters? Motives? Settings? Plot structure? Themes? Effects and sound? Etc...

I'm open to hearing about it. Seriously. It'd be nice to hear an actual explanation other than "It's ST so just shut up and like it!". I'll start, I liked Pike in STD s2 because he was a strong, capable, and humble leader who generally made the show much nicer all around whenever he was on screen with his pleasant yet simultaneously commanding demeanor.