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? Or I should watch Strange New Worlds and Enterprise instead?
You must log in or register to comment.
I very much enjoyed the start but steadily lost interest.
There’s some good stuff in Discovery all the way through, don’t get me wrong. But they kind of flipped the script in a way I did not appreciate.
Most of classic Trek showed us a future with a largely functional society, mostly full of good people who were ready and willing to deal with occasional corruption.
Lots of newer Trek, and especially Discovery, showed us a future where society is largely dysfunctional and corruption is the norm. Almost everyone in the series who isn’t a main character (plus a couple who are) is a piece of shit. Even the “good guys” frequently encourage or at least tolerate clearly evil behavior as long as it serves their ends. But it’s okay because…friendship I guess?!?
Their heart is in the right place but the writing is generally bad. I think this generation of writers is incapable of imagining a better world, which, sure, is understandable, given how thoroughly corrupt our current society is. But it’s deeply depressing. It lacks soul.
SNW is better in this regard. But you’ll probably want to watch season 1 of Discovery first since there’s some crossover.
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.
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.
It’d be more accurately titled Star Trek: Burnham
I always called it ‘The Burnham Show, starring Michael Burnham’.
It was crazy to me how they could make every plot line revolve around her in some way, have her always be part of figuring out the solution, everyone else fawning over how great she is and what they’d do without her, just the lengths the writers went to to insert her everywhere. It’s just so on your nose and gets really tiring after like 3 seasons.
Compared with like DS9 where you could have whole episodes where the main character, Quark, only has like 1-2 lines and they focus more on supporting cast like Cisco or just Bashir and Garrek (sorry, I couldn’t resist :) )
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.
@Corgana she did redeem herself.
You’re suggesting that redemption from disgrace is the same as “everyone else fawning over how great she is and what they’d do without her”?
@Corgana That’s what redemption is about. It’s recognizing that even the greatest among us make mistakes and can still be great.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I looked it up and I didn’t see anything about “redemption” necessitating the fawning over of the redemptee by others, so until someone claims otherwise I’m going to believe Mr. Webster.
@Corgana People fawned over her because she was a loving character who did great. That greatness emerged from her redemption and would have been lost to whatever the Federation’s idea of a prison cell in the 23rd century otherwise.
I’ve been on social media for a while and I have to say, this has all the hallmarks of a flame war. So this is all I’m going to have to say on the matter. You can throw darts at her photograph on your own wall.
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.
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!
fans that hate it just because it’s different
Fans hated it not solely because it was different, that’s hardly a reason. They hated it because:
- For the first time, Starfleet officers were emotionally-stunted or plain assholes instead of well-adapted officers.
- The series revolved around a divisive character, hoping I guess that some people would become hardcore fans of Michael.
- It intentionally wrecked canon, even one of the producers proudly said he didn’t watch Star Trek to avoid preconceptions.
- Tech doesn’t make sense for its time. Practically none of it made any sense for a prequel, maybe if it had been a sequel.
- The forced linking of the main protagonist to Spock was unbelievable, more so because it somehow gave her Vulcan powers by osmosis.
- It promoted itself as progressive, but all it did was including a gay couple and a non-binary girl. The important characters were all cis, or left unspoken.
It wasn’t just different, it was bad. Really bad. It was like a vuvuzela in an acoustic song.
And this is coming from someone who watched a season and a half before quitting, but who loved Enterprise, who also had its glaring flaws, but was true to canon.
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 while you’re right, most of the major cast is cishet, 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. There simply hadn’t been actual representation of any of those groups (except the depraved bisexuals) in Star Trek before Discovery.
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. I don’t think we ever saw Burnham initiate a mind meld though.
When I said Adira is a nonbinary girl, I meant she is female of sex and nonbinary of chosen gender.
it was a big deal when they announced her, but the treatment was milquetoast and timid. Same with the few non-cis characters, they were tokens, the show didn’t have the courage to depict a future where a diverse gender philosophy is widely accepted. They yellowed out of it and presented as if it was still our time. I don’t dislike the show for being woke, I dislike it for being shallow woke.
Same with the rest of it, it was 90% SFX and 10% writing. With long series like TNG you can afford the luxury of experimenting and fumbling the ball some weeks, it Discovery and Picard and massive productions that only have 12 episodes a year. They had to make every one of those count.
About Michael ‘s learned Vulcan powers, I don’t buy that. She was best than the Vulcans at their own academy, seemingly an expert at hand to hand combat, basically a prodigy at everything she wanted to do. That’s bad writing, super geniuses are too easy to write, so they had to make her emotionally immature to give her some challenge. Given she cried almost every episode, I’d seriously doubt she took to heart those meditation lessons.
It is a very flashy but bad show overall. If it hadn’t carried the name of Star Trek, it might have carved a niche in Sci-Fi, though. Space novels were called Space Operas after all.
I just don’t understand this “Vulcan powers” criticism. She was a prodigy, sure, and pretty good at doing anything she wants, but that’s a broader issue. I don’t recall any point where she showed any Vulcan abilities that would be implausible for a human to learn from being raised in that culture. Even if you could argue it contributes to her being good at too many things, that has nothing to do with Vulcans specifically.
And I find it very ironic that you’re complaining about the portrayal of trans characters not being progressive enough while misgendering Adira. Adira is non binary. They are not a girl, and they explicitly make it clear in the show they use they/them pronouns. Girl refers to gender, not sex, and furthermore sex isn’t relevant to 99% of conversations so you don’t need to disambiguate by finding a replacement word.
Frankly, I think Adira and Gray’s transness was handled quite well. I’m not sure what makes them tokens to you. Adira has more lines than most of the bridge crew, and the little queer family unit of Stamets/Culber/Adira gets quite a bit of development and screen time. Gray gets his time in the spotlight too, and gets a bit of character development of his own.
Both Gray and Adira are immediately accepted and never questioned by anyone on the crew. That’s a far cry from presenting it as if it were still our time. No one trips up on either of their pronouns once. You yourself refer to Adira with she/her in your comment.
The main difference between Adira and Gray is that Gray already came out and transitioned off-screen, while Adira comes out on-screen. I think their coming out scene is well done and realistic; even in the Trek future people will have to come out to some extent because people clearly default to binary pronouns. They aren’t mind readers, and they haven’t replaced all pronouns with they/them, so it’s only natural that one would have to explicitly tell people their pronouns.
Stamets immediately accepts Adira, with zero questions about nonbinary identity or pronouns, and then seemingly informs the rest of the crew off-screen. I don’t know what you think coming out nowadays is like, but that’s not the reaction most of the time. Adira comes off as kind of nervous in the scene, but they’re talking to someone they barely know at this point who arrived from hundreds of years ago. Plus they’re just a nervous person in general. I think it works well.
And Gray doesn’t have to come out at all, he’s accepted as male from day one. His transness only ever comes up as vague references to transitioning. Seems pretty accepted to me!
I fully accept I have difficulty with using these pronouns. English is not my first language, and in my daily life I know zero nonbinary people, literally zero, so I don’t get to practice. I’ve only seen trans people on TV, or in discussions on the Internet, so I don’t get to practice those either. Sometimes I wonder why it’s such a prominent issue on the media, specially American media.
I know a handful of people that are gay or lesbian, but they’re not into choosing special gender pronouns. So my only practice before this discussion was another online discussion more than a year ago.
I suppose I’m confused what your issue with the trans characters is then. I thought at first you wished there were more, but now you’re saying you don’t understand why it comes up so often?
I understand the difficulty getting used to new pronouns. It’s great that you’re doing your best to understand despite not having much experience with it. I was just trying to point out that the portrayal in Trek is already showing a world that accepts trans and nonbinary people far more naturally than IRL, even if there could be more representation of actual queer folks.
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?
You’ve said it, examples. All series have their flaws, but overall their qualities made them last. Who hasn’t heard of someone binging all of TNG? Who has heard someone say “Discovery was so good I’m rewatching it with my friends”?
Why is it when those things you listed show up on other Star Trek series you consider them to be “flaws” on an “overall quality” show, but on Discovery they become “reasons to hate”? Why the double standard?
Those are reasons to hate any show. Discovery made the mistake of being made mostly of that.
It just feels awfully weird to me that your list of criteria that makes a show “hateable” only applies to this particular show. And when another show checks off the items, the list suddenly stops being “hateable items” and instead becomes a list of minor nitpicks.
I just can’t figure out what the difference is, what could it be about Discovery in particular that would cause you to hold this list of criteria with such gravitas, but when the listed items appear on a different show, you don’t seem to mind? What could the difference be?
Again, let me explain it as a metaphor:
a) You want to buy a new house, it’s beautiful although there’s a few leaks here and there, but the rest of the roof is solid. You decide you like it.
b) You want to buy a new house, it’s beautiful although most of the roof has leaks. You decide it’s not wort the effort.
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
Code of Honor, Sub Rosa
Janeway and Paris getting their lizard fuck on and having kids.
Code of Honor, Profit & Lace, Sub Rosa, …
Watch Lower Decks. Not because it is itself part of that 10% – it’s the best new Trek there is! – but because it talks more about it. Technobabble, giant Spock, lizards, it’s all there. Even random toy tie-in schlock:
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
I feel we talk of the bad episodes way more than the good ones. It’s more entertaining.
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.
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 is fine overall.
It may not be everyone’s favourite Trek but NO SINGLE SHOW IS EVERYONE’S FAVOURITE.
I’m stooping to yelling because, looking at it as someone who saw TOS in first run, it really can’t be stressed enough that there needs to be new Trek for every generation.
I didn’t expect that our GenZ kids would like Voyager best of the older shows.
And yes, for one of our GenZs, Discovery season one is ‘the best season of Trek’ ever. They have rewatched all the seasons of the show more than I have.
Discovery season 5 was fine in my view. I wasn’t fond of the series tacked on to the finale.
Season 4 of Discovery has a better premise and structure than Picard season 2 but both seem to suffer terribly from being shot under COVID restrictions. Other shows managed to write around the limitations without such stilted and drawn own scenes. I don’t know what Paramount instructed its writers teams be it’s boggling to see these seasons against the rest now.
I’m Genz, 25 years old and like the Voyager.
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.
Eh, it’s ok. I’d definitely rank it below many other Star Trek series, but if you’ve seen all the better ones already then Discovery is worth a watch
My position too. It’s not my favourite Trek by far, but I don’t get the hate.
I have an intense distaste for Discovery, and wouldn’t recommend it.
I could rant about it a la Angela Collier 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 knowledgeGuess 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 things with any veneer of scienceThen 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?
• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future
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.
• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions
Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?
• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode
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.
• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of science
I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!
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.
You didn’t say Discovery villains didn’t “have nuance and development”. So no, I didn’t say that either.
Gul Dukat
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?
I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!
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.
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.
It’s a romantic comedy. Not science fiction. I lost it at the musical. Musicals are what happens when writers have no ideas.
Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise
They’re also completely absent from Discovery…
OMG you’re so right.
Honestly I’m so used to hearing the same tired old arguments I didn’t even process that.
And all the crying… my god, so many tears 🙄
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.
i think this clip really highlights all the issues i had with discovery.
kinda poor acting, cringe ass dialogue, boring and bland music, self aggrandisement, and too many obvious cgi ‘set pieces’.
new trek is action oriented space opera, not hard scifi morality tales. ig its just not for me
Discovery was so bad I had to stop after season 2 and have written off everything that they’ve set in the 31st century
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!
I liked it though it did feel that the series had a tendancy to take itself maybe too seriously. Trek is best when it knows when to keep things on the lighter side and/or create ongoing gags and themes to call back to during the series. Discovery didn’t really feel like it had much of that.
Despite that it was still a good watch IMO. Burnham tended to be at the center of the series though the other characters do get interesting when they got more time. You should just give it a watch and decide for yourself.
Also if you want to know the backstory of Star Trek Strange New Worlds you’ll want to watch at least some Discovery, SNW is a spin-off.
And giving credit where it’s due, Discovery was the first of what became a whole bunch of new Trek shows that came out afterwards. If Discovery was that bad then none of the other newer Trek shows would have even made it to air. Before Discovery it had been a while since any new Trek shows had appeared, at some point the Star Trek universe needs new blood to keep things going. Else it’s just going to be older people talking about the original Star Trek series and TNG and it’ll just be something that used to exist a long time ago.
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.
