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?
Star Trek Discovery is not “that bad”. Like Picard and some of the seasons of Enterprise, each season is a self-contained story arc, which I get is not for everyone. It also has a black female main character, which apparently is also not for everyone. IMO, the fifth season was not quite as good as the first four (I actually like the fourth the best), but there was still a lot to like. I do think they did better after they moved to the 31st century so they weren’t as constrained by canon gymnastics. It also (for a single season) gives us our only non-human main ship captain to-date, which I think is a good thing in a series centered on the idea of friendship with other worlds. There are definitely things I would change about the show if I could, but on the whole I think it’s a great addition to Trek.
(Also, Michelle Yeoh, Mary Wiseman, and Tig Notaro each steal every single scene any of them is in. Worth watching for those three alone.)
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.
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.
Well said, Enterprise is my least favorite… until Season 4 which I consider to be some of my favorite Star Trek.
But same goes for Discovery! I appreciated what they were trying to do but it didn’t click with me. And then seasons 4 and 5 I consider to be some of Trek’s best.
Yes, there were a few great season one Enterprise episodes such as ‘The Andorian Incident’ directed by Roxann Dawson of Voyager and guest starring Jeffrey Coombs as Shran but it was the fourth season that truly redeemed the show.
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’m so confused by this comment. Season three is literally (literally) about “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” even in the face of overwhelming odds to the contrary.
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’s Trek in name only. You said it’s totally disconnect from the other shows and you’re right. But it’s more than that. It’s not just disconnected from the other Trek series, it’s disconnected from Trek. It feels like they had a generic space/action show and decided to increase the viewership by naming one of the characters Spock and giving a few nods to the Trek franchise. Again: I liked it. I thought it was a really good generic space/action romp. But all other Trek shows have a particularly different view of humanity and history, a core innocence that’s put to extreme tests again and again, while the characters in Discovery couldn’t care less about that stuff.
- It is completely detached, plotwise, from all other Trek (which you already mentioned). In a way that’s actually great because of my point #1. Because of that detachment I can look back on it with greater fondness, like the way you might have a particular circle of friends that you like even more because they never met your mom.
There is one HUGE exception to #1 and #2 above, and that’s the appearance of our good friend Mr. Kirk’s predecessor. There are a couple episodes that gave me the biggest chills from the old days, and if you saw the show (and you’re of a certain age) then you know exactly which episodes I’m talking about.
I’ve never heard of Trekkies as a generational term. I’ve always understood that Trekkers were people who enjoyed the show as a show (they’re on the Trek) whereas Trekkies enjoy the show as part of the show (they’re in the Trek). Like they believe Trek is real, or it’s our actual future, and that Klingons and Vulcans are out there somewhere. Gene Roddenberry preferred this term because the show is about hope, that things will get better to where the show is, and that when things are bad on the show, hope that they will be better or that it will all work out in the end. But me? I just like it as a show. It’s not “real” to me.
Though, I suppose everyone’s relationship with Star Trek (or, any other franchise) is unique and personal to them and you can’t just divide the fans into two categories. Still, that is what I always understood the difference between the two types was, as we are a franchise that has two names for its fans.
Regarding what you said about them having a generic space show and naming it Star Trek. That has happened before. Deep Space Nine exists because the guy made Babylon 5 pitched it to Paramount and they ran him off and stole his idea. Yes, Deep Space Nine is awesome and we love it, but it would not exist if not for Babylon 5, which we should all be thankful we also got. To this day no one who wasn’t involved knows exactly how much DS9 took from B5, but DS9 was not originally Star Trek, and it was widely criticised for not being Star Trek being that they were not exploring and that they were on a space station. I imagine a lot of episodes of TV started out as something else, some unconnected idea that was shoehorned into that show in the writers room. So while I don’t doubt that Discovery may have not been an original Trek idea, I do not care because neither was DS9 and I love DS9.
I’m not disagreeing with you, though, and I agree with some of your clarifications, particularly in point 1.
-
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 fine.
And those that disagree should be forced to watch Star Trek: Section 31 until they can have a reasonable conversation like an adult.
It’s not awful. In fact it has a lot of great high points. On balance, I would say that if you compared it objectively to the first 65 episodes of TNG, it would compare rather favorably.
It’s fine. It’s probably the weakest of the modern Trek shows, but only because SNW and LDS are so good.
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.
It wasn’t my cup of tea.
My favorite new Trek remains Lower Decks.
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. Or they get a story and then get killed off.
The best thing about Discovery is it brought Trek back on TV and it gave us the rest of this era of shows.
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 ?
Thank you for the sanity. I get so tired hearing Burhnam being held to such an obvious double standard. I wonder why? What is different about the character?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Go ahead. Watch it. 🤷🏻
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 👍
It was your assertion that ‘if you’re a fan of older Star Trek’, someone would share your view that irked me.
There’s a lot of older fans that don’t dislike the new shows. We just aren’t feeling the need to caution other older viewers about the new shows.
@pulsewidth @cuchi I felt the same way, until a friend pointed out that’s what Shatner did, too. Stylistically, tonally, etc. the shows are very different, but I wonder if #StarTrekDiscovery feels similar to TOS, to audiences with more modern tastes.
It’s not very good, but it does have some really good moments, and some really good ideas mixed in with the less-good stuff. It’s worth watching. Just put your fingers in your ears and la-la-la through all the Klingon retconning and inappropriate pathos. There are moments where the emotional storyline are good, but they cry wolf too often.
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 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.
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.
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
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.