You devote twelve paragraphs to arguing that sci fi writers are incompetent. You use a lot of words because you know you don't really have the standing to do so and you hope that rhetorically, you can bury the lede on that one but fundamentally, you are arguing that science fiction writers don't know how to write. Then you hide behind

Let me say it outright then. In comparison to their peers in the media, IE, television, I do not see strong writing skills from the writers of the sci-fi episodes I have seen. I see flaws in pacing, logic, and execution. The fact that those issues come up a lot less in other genres in the same medium means that, comparatively speaking, television sci-fi writers are weaker. But only television sci-fi writers in this instance. Not novel writers. Not movie writers. Not comic book or short story writers. Only sci-fi writers. I get the sense it's because they have a hard time finding ways to adapting their stories to the medium. Just because I don't know how to qualify or quantify it in an intellectual manner, it does not mean that assumption of mine is wrong. It just means I lack the skills to accurately convey what I'm experiencing.

More evidence of the assertion that you're not willing to extend suspension of disbelief to science fiction... especially as you started down this road by singing the praises of Godzilla movies.

I can suspend disbelief, I'm willing to suspend disbelief, but I need good writing and something in the execution to make the suspension of disbelief worth while. If it's not there, I feel like I'm being cheated because I don't think I'm being respected by the writers. There's a difference between suspending disbelief, enjoying something that's somewhat silly for the sake of its charm, and being expected to enjoy a sub-par product.

It made you uncomfortable enough to write a thousand-word rant on how much you hated it. And then try to justify that rant with another 800-word rant about how sci fi writers suck.

Why are you being harsh? Because we're in disagreement? How many conversations have we had on Hubski over the years? Hundreds. How many times have you ever seen me try to play a game of rhetoric, misdirection, or some other kind of debate "gotcha?" Never. I come to these conversations always honest and as open as possible, even when we're in disagreement. Knowing that, if I say "That's not why I didn't like this episode" what I am saying is literally "That's not why I didn't like this episode." I am not trying to trick you. I'm not trying to pull a bait and switch. I am having a conversation about an episode of a television program that I thought was frustratingly sub-par.

Let's be fair here. I'm trying to have a conversation where at the end of the day, I express my views, maybe learn something, and it all takes place on the internet. There is nothing for me to win or lose, so there's no reason for me to be conniving about what I'm trying to say.

BTW, your friend is mistaken.

Well, I think in regards to Star Wars, both he and I knew he was talking about the original core six films. We both know that extended universes add a lot. By Return of the Jedi, there already was some pretty big back tracking and side explaining in regards to Darth Vader being Luke's father, Leiah being his sister, etc. Regardless as to the mechanisms that lead to it, they're still there.

Could he have used better examples? Probably. Does he still have a point in his explanation? I think so.