Submitted 19 hours ago by cuchi@startrek.website to startrek@startrek.website
I recently saw Star Trek Picard, the first season was okey, season 2 was awful, the season 3 was nice.
Acording some critics last Discovery season is bad, so now I’m afraid of looking a series who has a bad ending, it worth to watch or is as painful as Picard Season 2?
There is an entire season about warp drive not working anywhere in the universe. It turns out that it stopped working because an alien got really sad.
That was the end of the series for me.
This, and he wanted connection from someone of his species, and the first officer of the one ship that can overcome the plot debuff happens to be that species, a species we barely see outside this plot…it’s writing so bad you can’t see the show through it. Emotional stories are appropriate, it’s why Troi was a bridge officer. But this show was constantly setting up unsolvable problems that could only be fixed by this one crew, which breaks immersion. Good trek doesn’t have 50 Galaxy or universe ending threats only fixable by plot-armored main characters, it has ship, person, and planet level threats giving you the space to appreciate the human story. Even DS9 kept the stories on missions while the thread of the war was just a hum with reasonable stakes.
I really find this narrative offensive.
First there’s the mischaracterization of a very young and completely dependent who child completely abandoned with the death of the last adult who cared or supported him.
But more than that, Star Trek is littered with a trope about children with incredible powers to interact with the universe who nearly destroy the galaxy or civilizations or large swaths of them.
It started with Charlie X, and was taken up by every other series, sometimes more than once.
On all those other occasions, our hero ship and crew miraculously saved the day and prevented disaster by psychic or superpowered child who was incapable of adult decision-making.
Discovery called the bluff.
Discovery reversed the trope, had the child’s powers actually destroy civilization.
Instead of the hero crew stopping the disaster in the nick of time (again), Discovery finds the child and solves the problem.
And long time fans are offended by THAT?!!
Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn’t actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.
Semi-related but I lost count of the number of times someone on Reddit described Adira’s coming out (a ten second moment in a larger unrelated scene) as a “huge story arc” or being comprised of “multiple episodes” being “shoved in the audiences faces”. I felt like I was taking crazy pills until I learned that’s exactly how the outrage-tubers were presenting it. If you’d never watched the season you’d have no idea it was such an inconsequential moment.
I’ve been doing a complete rewatch of Deep Space 9, and it really underscored why I didn’t enjoy Discovery and Picard. My favourite parts of DS9 are the character driven moments, whether they’re big and dramatic, or lightweight and silly. I like that the show has enough space for that. The show has more Plot than previous Star Trek, but that Plot still serves the characters. Discovery is not nearly as bad as Picard on this front, but I still found myself wishing for more opportunity to get to know the characters.
I watched all of Discovery. It is, by far, the worst of all Star Treks. (Disclosure: I have not seen TAS.)
The reason is simple: Discovery is really the Michael Burnham show. She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued. Discovery could have been a really great show if it had been an ensemble show because it has a lot of very interesting characters whom we never explore.
Instead, everything centres around Burnham. She is the reason for the war at the start of the show. She is the magical, fated solution. She is Spock’s (adopted) sister and had immeasurable impact on his life. Even through timey-wimey things, her (biological) mother comes to save her and the universe.
And on top of all that is the crying. Oh, gosh, everything is so emotional on this show. There is a time and place for emotions, but Discovery was too much of it, including inappropriate times. Burnham and her maybe-broken-up-boyfriend stop in the middle of an infiltration in a hostile station to talk about their relationship.
Even the really great characters, Saru and (Emperor Georgiou) centre around Burnham. She is like a sister to Saru, she saved his life, he gives up being a Captain to continue serving under her captaincy. Burnham is Georgiou’s daughter (not actually), and Georgiou’s love for her (as much as she can love) changes her.
No one has a story unless its actually about Burnham.
The best thing about Discovery is it brought Trek back on TV and it gave us the rest of this era of shows.
I am no fan of Discovery but can you re-read that and substitute another name, like I dunno James T Kirk? Why is it always about him? Why is he so good at everything?
Having a female MC does not make it automatically a Mary Sue. Especially not when they are smacked down constantly, shown making lots of mistakes, and having a character development arc.
She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.
For clarity’s sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it’s described on TVTropes:
[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.
I’m curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam’s many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.
I think Picard was worse than Discovery. Discovery had major flaws but there were moments when it really shined. It had some interesting ideas too. It just wasn’t an ensemble show.
Picard is just awful. Mediocre S1-2 that doesn’t know what it’s trying to achieve, and then S3 abandons every plot thread that they bothered to build up in favor of nostalgia baiting and bringing back the Borg, which was very tonally confusing after S2.
The tone is also just bizarrely dire throughout. People complain about Discovery not feeling like Trek, but I had that problem way moreso with Picard. And now it’s this minefield in the canon of the early 25th century that every show that comes after will have to figure out what to do with. At least Discovery going immediately jumping to the far future means it wasn’t able to fuck up the timeline much, and what it did do was cheekily classified.
It’s not my favorite Trek, but I do like Discovery. That said, your summary is 100% accurate and emphasizes my least favorite parts of the show.
Not Mary Sues:
Kirk: repeatedly impresses god-like beings with his emotional maturity and reasoning. Fought hand-to-hand with Khan and won. Saved the whales.
Picard: passes Q’s trials and makes a case for humanity’s worth, multiple times. Proves Data’s person-hood. Survives Carassian torture by sheer willpower.
Sisko: chosen as the Emissary. Does wrong and suffers no consequences.
Janeway: holds fast to Federation principles even when it prevents her from getting home; gets home anyway.
Archer: so important that Daniels and the Xindi both fight over him. Ends the Temporal Cold War and founds the Federation.
Mary Sue:
Burnham: starts the Klingon war, freed from prison by a Terran who uses her as a pawn. Gets called out for breaking rules.
Is this right, @Akuchimoya@startrek.website ?
The main problem with discovery is they set it basically in the tos timeline which created all these weird plot things that had to be resolved with weirder plot things. I firmly believe if they had set it a decent amount post voyager that it would have made it much better. I don’t want to spoil but I felt season 2 fit better but having such weird start really messed it up for me.
It’s also important to separate what you’re seeing online from the leftovers of a manufactured “opposition campaign” orchestrated by a handful of reactionary influencers.
Personally speaking I did not like the early two seasons, but I thought three is ok, and seasons four and five I consider to be some of Trek’s best!
Naw it’s a journey. I accepted discovery like I did voyager. Once I saw what it was in it own, much better. Second watch got better, just like voyager.
Discovery is fine. It takes some weird turns, sort of a necessity since they chose to make it a prequel with a unique propulsion system. And it is not like the 90s shows. And there’s a vocal group of fans that hate it just because it’s different, it was the first show coming back from the long show hiatus, and many are simply incapable of admitting that.
Picard’s seasons are all weird in their own way and with their own flaws, totally separate from Disco.
Watch the first season and make your own decision. Star Trek fans are some of the worst for having outsized online hatred of shit that doesn’t matter.
Fans hated it because was different, that’s hardly a reason. They hated it because:
It wasn’t just different, it was bad. Really bad. It was like a vuvuzela in an acoustic song.
I don’t think Adira is a nonbinary girl, I think they’re just nonbinary. Their boyfriend was also trans for what it’s worth.
Georgiou is also pansexual, though that’s not particularly progressive (classic depraved bisexual trope), and Jett Reno was married to a woman.
So you’re right, most of the major cast is cishet. Even so, I think there’s more people who hate it for being “woke” than for being not progressive enough, as I haven’t heard the latter much but the former is annoyingly common from the usual suspects.
Also, as for “Vulcan powers”: we’ve always known that Vulcan logic is learned and not innate. Vulcans are naturally wildly emotional, their logic is basically just advanced meditation techniques, so it makes sense that a human raised by Vulcans could learn them. We’ve also seen non-Vulcans use the iconic nerve pinch before, it’s essentially just a Vulcan martial art and nothing to do with Vulcan biology. Picard and Data could both do it.
The only “Vulcan power” tied to their biology really is the mind meld, and that’s because Vulcans are mildly telepathic. Non-Vulcan telepaths could learn it too.
If I can present examples to you of those things happening in other Star Trek series would it change your mind about those other series?
Or does this list of criteria selectively apply specifically to Discovery?
The first season, and the first few episodes of season two take some extra weird turns because of the revolving door of producers during that period. The original producer left the show during season one. Then a duo took over who took the story in quite a different direction. Those two left in early season two. After that production finally settled into a more stable state.
Anyway the characters and acting are great, and that counts for a lot!
The central character of the show is the least interesting person on it somehow despite having what could have been a good back story.
Everyone else seems to be some sort of real person to me. She is just so boring and flat and everything revolves around her for no real reason. Her purpose seems to be to be the fence post that stands there and eventually cries.
The best thing about the show was it gave us Anson Mount as Pike and he is outstanding. He was so good as Pike we got SNW as a spinoff.
No. Far from it. The First half of the first season sucks, second half gets better, Second Season is really watchable, third season is where it grows it’s beard.
I’ll be honest, I can’t remember all my particular criticisms, but here’s my impressions that I have left:
It’d be more accurately titled Star Trek: Burnham, because 95% of the time, every problem or mystery is somehow related to Burnham, everyone else is just supporting cast.
Like Picard, each season felt very disconnected from the others, there’s some continuity, but you could almost name the season based on the feel of an episode.
Plots more often than not felt underwhelming, as they were solved by essentially deus ex machina, mcguffins, surprise reveals or abrupt character changes.
It was largely visually ok, actors all did at least a decent job.
I have 0 desire to ever rewatch a single episode.
It’d be more accurately titled Star Trek: Burnham
I always called it ‘The Burnham Show, starring Michael Burnham’
everyone else fawning over how great she is
Did we watch the same show? She is literally demoted and sent to prison in the first episode.
I have 0 desire to ever rewatch a single episode
If there’s one thing I’d like to peek behind the curtain to see, it’s the streaming metrics for each trek.
My gut instinct is that almost nobody wants to rewatch it unless it is their own favorite trek. I know I don’t.
I couldn’t make it through the first season and tried picking up season 2 to see if it improved any. Didn’t watch anything past that.
It was written by people who didn’t have a good grasp on what star trek was, or thought they could remake it better for a new generation. But they ended up making something that just leaves a sour taste in your mouth if you know what that setting is capable of being.
To me, STD and the first season or so of Picard feel exactly like when a video game you thoroughly enjoy gets adapted into movie. There’s recognizable elements there, but nobody is acting the way they should and everything has that uncanny valley affect where you know what it’s supposed to be but it’s clearly failing to do it convincingly. It’s hard to point to what is actually wrong but you know several elements are off.
Protip: “STD” is not the official abbreviation for Discovery, it’s “DSC”. If you call it “STD” people are going to assume you watch those outrage bait youtubers who complained about how Discovery was “too woke”.
Discovery’s characters are somehow simultaneously boring yet also obnoxious jackasses. The writers of the show apparently thought Star Trek would be more interesting if everyone in the future had, instead of professionalism and humanism, histrionic personality disorder and chronic hemorrhoids.
It’s always worth remembering that the people who dislike something tend to be the loudest.
There’s no doubt reactions to Discovery have been mixed. Personally, I enjoyed it. It was uneven and flawed and sometimes frustrating. But there were enough good moments to keep me going. I don’t think anyone can tell you if you’ll enjoy it… You just have to try it and see.
There’s no doubt reactions to Discovery have been mixed.
I feel it’s important to note that a lot of the “reactions” we see today are the result of coordinated review-bombing campaigns by “anti-woke” outrage-peddling youtubers.
That’s not to say it’s universally beloved among Trekkies online, just that for someone trying to suss out the “reception” is going to have a difficult time separating authentic reviews from inauthentic ones.
Don’t listen to the critics on the internet. If you’re not dying soon, watch it all. It’s Trek. It’s roughly 60% great, 30% mediocre to aged poorly, and 10% let’s never talk about it again.
I would go in rough order of release because they do like harkening back to stuff. Actually rewatching TOS will be good for SNW. And Disco S2 is its backdoor pilot.
Tell me more about this Star Trek that we are to never talk about
That one episode of tng where the aliens of the week were black people
Or the one where Dr. Crusher bangs the ghost that banged her grandma
Janeway and Paris getting their lizard fuck on and having kids.
Code of Honor, Profit & Lace, Sub Rosa, …
Code of Honor, Sub Rosa
If you’re a fan of older Star Treks it’s bad, real bad. I watched until the end of season 2 with my partner and had to bail. Everyone above has given good reasons why, I’ll add one I haven’t seen: the lead actress (Soneqa Martin-Green?) overacts Michael Burnham. She overdramatizes almost every scene, to the detriment of the believabolity of the in-universe world, I tried to overlook it but found it grating. I told my partner that half-way into season two, and she responded that she doesn’t really see it. Then about five seconds later Burnham is raising her voice to a senior officer and on the verge of tears over nothing… a minor misunderstanding. Partner laughs and goes, “ok yeah I see it”.
I’d rewatch Enterprise 100 times over ever watching Discovery again, and Enterprise is probably my least favourite pre-2010 Trek, if that helps you.
I mean, Star Trek dosen’t had overacting in general?
TOS does but the 80s/90s series not so much.
Go ahead. Watch it. 🤷🏻
Discovery gets a lot of selective criticisms in online spaces. I don’t want to say it has anything to do with being the first Star Trek show with a Black female as a central main character, but Burhnam does seem to be more frequently criticized for behaviors that are celebrated when done by someone like Kirk or Riker.
Speak for yourself.
I’ve been watching since 1967 and happily watched all five seasons of Discovery as they came out.
I’ve also rewatched them all with other members of our household.
I’ve definitely watched Discovery more times than Enterprise.
Cool. Power to you - we clearly have differing tastes. OP was on the fence and asked for an opinion so I gave mine, not sure who else I’d be speaking for. Now you’ve given yours, so they’ve even wider opinions 👍
I absolutely loved that look for the Klingons. I was so sad to see it watered down in later episodes. It’s what they should have done in The Motion Picture!
My honest opinion is that Discovery is nowhere near as bad as its detractors say.
That said, I also wouldn’t call it good Star Trek and didn’t finish the final season.
It’s boring, not bad.
If it doesn’t make you want to rewatch it whole years later, it’s bad Trek.
I felt that way about Voyager at one time.
Watched the episodes once as they came out but wasn’t seeking to rewatch.
But then our kids came along, hit their preteens, and for them Voyager reruns on cable was ‘their Star Trek.’
I watched Voyager more with them during their preteens and early teens than I did during its first run.
And I can say that it DOES stand up to rewatch. More, it has many ‘best of trope’ episodes.
I think perhaps it was Voyager’s unevenness in quality across the entire run or, perhaps fatigue from hundreds of episodes of TNG and DS9 rewatched immediately after they were broadcast, that led me to not appreciate Voyager as much initially.
All to say, I was very wrong about Voyager’s rewatch value, and perhaps many crusty 90s Trek fans are wrong about Discovery too.
Discovery was never bad. It’s just different. Some people say it’s not what Trek is about.
Star Trek has always been about captains exploring. Deep Space Nine challenged that with a commander; Sisko later made captain, but the station itself only moved in the pilot (closer to the wormhole; it’s always been in Bajor’s orbit) and maybe one other time? But they did plenty of exploring in the Runabouts, and Defiant, the ship they got later. But essentially the action came to them, and that was fine. Discovery is not about a captain. Michael Burnham is a… commander? I forget. On the original ship. Then she’s nobody. She gets promoted up but she almost never leads, but the show focuses on her. It’s… weird. (And she’s a woman… named Michael… pronounced the same as the male name… and this is never explained.)
Star Trek has always been about diversity, but Discovery had a gay couple in an openly sexual relationship. It never showed sex between them, but plenty of kissing and intimacy. Discovery also had a non-binary character with they/them pronouns. And as mentioned, a woman named Michael, but she’s cisgendered and straight, so that’s not why she has a guy’s name. Anyway, some people thought it was a few bridges too far.
Star Trek has almost always been wholesome. Deep Space Nine pushed the envelope, and while it showed Sisko doing some very bad things, profanity was never part of it, and the violence was mostly PG. Discovery was on streaming, so they had profanity and R-rated violence. There may have even been some mild nudity, I don’t recall. This put off a lot of traditional fans.
Before Deep Space Nine (i.e. The Original Series and The Next Generation), Star Trek has always been episodic. DS9 introduced arcs, but each episode still had its own identity, and this was true through Enterprise. But each season was its own thing on Discovery, and no one episode really stood alone.
Points 3 and 4, and to some, point 2, put off some older, “traditional” Trekkers who felt that Discovery was made for the younger generation and was not “for” them. And I can dig it. I mean, it does follow the recent-ish films where the ships are flashy, not tacky with their tech. (Keep in mind, the ships were always flashy for their time! It’s just, we cling to the old designs and the newer, flashier one just seems excessive, but now, the newer, flashier one is dull in comparison to the ones that have followed it.)
As for Picard, that was purely a sequel to The Next Generation (and to a lesser extent, Voyager, because of Seven of Nine). It was a love letter to the fans of that show, those shows. As purely its own thing, it’s a weaker Trek entry, but for those of us who grew up with 80s/90s Trek, it was good closure since the movies were neglecting those characters. Another such show might be Prodigy, which is a more direct continuation of Voyager, but Prodigy stood on its own better with its original cast. Picard’s original cast was not very good, but very forgettable.
Back to Discovery, it’s very much its own thing, set both before TOS and after anything else (minor spoilers — plot device allows them to swerve around any continuity problems). It did launch Strange New Worlds, which Trekkers seem to like more than Discovery, as that is a straight TOS prequel, showing the (movies/newer) original Enterprise under Captain Pike, who was captain before Kirk. Spock’s in it, too. (I have yet to watch SNW, but I plan to. I just finished Prodigy and I like to space them a bit.) Discovery also launched Section 31, the streaming-only movie, which is about as bad as you’ve heard. The less said about that one, the better — if you want to watch it, you should, and you should do so without worrying what Internet People think about it. It’s still Star Trek, albeit some of the weakest Trek out there.
Personally, I rate Discovery above ENT but below Voyager. I have a hard time deciding whether Discovery or Prodigy is better. Prodigy was a computer-generated anime that aired on Nickelodeon and that all sounds bad, but it was actually very good. It might seem at first that Kate Mulgrew (Janeway/Hologram Janeway) is there to prop the cast up, but they all shine so brightly, they don’t really need her as much as they think. I liked TNG, DS9, and VOY all better than STD and… whatever we’re abbreviating Prodigy to (PRO? STP?). As a child of the 80s, TOS is a bit dated for me, but the stories were so good… that’s another one that is hard to place for me.
I recommend you watch it, but if you do, you have to finish the season. You can’t drop it mid-season, and if you do, you can’t judge it, because the individual episodes aren’t meant to be watched on their own. It’s meant to be binged. That said, you can safely stop at the end of any season. I won’t say it gets worse, but each season made me wonder if it was really necessary, including the first one. Because no, it isn’t. Discovery is not necessary for… anything… in the Star Trek universe. It’s not really connected. Even Strange New Worlds… they ran into the Enterprise in the beginning of the second season, but then they went away. So yeah, you can safely watch SNW without Discovery and you’d be fine. I do think the first season was good, as far as action Trek goes. And you can stop there, but with the way it ends… you won’t. Season 2 was okay, a good mystery, and you can stop there, but you still may want to see what comes next. After that, I think the quality does take a bit of a dive, but then they’re in the far future, and you just wanna see more and more of what’s left of Starfleet in the future. And it’s good enough to stick with. But never necessary. And that’s probably the “worst” thing I can say about it.
but then they’re in the far future, and you just wanna see more and more of what’s left of Starfleet in the future.
I never softened on that particular development. The Star Trek Universe I know and love is based in optimism, and I want to believe in a Federation that keeps adapting, improving, and ultimately continuing as a positive force moving forward through the dedicated collaboration of an infinitely-diverse collaboration of peoples.
Disco took that basic core of all the flavors of Trek we’ve ever had and said “LOL never mind, all the principled and optimistic stuff you loved leads to a dystopian crapsack future and everyone’s sadder assholes than before, u mad?”
I agree Discovery over Enterprise.
It’s hard to hold up the show that showed our first hero captain in the franchise not only condoning but choosing torture as an alternative as being ‘more optimistic’ or ‘more in line with Star Trek’s aspirational vision.’
Then there’s its sharp retrograde to bro culture.
BTW I’m almost as longtime a fan as possible.
My first episode was TOS ‘Devil in the Dark’ on the day it first broadcast in Canada in early 1967.
Since then, I have seen every episode in first run the week it aired EXCEPT when Enterprise went off the rails after 9/11, trying to be an apologia for the appalling reaction of the US which suddenly condoned torture and violations of the international rules based order.
I am one of those older traditional Trekkers you mentioned (btw our generation prefers “trekkies”) and I actually enjoyed Discovery a lot. It’s definitely not one of my favorite Trek series though because of 2 things:
It has its weaknesses, but I think you should watch it if just to form your opinion.
I’ve only watched through the middle of season 4, where I got a bit tired of it, though I might pick it back up.
Season 1 is interesting, season 2 is weird, and season 3 has its flaws but keeps you on the edge of your seat.
Season 4 I feel like squanders the new setting introduced in season 3; the plot they introduce feels so artificial to me, which is very upsetting because it feels like the new setting has so many stories that would practically write themselves even if you do decide to lean on “Big Bad Villain/Problem” storytelling.
Some people like it. Some people hate it. You’re going to have to make that determination for yourself. You’ll know by the time you get to season two which camp youre in
Personally I found the cast wasted on poor writing. And as someone else mentioned, the show concentrates entirely too much on Burnham. Half of the bridge crew you probably won’t know their names by the end of season one. There were a couple of bright spots — Saru’s backstory and character were well done.
I love Discovery. Some of the criticisms are valid; every season has a few dumb moments that make me shake my head. But I love the characters, the actors are all great, Doug Jones in particular is a treasure, and the first contact in season 4 feels more like a proper science fiction scenario than any other in Trek.
One thing to keep in mind is that the tone shifts considerably season to season. It starts off quite grim and gritty, but don’t expect it to stay that way.
Seen it recently myself, about a couple years ago, never watched before, and it’s ok. I enjoyed it.
Don’t read too much into the comments, just watch it, of you don’t like it stop watching it.
For me it’s worthy, i have warched at this moment all ST except TOS, I tried it and I can’t.
It’s constant flawed buildup to a promise of something just around the corner the might actually be good, that not only never ever delivers on that promise, but pulls the rug out from under you more if ten than not, rather than just providing the payoff that you probably want (I lately keep thinking back to the Klingon War)
I think Discovery is perfectly OK Star Trek. However, because it had a few changes in show runners things progress very strangely.
Season 1 is a 10 hour movie. I liked it for doing something different, and thought the plot twist was interesting.
Season 2 starts off good, but then jumps the (metaphorical) shark at the end.
Season 3 thru 5 starts to feel more like traditional Star Trek, just with wacky doom’s day scenario in the background until it’s resolved at the end of the season. It honestly feels too formulaic, but I thought Season 4’s ending was fantastic, some of the middle stuff was a mixed bag.
Anyway, I still think you should watch it. It’s perfectly adequate. Didn’t make me throw up at all.
I think if you’re looking for a recommendation, both Strange New Worlds and Enterprise are better than Discovery.
If you were ok with Picard season 1, at worst you’ll be ok with Discovery.
I will say that Strange New Worlds is technically a spinoff of Discovery, so a watching Discovery first makes more sense if you’re planning on watching them all eventually anyway.
Discovery has good episodes, but probably more bad episodes than good episodes. If you’re binge watching, which you can do now that it’s all been released, it won’t be so bad. If you watch a bad episode, you’ll come across a good episode soon enough. When we had to watch week to week, it was rough going bad after bad, week to week.
i loved picard and discovery the only bad thing about picard is that it made me remember watching tng every saturday at my dads house and he would of loved it.
Discovery is fine and at the time it was the only modern Trek we had so there’s that, it’s enough for me to like it.
The only problem I had with it is that every season is “OMG we have to save the all fucking universe!”, other than that it’s cool.
Then we had Strange New Worlds so my thirst for “let’s just explore that funny planet and have a drink at the mess” Trek was satisfied.
I still watch discovery because ‘spaceships goes piou piou piou eat my phaser’ and that’s what I want it to be.
Most any criticism of the show is true. I will day that it is a good series to watch with people who haven’t watched Star Trek before because it is a little un-Trek-ish and there is less to stop and explain. Also, since the mission is top secret it has little overlap with anything except SNW.
As a Star Trek fan, I was happy to get more Trek, the same as I was happy to get more Picard (that S2 was a pain though!), Lower Decks, Prodigy, and even the Short Treks.
My wife was pulled into the world of Star Trek by Discovery (a full 36 years after I’d started watching the franchise) and now she loves it and wants to watch all of the other series. So, Discovery gets a point for that.
(I haven’t seen Section 31 yet. It is supposed to be very bad.)
Nefara@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I have an intense distaste for Discovery, and wouldn’t recommend it.
I could rant about it a la Jenny Nicholson for 4 hours but here’s my main issues boiled down to a bulleted list:
Some things I like about Star Trek:
• Optimistic future, humans can create greatness and beauty if they continue to check and overcome their faults • No black and white villains. All antagonists are given nuance and development and many become favored allies • Themes of teamwork, a functional ensemble, core crew are all valid and valued, no one star of the show. • No such thing as magic or gods, everything is in the realm of human understanding if we have sufficient knowledge
Guess what Disovery has?
• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future • Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions • One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode • No attempt to explain “divine” phenomena/magic
Then add on some blatant examples of total ignorance for the universe it’s set in, attempts at ham handed fan service by shoe horning in clumsy references to characters from other series, and just medocre drama in general, you have a show that is farther from Star Trek than a 14 year old’s submission on IO9.
If you don’t really care,about Star Trek or know anything about it it can be entertaining I guess, but why watch it when there’s Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks and The Orville?
GreenMartian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
The Orville came out at the perfect time. The world was craving a good Trek, and was served Discovery. Orville scratched that decade-long itch, hitting all the right notes (though S1 was a bit rough…)
Similarly with Picard and Lower Decks. Picard was a high-budget fanservice with a thin veneer of storyline. Lower Decks was good old classic Trek fun and shenanigans.
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 11 hours ago
And all the crying… my god, so many tears 🙄
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
With the soft speaking and camera panning across the bridge to catch everyone’s facial expressions in reaction to Burnham’s 13th motivational speech for the episode.
danielquinn@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
I agree 100% with this take and want to thank you for that excellent video! I’m not all the way through yet, but I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
Corgana@startrek.website 5 hours ago
Do you have any examples of the Nihilism? I’m struggling to think of any… In fact Season 3 was about maintaining optimism and faith in the strength of the Federation against unbelievable odds.
Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?
I agree that there was a main character, but I also enjoy a lot of media with a main character so I don’t see that as a bad thing.
I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!
Nefara@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I don’t have much time to respond so I’m going to just hit one bullet for now:
Are you going to try to argue that Khan and Gul Dukat weren’t given nuance and development? Some of the things that made them such compelling antagonists is that we were given insight into their motives and backgrounds and perspectives. Khan absolutely was nuanced and the persecution and illegality of genetically enhanced humans was a great stepping off point for him. Just about every antagonist that pops up in Star Trek gets some kind of explanation why they are doing the things they are doing, and the crew takes a moment to acknowledge their inherent worth as living beings and, if they’re sentient, discuss possibilities for negotiations or nonviolence. I haven’t forgotten that Klingons, Ferengi, Borg, Cardassians and many others start off as villains, but we are given many opportunities for them to be “humanized” through characters like Worf, Quark, Hugh/Seven, Garak and others. There are no “good” or “bad” aliens in Star Trek.
So keeping that in mind, how did things go with the Ba’Ul? How did they handle Control? What nuance was Lorca given? In Discovery, your first impression of a bad guy being bad is always correct.
MalikMuaddibSoong@startrek.website 4 hours ago
Maybe you drew too fast shot yourself in the foot?
Gul Dukat is arguably the most wellformed villain in ST canon. He is a delusional maniac pursuing a twisted vision of greatness. He even works alongside our heroes for a time!
Can I offer you an Armus instead?
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
It’s a romantic comedy. Not science fiction. I lost it at the musical. Musicals are what happens when writers have no ideas.
Corgana@startrek.website 5 hours ago
Musicals are amazing and you are worse than hitler for suggesting otherwise