4/10
Discovery lacked the DNA of other Star Trek in my opinion. Note that I did not finish the series so some of these things may have improved in the last season or 2.
There were things I did like
I'm sure I'm forgetting things, it's been a while since I've thought about this show
Overall, I thought it was fine. I think it got hit a little harshly by critics. It's not terrible (read: unwatchable), but it's pretty firmly my least favorite Star Trek series.
Without actually looking through the full episode lists, and just going off what I remember of each season, here are my gut ratings:
S1: 3/10
S2: 5/10
S3: 4/10
S4: 8/10
Overall: 5/10
Going a bit more into my thoughts in each...
Pros:
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
I think Discovery suffered from one main issue, in multiple way: season-based plots. Since every season had a single main plot, any issues with the plot ruin the whole season. We don't get standalone great episodes like in the old series, which you could watch at random. You kinda need to watch the whole season. Furthermore, since each season had to have a big plot, every season is dealing with a huge issue. It's exhausting being in an existential crisis the entire time. That's the feeling we have in our real world right now. That's the reason I watch Star Trek; it's a glimpse at how the future might be brighter. Discovery never felt like a promising future. It felt like we are going to be struggling for our lives for the next millennium and more.
So, I still enjoyed it as a piece of media, and a part of the Star Trek canon, but it's not a show I see myself watching again and again like the rest of the franchise.
Part of your review is just outright wrong. Discovery does not retcon anything else in Star Trek. I keep seeing that complaint a lot but it's just flagrantly untrue. Most of the things people point to, like Spock having a secret sister, aren't retcons. They just weren't mentioned in the past and it lines up with established personality of Spock. He never mentioned T'Pring to Kirk or Sybock.
The closest thing people can point to are the holograms or the DOTs but if you want to blame someone on that you'd have to start blaming Voyager. They established that holograms were active in this timeframe. Enterprise also showed those holographic training orbs so the idea the tech would be extrapolated to a mini-VR training area within 100 years is entirely feasible. The Animated Series also has 'The Rec Room' which was a proto-holodeck and the show is proving to fall into canon thanks to Lower Decks. As for the DOTs, there's nothing explicitly that would ruleout their existence in the first place. Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for the graphics of the show lining up, yeah. CBS openly said that Discovery was a 'visual reboot' so things were going to look similar but not the same, as evidenced with the new awesome bridge we got for the Enterprise. A new update of an old classic. It would be kind of insane to suddenly downgrade everything into looking like it was made of cardboard and jolly ranchers.
I'd also argue pretty heavily against your complaint of "technology that doesn't match the era". Both of your examples are Section 31 tech. Given all the other crap we can see that they do, it doesn't remotely surprise me that their tech would be a bit more advanced, even more so when you consider that this was not long after a war where every resource was going to attempt to stop the Klingons.
A retcon is still a retcon even if it fits or doesnt inherently contradict anything. They do it in comics all the time. Having spoc suddenly have a secret human sister he cant talk about because shes classified is a retcon regardless of whether it fits or was well done.
That's for the critique.
You're right that I couldn't think of any explicit retcons. The closest I could think of, other than technology, were Burnham being related to Spock (which you touched on), and how absolutely decimated the Federation was by the Klingons while Discovery was in the mirror universe (again, not necessarily a retcon, but it seems like it would have been mentioned more).
Regarding tech, I had legitimately forgotten that Burnham's parents and the time suit were Section 31. That said, what other amazing tech do we ever see out of Section 31? Granted, we don't even see much of Section 31 in other shows, outside of DS9 and ENT, but in those cases, I seem to recall them being more intelligence operatives. They accomplish their job by knowing more than others, and operating outside usual Federation conventions. It's spy stuff, not super weapons (outside the Changeling virus). But maybe I'm forgetting things.
It’s spy stuff, not super weapons
To be fair, nothing that they use in Discovery are superweapons and all of their tech can easily be put forward as spy stuff. We've also seen that Section 31 is directly involved with various classified projects to begin with, which is why they were posted on Discovery in Episode 3. Moreover, DS9 explicitly says that Section 31 was operating since the start of Starfleet but that they had almost no oversight for 200 years. They weren't merely intelligence operators. They were active assassins who are comparable (and were directly influenced by) the CIA. They were made to take care of any and all threats to the Federation that couldn't be taken care of within the normal scope of things. Is it really so unbelievable that this secretive black books organization has spy tech that's unavailable and unknown to most of the populous? I mean... we do that today with various intelligence and military agencies.
4/10
The premise in the beginning is great (and I for one don’t even hate the Klingons) but it devolves into revolving far too much around Michael Burnham, a deeply unpleasant and annoying character.
So of course she Spocks secret sister and of course her mum is the key to saving the galaxy and of course her mirror universe equivalent is the Empress’s prodigy. She’s an annoying writer self insert character and annoys me every time she says a single word. If Michael Burnham was a better character or at least had less screen time, I’d like Discovery much more.
However, most crew members besides Burnham, at least those that actually get time to shine, are pretty great and the best thing Discovery did was introducing Anson Mount as Christopher Pike and setting up Strange New Worlds, which is a 10/10 so far.
Also, DIS is far too dark. You don’t notice it that much while watching the show but after watching SNW… I recently went back to watch a few Pike clips from DIS, to see how he compares to SNW and damn, DIS is gloomy and I definitely prefer my trek bright and optimistic…
Two. Started out interesting. Devolved into the Michael Burnham crying hour. I couldn’t tell you the names of half the recurring characters on the bridge because they were so under utilized. What a waste of a great cast. I especially despise plotlines like the doctor’s where characters die and are magically brought back to life like a nighttime soap opera.
They should have spun Book and Burnham off into their own show, made Saru captain, and concentrated on creating an ensemble show.
They wasted Jason Isaac’s character too. Don’t even get me started on the season where the universe was coming to an end because some alien had the sads.
Yeah, I agree with what you are saying.
But when looking at the bigger picture. This was the first time we had trek back after a long time. I think they took the criticism from this show and applied it to SNW and LD, Picard is kind of its own thing, but Season 3 of it was pretty good.
The final discovery season has been pushed and I’m hoping they decided to rework the show to give it a good send off.
But the cause of the burn was really disappointing.
Well, Discovery is the only Trek I gave up on. Forced myself through S1 & S2, but eventually decided it was not worth my time. SNW gave me back my hope on good New Trek though.
Didn't care for the story, the characters or the futuristic looks even though it was supposed to be a prequel to TOS.
Score 2 out of 10 maybe?
If you enjoy DIS, by all means, have fun. It just doesn't work for me.
I'd say it started at a 6 or 7, and grew to a strong 8 over its runtime. Most of the characters have always been beautifully nuanced, but the stakes of its plots have always been unnecessarily inflated, and the endings for each story arc are of very mixed quality. After the jump to the 31st century, the storylines became much more Star Trek-ian, and the show started to display more of its own identity separate from classic Trek and action movie tropes, and that pushed it into properly great territory.
I'd say 4/10.
One remarkable thing was that it paved the way for SNW.
All other captains were more interesting captains than Burnham, and that's sad, because they were removing them so fast. The happiest point for me was when they made Saru captain, only to remove it later.
I'm ok with Klingons, I think it's ok that each Star Trek generation rethink their visual language.
They told some good stories.
I'm not good with scores so I'll just explain how I rate Discovery.
Back in the 90s/00s I never understood the hate that some Trek fans had towards a new Trek series. Every time a new series premiered there was a large (or at least very loud) chunk of the fanbase hating on the new series. I liked them all. Some more, some less. But I enjoyed them all for being Star Trek and watched them all countless times. (same goes for LD and SNW)
To put that in perspective:
I never felt inclined to rewatch a single episode. It's not that all of them are bad but there's just nothing about them that makes me rewatch them. Especially since 90% of them are embedded in season-long story arcs. (same with Picard, although I do plan to rewatch season 1 and 3 at some point)
At first I liked Discovery for trying something new. I'm not one of those fans who wants a new Trek show to do exactly the same thing that other Trek shows have done before. You need to do new things if you want to keep a franchise alive. But when you do season-long story arcs you need a plan. And Discovery didn't have that. It was quite obvious both in seasons 1 and 2. Season 2 was at least helped by Captain Pike. It's hard to rate those two seasons because there were so many ups and downs. But in total I'd say the first two season were better than the 3rd and 4th seasons.
Season 3 was a chore to watch. Jumping to the future was like jumping the shark for me. There's not nearly enough world-building to make that future interesting -- and how can there be, when there's only 13 episodes and all of them are part of a story arc.
Season 4 was okay. I give them credit for doing something big with non-humanoid and really strange aliens. But this story could have been told in the 23rd century with minimal changes. So why again are they in the future?
In short: Discovery is okay-ish but nothing more.
I don't rate any of the Star Trek shows. They're Star Trek. I enjoy them for what they are. Ones that are closer to my taste I watch more than others. Discovery happens to be closer to my taste than a bunch of other Trek, other than that? It's still Star Trek and I enjoy all Star Trek.
So nice to see this perspective! Somehow a few years ago it felt like the entire internet became obsessed with rating everything. I feel the same way, it's all Trek!
Yeah same here. For certain franchises (Star Trek and Star Wars are two great examples) people tend to get really angry over whether or not something is "good" or "bad". Most of the time it's subjective but what difference does it make? Sure. You can focus on something and get really frustrated over whether or not something lines up to what you want but it doesn't matter. It happened. Sitting there stewing in it and getting frustrated enough to write a novel over something you supposedly "don't care about" feels... strange. I'd rather just let the people who like their stuff to do their thing while I do my thing. Giving it a numerical score and trying to categorize how good it is is a fruitless endeavor that has no ending. Just give things a chance. If you don't like it then move on. If you do like it then you have a new thing.
That's how I found out about a new awesome show called SurrealEstate. HIGHLY recommend. Thanks @StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
Exactly. And often "what I want" is to be pleasantly surprised by something I didn't expect to like. How can I experience that if I only stick to what I know I like? (obv don't get me started on algorithmically suggested media)
Precisely!
Seriously though... check out SurrealEstate. I mean, you don't know me or anything so you've got no reason to trust me, but I highly recommend going in and watching the first episode completely blind. I had zero idea what to expect but it's a really well made show. Better yet, it's filmed where I'm originally from! If you don't like the first episode then you probably won't like it but if you've got even a hint of intrigue then I recommend sticking around for it.
I'd explain more about the show but I don't want to spoil too much. If you go in blind then the first episode is a trip and a half and really sucked me into the show. It's serious and funny, relaxed and tense. Strikes a great balance and is truly well made.
Well, if your taste in Television is anything like your taste in memes I'm sure I'll love it
Give it a chance! It's a Canadian show on CTV but can also watch it on SyFy in the US. I have no idea where to stream it but it's worth looking into. It's really really cool. The first 15 minutes had me hooked because I was just so confused as to what the hell was going on. If I had looked into it more I would have had a better idea but going in blind really made me feel like one of the characters in the show which helped connect.
Also beautiful landscape shots of Newfoundland. Can't go wrong.
2/10. I get the impression that they couldn't afford good writers, but the production heads could afford a LOT of cocaine. The end result is a Trek-ish setting around the biggest Mary Sue trope ever written against a character that they could not ever get up to 'likeable.' Watch as Star Fleet Officers constantly break the rules, run off without communicating effectively, disregard orders, or just plainly talk-back with amazing levels of snark to superiors. Somehow they are all written up as heroes instead of all being removed from duty and forced to spend years in front of councillors for their war PTSD... or time-travel PTSD... or mirror-universe PTSD..., discipline and corrective actions for their MANY examples of insubordination, their ship broken up to figure out space-mushroom instantaneous-travel in a post-dilithium universe, remedial training once cleared to return to figure out the changes in the world around them after the jump, and even then being kept on a short-leash because they obviously can't be trusted: they don't even fully trust each other and have demonstrated time and time again that they make the wrong decision because of their own ego...
Not going to score it but I stopped watching at the end of season one.
Really enjoying lower decks and strange new worlds however
3 - Michael Burnham is so annoying self centered and needy. If they'd moved to being a more ensemble cast sooner and not had it seem like they thought the universe revolved around her then it could have got a solid 6.
My jaw was only the floor anytime the Klingons were on screen. They’re supposed to be these formidable warriors, not lisping fish people who talk at 3/4 speed.
1/10. Sparkly Klingons and Michael's Mad Space Adventure. The only good things about Discovery were put into SNW.
I gave up on it. First trek I did.
Apart from many points already made in the thread for me the worst thing was the acting quality of the Burnham actress and some inclusive actors didn't cut it for me in theirs quality and took me out the thing. It's somewhat uncomfortable to say this because you get accused of all kind of things, but I liked many actors in the cast. I loved the cientific guy but didn't like his partner (thought he overacted) I liked the asian badass emperor but couldn't stand the spirit of the cello guy.
This is no mean as a disrecpect to them I just didn't like it and when I read the scripts I liked them better than seeing them acted out.
7/10 I think its get hated on very unfairly, though it has significant structural issues that keep it from being the best of star trek. Even still, anyone who says that it didn't have the heart of star trek is wrong I think, if it wasn't still there in some essential way we wouldn't have gotten the rest of new star trek.
Also anyone who says the futuristic starship designs in discovery aren't awesome are just wrong, sorry.
0 out of 10. I was hoping Michael Burnham would die in that EVA in the first episode because they were so annoying as a character a few minutes in already and it went downhill from there. The only character I did like, the captain in the first episode died not too much later. I stuck through roughly the first 5 episodes but when that security officer went into the cage with that wild animal and got very predictably mauled I just couldn't stand the horrible writing any more.
I feel like my biggest issue with Discovery was that it failed to live up to its potential. There was a lot that it did right and it had some interesting characters but it never really stuck the landing on it's major arc premises.
The war with the Klingons was disappointingly handled. I find the little glimpses we get of it in strange new worlds to be way more compelling than the season that actually sort of focused on it. In addition to that the stakes were always way too damn high. Like every arc was an existential save the galaxy from war with the klingons, mirror universe invaders, or super AIs, or solve the energy problems of the future. The show also lacked that sunny optimism that trek normally has. Every once in a while it'd reach for it and then come crashing back down.
Overall it wasnt horrible but meh. When season 4 went on hiatus I lost track of when it came back. I meant to get back to the series but I just never mustered the momentum to do so.
I also feel like Picard was similar though I enjoyed the final season of that more(likely because it shamelessly tugged at my nostalgia strings.
With Strange New World and Lower decks the showrunners have found a better groove for trek I think.
I watched the first few episodes, and it just didn't grab me. Its not bad I guess, but it didn't have the same charm Roddenberry had. Honestly, I don't like any nutrek, I just watch tng/ds9/voy/ent over and over.
Id give disco a 3/5 for effort.
I'm the same way, I bailed on Picard and Discovery pretty early. Strange New Worlds is really good though, imo.