So I started watching Star Trek Discovery ... Why do people not like this show?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I just finished watching episode 6 and I just wanted to ask why there is so much negativity around this reimagining about the series? It has complexity, heart, interesting character dynamics, shot competently, pretty good effects, I really like Stamets. Stamets is like a real scientist. I've worked with people like this personally. A bit of ego, and inexhaustible energy for all the things that excite them. The whole reason why they spend their lives dedicated to that one thing despite a perpetually crappy pay cheque.

Now the first two episodes had some pacing and weird plot issues, but what exactly is wrong with that?

It's obviously trying to plumb some deeper character drama than most Star Trek series, thus making it seem more interpersonal focussed. But surely that's a good thing on its own, right?

Not only that but by having it focus on the character of Michael Burnham it helps sell the idea of a person caught between the class layers between a somewhat disturbed captain, a neurodivergent Tilly and Stamets, a sharp-tongued Saru, the (likeably) stoic soldier in the form of Lieutenant Tyler... which helps sell the idea of what it means to serve and be in service to something greater in terms of the moral complexities of war and belonging to an interstellar society that in its own sense of ruthless performance and 'esteem of the uniform' would create a streak of 'the weird' in people. Something that wasn't really captured in other takes of the property.

In a lot of Star Trek series it sells the meritocracy of Starfleet, but always paints an escapism of a central, commanding authority by which the viewer is meant to project a latent egotistical connection to that has a uniquely liberal bent that, in truth of belonging to such a massive interstellar institution, wouldn't actually exist. An escapism that is directly contradictory to that meritocracy to begin with. Service begets merit--not whim.

And it's kind of refreshing for Star Trek to actually examine that idea of an element of being shackled by the obvious bureaucracy that would exist ... and also quietly admonish the egotistical escapism of viewers of the past projecting onto former captains of past series, painted as if larger than life when in truth they would be no less shackled by the systems that made them in the first place. The systems that demand decorum and regimentation of service that all of us face regardless of our personal successes that is the reality of our lives.

Lorca's mental illness, for instance, even going so far as to allow the capture of the one person that by design sought to ground him and the show painting that as if a manifestation of his broken mind is a pretty searing indictment on how prior series have treated the role of once central figures.

And sure ... I can get why people might be pissed off with such commentary, but it's pretty good commentary IMO about a key weirdness of Star Trek that it has always seemed to pander to that egotistical escapism the viewer secretly desires. That captain's chair as if an infantile idea of what it actually means to be in command and the laundry list of responsibilities that come with it that are, in truth, far more restrictive than one would like to actually imagine they are.

Prior antagonists that sought to challenge such characters in the past have been painted as villainous or petty-minded. And no, this is a person that genuinely cares about him and he betrays her and it has real consequences. His paranoia for self-preservation goes so far as to hurt the people that truly want him to get better.

I don't get the hate, personally. I feel like the set up and premise are pretty damn tight.

If the key reason why people don't like it is purely because it gets progressively worse, that I can understand--But there seemed to be a kneejerk negativity about the series from day 1.

So far it hasn't match the quality of the older series.

I have not heard whether its any better or worse then Voyager and Enterprise.

But clearly Disocvery would not match TOS (in its best episodes), TNG, and DS9.

Honestly most of the criticism was superficial:
the visual style (okay to me, too futuristic for some),
the new look of the klingons (personally didn't care, I applaud them for atleast trying something new with the makeup),
the mood of show (I agree that the show took itself a bit too seriously.
But

It just didn't like Star Trek to me. I haven't even finished the first season, so I can't tell if it even ends well or not.
There are some okay moments here and there, but it just felt boring to me. Characters didn't interest me (though some of them were promising), the story was boring, Michael was annoying, the Tardigrade was ripped from a game or something.

And that is not to say that the previous Star Treks were some masterpieces *cough* Voyager, Enterprise, The Next Generation*cough*.

The aesthetic bothered me a lot, but I wouldn't say its a terrible show. I preferred the star trek visuals that felt like someone took a naval vessel, eased off the sharp corners and installed some better chairs, and then called it done. Something about the appearance gave me a feel of really being out there in uncharted land, where all you have is the boat and a map and neither was designed for comfort.

The smoother ipod/techno-ergo look of the new show/movies makes me think of my office. Hell, the lunch area in one episode looks basically like the area I choose not to eat in daily. Technically comfortable, not filled with excitement and dreadful anticipation. Probably a good idea for my office planner, but when I watch a show about exploration and shit getting real I don't want to feel vaguely jealous of the helmsman's chair.

As far as the story goes, its ok. They bring in modern social/societal commentary, just like the old ones did about the times they were made in. Commentary on the issues of today doesn't really mesh well with the concept of an ideal society that the longest running series was based on, so we have to trash that aspect, and I would guess that doesn't sit well with a lot of long standing fans. I don't put much stock in the idea that adding bureaucracy and exploration of politics is a turnoff for people, given that DS9 was mostly a story about the unpleasant reality of politics and bureaucracy during a tenuous truce and its generally considered one of the best series.

My two complaints about the show are a) advanced tech vs timeline, and b) the "twist".

If the Spore drive is a thing that exists, why is it never brought up again? Especially when, in TNG, they determine that traveling via Warp Field does damage to certain parts of the universe. This would be easily fixed if the show took place after all others in the timeline. So, the reason for developing the drive is to have a non-damaging alternative to warp.

The "twist"... Was just unnecessary. You want to do a conflict between the militaristic vs. exploration sides of the Federation, then do that. You don't need to slap a goatee on everyone.

Other than that, it was an okay show. Just not worth the price of a streaming subscription.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

And it's kind of refreshing for Star Trek to actually examine that idea of an element of being shackled by the obvious bureaucracy that would exist ... and also quietly admonish the egotistical escapism of viewers of the past projecting onto former captains of past series, painted as if larger than life when in truth they would be no less shackled by the systems that made them in the first place. The systems that demand decorum and regimentation of service that all of us face regardless of our personal successes that is the reality of our lives.

I haven't seen it myself, and I doubt that this particular issue would manifest early on in a definable pattern (I'm assuming that this aspect is impressed upon the viewer after watching for a while?), but having said that, this aspect would actually work to turn off a LOT of viewers, as often the very act of viewing is to escape from specific aspects of reality -and actual bureaucracy (military or otherwise) and it's crushing and faceless presence is a biiig one to run from... or I would have thought.

Personally, I've never been a big Star Trek fan - watched what shows I did watch mainly because nothing else was on (especially true for TNG). Naturally, I have no vitriol for it, just general disinterest.

I thought Discovery had arguably the best first season of any Trek series. TNG didn't really hit its stride until S3, DS9 was consistently good but not yet great in S1, and while TOS S1 had many classic episodes, the balance across 29 episodes ain't great.

That said, the biggest drawback for me was the Klingon-Federation "war" that's revealed toward the end of S1. I generally think Trek creators and fans alike are too obsessive about canon and every little detail of its collective history, but that said, this was one leap that was too big for me. There's nothing in any previous Trek series or movie that even suggests there was a full-scale Klingon Federation war at that point in Trek history, and certainly not a conflict that had the Federation on the verge of extinction. I just think they went way too far with that one. Getting creative with Trek's history is one thing, but retconning an entire war out of thin air is another.

Gene Roddenberry would definitely not approve. One of the things that he insisted on was the exact opposite - no drama on the bridge. Everyone had to act like a professional. Discovering solutions to complex problems was the focus, not interpersonal drama.

That being said, I don't mind it. I loved the first season. Especially the big twist near the end. Holy fun! It's still not as good as earlier shows, but there's potential there. Lots of it.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
So I just finished watching episode 6 and I just wanted to ask why there is so much negativity around this reimagining about the series?

I thought it was good.

Except perhaps for the "alternate dimension" thing. I generally hate alternate dimension and time travel plots (or the Holodeck from TNG) because they are all too easily vehicles for lazy scriptwriters who have run out of ideas. It's different for things like Doctor Who, where time travel is rarely anything to do with the plot, and just an excuse to let the lead character turn up an anywhere and anywhen. Nevertheless, I'd grudgingly say Discovery handled it about as little cack-handedly as it could have been done.

Exley97:
That said, the biggest drawback for me was the Klingon-Federation "war" that's revealed toward the end of S1. I generally think Trek creators and fans alike are too obsessive about canon and every little detail of its collective history, but that said, this was one leap that was too big for me. There's nothing in any previous Trek series or movie that even suggests there was a full-scale Klingon Federation war at that point in Trek history, and certainly not a conflict that had the Federation on the verge of extinction. I just think they went way too far with that one. Getting creative with Trek's history is one thing, but retconning an entire war out of thin air is another.

I was pretty sure from the original series that there was a major Federation-Klingon war.

Agema:

Exley97:
That said, the biggest drawback for me was the Klingon-Federation "war" that's revealed toward the end of S1. I generally think Trek creators and fans alike are too obsessive about canon and every little detail of its collective history, but that said, this was one leap that was too big for me. There's nothing in any previous Trek series or movie that even suggests there was a full-scale Klingon Federation war at that point in Trek history, and certainly not a conflict that had the Federation on the verge of extinction. I just think they went way too far with that one. Getting creative with Trek's history is one thing, but retconning an entire war out of thin air is another.

I was pretty sure from the original series that there was a major Federation-Klingon war.

There were certainly skirmishes in TOS, such as "Errand of Mercy" or "The Trouble with Tribbles." But there's nothing in the original series or the movies that suggests the Federation-Klingon conflict erupted in a full-scale war that nearly wiped out the Federation *before* Discovery aired. At least, nothing that I recall. I could be wrong.

Exley97:
There were certainly skirmishes in TOS, such as "Errand of Mercy" or "The Trouble with Tribbles." But there's nothing in the original series or the movies that suggests the Federation-Klingon conflict erupted in a full-scale war that nearly wiped out the Federation *before* Discovery aired. At least, nothing that I recall. I could be wrong.

I might be wrong about it being Original Series - perhaps it's Next Gen, but I'm sure it's mentioned that the Federation and the Klingons were historically involved a very long-lasting war. Conflict in the ToS is more a persistent state of minor conflict and raiding (such as the medieval English-Scottish border) than a full-scale military dust-up, and I'd agree that's the natural assumption. Nevertheless, nor is the existence of a massive conflict precluded, thus I'm not sure I'd call it a retcon.

Of course, it might also be explainable with hindsight. Perhaps the Federation thought it faced annihilation at the time of the war itself, perhaps in part because of shock value due to the string of defeats, that it was militarily inexperienced or underprepared. With toughening up and historical perspective, however, even by Kirk's time the perception was more that it wasn't as bad as it had seemed at the time - it was always going to hold the Klingons when the space factories cranked out enough new ships.

It felt it wasn't really "Star Trek-y".

That being said, it's an excellent series on its own.

Exley97:
There were certainly skirmishes in TOS, such as "Errand of Mercy" or "The Trouble with Tribbles." But there's nothing in the original series or the movies that suggests the Federation-Klingon conflict erupted in a full-scale war that nearly wiped out the Federation *before* Discovery aired. At least, nothing that I recall. I could be wrong.

There are a couple of referrences to hostilities and even battles before the TOS timescale, but is all is pretty vague concerning extent.

Making it a full blown war with Discovery is just a way of filling in blanks.

Samtemdo8:
So far it hasn't match the quality of the older series.

I have not heard whether its any better or worse then Voyager and Enterprise.

But clearly Disocvery would not match TOS (in its best episodes), TNG, and DS9.

Never watched Enterprise. But my order is DS9>>>>>>>>>>>>Voyager>>TOS>TNG. But then I'm a B5 heathen. See below.

Sonmi:
It felt it wasn't really "Star Trek-y".

That being said, it's an excellent series on its own.

Star Trek was an anthology series, that just happened to have the same characters. If you have a Chief O'Brien would has PTSD from a forced jail sentence he had to endure (one of DS9's best episode), you had to make sure that he didn't have it next episode. AND THAT"S NOT HOW THAT EPISODE ENDED. It stipulated that this PTSD would carry on for the rest of his life, but it never came up again in the series. Pale Moonlight is another example. The guilt and internal conflict was just dropped because... we have different stories to tell. Not what would make sense to a character.

Star Trek was a bunch of action figures running around the set. They rarely changed and the only situation that was important was the one in front of them. Doctor Who is very similar that way. They started exploring consequences in DS9 and Voyager but it was intermittent. DS9 had a seven episode arc, Voyager Doc had growth and then developed a protocol to teach Seven of Nine. But many other characters did not.

Discovery is a different beast, they spent a large swathe of episodes exploring different dimensions. And it had consequences, that's hopefully going to show up in season 2. Although I don't hold out hope because the Enterprise is coming. Because we cant have Star Trek without the Enterprise showing up. It's like having a Star Wars movie without a Death Star, or Star Destroyers. They're there not because of plot, but because that's what fans expect.

My suggestion, don't ever compare this new Star Trek to the old. They are just not the same. If you do, you get into Kirk/ Picard fights that are useless because they AREN'T the same character for a reason.

Satinavian:

Exley97:
There were certainly skirmishes in TOS, such as "Errand of Mercy" or "The Trouble with Tribbles." But there's nothing in the original series or the movies that suggests the Federation-Klingon conflict erupted in a full-scale war that nearly wiped out the Federation *before* Discovery aired. At least, nothing that I recall. I could be wrong.

There are a couple of referrences to hostilities and even battles before the TOS timescale, but is all is pretty vague concerning extent.

Making it a full blown war with Discovery is just a way of filling in blanks.

That's a pretty big leap. I feel like if there had been a full-scale war that had the Federation and the human race on the edge of extinction, it would have constituted more than a few vague references of hostilities with the Klingons prior to Discovery.

Exley97:

Satinavian:

Exley97:
There were certainly skirmishes in TOS, such as "Errand of Mercy" or "The Trouble with Tribbles." But there's nothing in the original series or the movies that suggests the Federation-Klingon conflict erupted in a full-scale war that nearly wiped out the Federation *before* Discovery aired. At least, nothing that I recall. I could be wrong.

There are a couple of referrences to hostilities and even battles before the TOS timescale, but is all is pretty vague concerning extent.

Making it a full blown war with Discovery is just a way of filling in blanks.

That's a pretty big leap. I feel like if there had been a full-scale war that had the Federation and the human race on the edge of extinction, it would have constituted more than a few vague references of hostilities with the Klingons prior to Discovery.

The Klingons also looked very different. Three different iterations. It's a weak link, but Star Trek hasn't care too much continiruity anyway.

I do remember playing Commodore 64 game (I think. Maybe some Amiga computer.) where you were a lone starship (pretty sure the Enterpirse) fighting against hordes of Klingon ships. The galaxy was set up into quadrants and you had to track them down. There were Romulans as well that kicked my ass. A big war between the Federation and the Klingons was cannon for me before Discovery.

Edit: http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?h=0&id=7341

Note that you still had 33! Klingon ships to kill. I don't think kill that many in the entire TOS run

Shame Zontar isn't still around, he'd have been able to explain it easily.

But that aside:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Now the first two episodes had some pacing and weird plot issues, but what exactly is wrong with that?

...you kinda just described it?

Anyway, I'd say Discovery is...okay. When I reviewed it, I pointed out that its quality is like a bell curve. You start off pretty bad, but it gets better over time, peaking in the Mirror Universe. After that, the quality declines a bit, though still ends better than it started.

It's obviously trying to plumb some deeper character drama than most Star Trek series, thus making it seem more interpersonal focussed. But surely that's a good thing on its own, right?

Depends on who you ask. A lot of the backlash is that it's different, and, well, more on that later.

Samtemdo8:
So far it hasn't match the quality of the older series.

I have not heard whether its any better or worse then Voyager and Enterprise.

But clearly Disocvery would not match TOS (in its best episodes), TNG, and DS9.

If I had to rank what I've seen of Star Trek, it would go TNG>TOS>Discovery>Enterprise.

That said, not the biggest Star Trek fan either way.

Jute88:

the visual style (okay to me, too futuristic for some),

Yeah...I'm okay with it, but I can get why people would be put off.

But seriously, why is it so dark? Even the bridge of the NX-01 was better lit than this.

the new look of the klingons (personally didn't care, I applaud them for atleast trying something new with the makeup),[/quote]

I'm mixed on the klingons.

On one hand, Star Trek alien makeup has been...well, pretty crap prior to this (far as I've seen, there's been exceptions). So on the one hand, I like that these klingons look and sound alien. On the other, they really don't match the 'standard' klingons we've previously seen.

the mood of show (I agree that the show took itself a bit too seriously.
But

It just didn't like Star Trek to me. I haven't even finished the first season, so I can't tell if it even ends well or not.

I won't spoil the ending, but I do sympathise with this. Again, not a big Star Trek fan, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is the most "un-Star Trek" Star Trek show I've seen. That comes down to its characters, to its plot, to its aesthetic, to its tone, to, well, everything. Whether that's good or bad is down to the individual, but if someone says that Discovery puts them off for this, then I do get that.

There are some okay moments here and there, but it just felt boring to me. Characters didn't interest me (though some of them were promising), the story was boring, Michael was annoying, the Tardigrade was ripped from a game or something.

Yeah.

I know Michael is the protagonist, but to me, she's easily the least engaging member of the main cast.

Lorca FTW!

madwarper:

If the Spore drive is a thing that exists, why is it never brought up again? Especially when, in TNG, they determine that traveling via Warp Field does damage to certain parts of the universe. This would be easily fixed if the show took place after all others in the timeline. So, the reason for developing the drive is to have a non-damaging alternative to warp.

The spore drive is established to do damage as well. Like, universe-threatening damage.

Other than that, it was an okay show. Just not worth the price of a streaming subscription.

Suck it, I got it on Netflix. :P

Exley97:
I thought Discovery had arguably the best first season of any Trek series.

From what I've seen...yeah, that's probably true.

Granted, part of the bar is season 1 of TNG (bleh) and season 1 of Enterprise (bleh!) and season 1 of TOS (can't remember), so, go figure.

trunkage:
But then I'm a B5 heathen.

Another B5 fan?

Squee!

trunkage:
Star Trek was an anthology series, that just happened to have the same characters. If you have a Chief O'Brien would has PTSD from a forced jail sentence he had to endure (one of DS9's best episode), you had to make sure that he didn't have it next episode. AND THAT"S NOT HOW THAT EPISODE ENDED. It stipulated that this PTSD would carry on for the rest of his life, but it never came up again in the series. Pale Moonlight is another example. The guilt and internal conflict was just dropped because... we have different stories to tell. Not what would make sense to a character.

Star Trek was a bunch of action figures running around the set. They rarely changed and the only situation that was important was the one in front of them. Doctor Who is very similar that way. They started exploring consequences in DS9 and Voyager but it was intermittent. DS9 had a seven episode arc, Voyager Doc had growth and then developed a protocol to teach Seven of Nine. But many other characters did not.

I'd agree with this.

Early series (and not just Star Trek) were very much a collection of standalone episodes with minimal continuity. TSG and DS9 had, for me, a very uneasy sense of continuity where things with long-term implications were brought in, and then just dropped or picked up as convenient. Babylon 5 handled it a lot better - although a sort of mix of standalone episodes and overarching narrative advancement episodes, there was a much stronger grasp that once something major had happened to a character, they couldn't just move on next week as if nothing had happened.

madwarper:
My two complaints about the show are a) advanced tech vs timeline, and b) the "twist".

If the Spore drive is a thing that exists, why is it never brought up again? Especially when, in TNG, they determine that traveling via Warp Field does damage to certain parts of the universe. This would be easily fixed if the show took place after all others in the timeline. So, the reason for developing the drive is to have a non-damaging alternative to warp.

The "twist"... Was just unnecessary. You want to do a conflict between the militaristic vs. exploration sides of the Federation, then do that. You don't need to slap a goatee on everyone.

Other than that, it was an okay show. Just not worth the price of a streaming subscription.

The Spore Drive was never used again due to it being considered a direct violation of the prime directive, as well as being considered extremely cruel, and yes, damaging to the universe as well. In order for them to navigate the spore drive, they were causing extreme harm to another life form that would result in death. When they had a member of star fleet sacrifice themselves with an unauthorized experimental injection in order to spare the other lifeforms life so they could use the spore drive again, it almost killed them as well. In addition to the mycelium network becoming infected and having to be "regrown" due to their experiments and use contaminating it, they were just doing too much damage to have it as a viable alternative to anything at that point.

Exley97:
I thought Discovery had arguably the best first season of any Trek series. TNG didn't really hit its stride until S3, DS9 was consistently good but not yet great in S1, and while TOS S1 had many classic episodes, the balance across 29 episodes ain't great.

That said, the biggest drawback for me was the Klingon-Federation "war" that's revealed toward the end of S1. I generally think Trek creators and fans alike are too obsessive about canon and every little detail of its collective history, but that said, this was one leap that was too big for me. There's nothing in any previous Trek series or movie that even suggests there was a full-scale Klingon Federation war at that point in Trek history, and certainly not a conflict that had the Federation on the verge of extinction. I just think they went way too far with that one. Getting creative with Trek's history is one thing, but retconning an entire war out of thin air is another.

I also think it was the best first season out of any Star Trek series, my only real irritation was " too many twists" like they went overboard with it really, that and WTH would they ever release ANYONE from the mirror universe into their universe instead of finding a way to force them back? What is stopping them from finding a way to bring more people from the mirror universe back or causing great harm in that universe. Seems like a ridiculously bad idea.

AS for the Klingon War, while the dates may be a bit off, both TOS and TNG refer to the Klingon War, this is only slightly before one of the dates mentioned, but according to Discovery creators, the discrepancies between Discovery and the original show will be explained later. Maybe there is a difference in time due to them actually changing the past/ future time line via time travel later? Anything is possible from what they have shown thus far.

OP: I think Discovery is actually a good deal better than most previous Star Trek episodes thus far, and am hoping they expand on that. I guess time will tell. Some of the time though it felt like they were " trying too hard" but that doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing. It is good they were filled with surprises overall.

Lil devils x:
]
The Spore Drive was never used again due to it being considered a direct violation of the prime directive, as well as being considered extremely cruel, and yes, damaging to the universe as well. In order for them to navigate the spore drive, they were causing extreme harm to another life form that would result in death. When they had a member of star fleet sacrifice themselves with an unauthorized experimental injection in order to spare the other lifeforms life so they could use the spore drive again, it almost killed them as well. In addition to the mycelium network becoming infected and having to be "regrown" due to their experiments and use contaminating it, they were just doing too much damage to have it as a viable alternative to anything at that point.

Actually, no, they ripped the tardigrade from an indie-game Tardigrades. And fearing copyright infringement they offered to get rid off the tardigrade from the show. And the tardigrade wasn't the only thing they (possibly) ripped off from the game.

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:
So far it hasn't match the quality of the older series.

I have not heard whether its any better or worse then Voyager and Enterprise.

But clearly Disocvery would not match TOS (in its best episodes), TNG, and DS9.

If I had to rank what I've seen of Star Trek, it would go TNG>TOS>Discovery>Enterprise.

That said, not the biggest Star Trek fan either way.

Jute88:

the visual style (okay to me, too futuristic for some),

Yeah...I'm okay with it, but I can get why people would be put off.

But seriously, why is it so dark? Even the bridge of the NX-01 was better lit than this.

the new look of the klingons (personally didn't care, I applaud them for atleast trying something new with the makeup),

I'm mixed on the klingons.

On one hand, Star Trek alien makeup has been...well, pretty crap prior to this (far as I've seen, there's been exceptions). So on the one hand, I like that these klingons look and sound alien. On the other, they really don't match the 'standard' klingons we've previously seen.

I feel that the klingons were in their prime during Star Trek VI. They were pretty militaristic, smart and aggressive, but they hadn't devolved yet into these honor-obsessed space-vikings/cavemen we had in TNG, DS9 and ENT.

The "standard" klingon is kinda difficult to describe. They've been revamped so many times. Though the part about klingons being cannibals doesn't honestly sound that difficult to believe.

the mood of show (I agree that the show took itself a bit too seriously.
But

It just didn't like Star Trek to me. I haven't even finished the first season, so I can't tell if it even ends well or not.

I won't spoil the ending, but I do sympathise with this. Again, not a big Star Trek fan, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is the most "un-Star Trek" Star Trek show I've seen. That comes down to its characters, to its plot, to its aesthetic, to its tone, to, well, everything. Whether that's good or bad is down to the individual, but if someone says that Discovery puts them off for this, then I do get that.

I was mostly very forgiving to the new things the show did. The most off-putting thing in the show was how violent and out of character Mudd felt to me. Harcourt Fenton Mudd, a minor character from TOS that I shouldn't even care about that much, and yet I can't stand him in the new series.

There are some okay moments here and there, but it just felt boring to me. Characters didn't interest me (though some of them were promising), the story was boring, Michael was annoying, the Tardigrade was ripped from a game or something.

Yeah.

I know Michael is the protagonist, but to me, she's easily the least engaging member of the main cast.

Lorca FTW!

I was starting to warm up to Saru myself.

trunkage:
But then I'm a B5 heathen.

Another B5 fan?

Squee!

Entil'Zha!

Jute88:
Actually, no, they ripped the tardigrade from an indie-game Tardigrades. And fearing copyright infringement they offered to get rid off the tardigrade from the show. And the tardigrade wasn't the only thing they (possibly) ripped off from the game.

What game was that?

Jute88:

Lil devils x:
]
The Spore Drive was never used again due to it being considered a direct violation of the prime directive, as well as being considered extremely cruel, and yes, damaging to the universe as well. In order for them to navigate the spore drive, they were causing extreme harm to another life form that would result in death. When they had a member of star fleet sacrifice themselves with an unauthorized experimental injection in order to spare the other lifeforms life so they could use the spore drive again, it almost killed them as well. In addition to the mycelium network becoming infected and having to be "regrown" due to their experiments and use contaminating it, they were just doing too much damage to have it as a viable alternative to anything at that point.

Actually, no, they ripped the tardigrade from an indie-game Tardigrades. And fearing copyright infringement they offered to get rid off the tardigrade from the show. And the tardigrade wasn't the only thing they (possibly) ripped off from the game.

You are going to have to offer more evidence than that. Tardigrades have been my favorite animal since I wrote stories about them in the 4th grade and have been prominent in science fiction for many years. Simply because someone makes a game about them does not mean other science fiction writers even have to be aware of the existence of the game to write about them as well. Simply because any joe sues when someone else uses a similar topic does not mean they actually had any clue their version existed. They are a popular subject after all. In addition, we have no idea when the story was even written in comparison to his game release and sounds like he does not have much of a case:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/09/11/understanding-the-star-trek-discovery-plagiarism-allegations/
Reminds me of when I was in high school and wrote a poem then a few years later a song came out that had multiple verses word for word identical to my poem. They didn't steal my work of course, it is just how the human mind works. People often have same/similar ideas, that does not in any way mean they stole them from someone else or even was aware of the other's existence.

EDIT: Also the timing of both the game and Start trek Discovery's script does not surprise me that they were about tardigrades and space travel due to the timing of articles put out at the time about how tardigardes could survive space travel and the possibility of alien origin.

Abomination:

Jute88:
Actually, no, they ripped the tardigrade from an indie-game Tardigrades. And fearing copyright infringement they offered to get rid off the tardigrade from the show. And the tardigrade wasn't the only thing they (possibly) ripped off from the game.

What game was that?

Here's Leonard French, the lawyer who defended against Alex Mercer, giving his run down of the court case against Discovery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmdJbQzKIQ

It's from two months ago, so I might have forgotten details. I think CBS won based on the fact that tardigrades are real life animals

trunkage:

Abomination:

Jute88:
Actually, no, they ripped the tardigrade from an indie-game Tardigrades. And fearing copyright infringement they offered to get rid off the tardigrade from the show. And the tardigrade wasn't the only thing they (possibly) ripped off from the game.

What game was that?

Here's Leonard French, the lawyer who defended against Alex Mercer, giving his run down of the court case against Discovery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmdJbQzKIQ

It's from two months ago, so I might have forgotten details. I think CBS won based on the fact that tardigrades are real life animals

I think CBS would have won as well due to the story being completely different and the fact that this guy was far from being the first person to imagine that tardigrades were involved in space travel and at the time both his game and the show were written/ imagined tardigrades were in the news frequently in the science community due to the studies being done on them.

Lil devils x:

trunkage:

Abomination:
What game was that?

Here's Leonard French, the lawyer who defended against Alex Mercer, giving his run down of the court case against Discovery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmdJbQzKIQ

It's from two months ago, so I might have forgotten details. I think CBS won based on the fact that tardigrades are real life animals

I think CBS would have won as well due to the story being completely different and the fact that this guy was far from being the first person to imagine that tardigrades were involved in space travel and at the time both his game and the show were written/ imagined tardigrades were in the news frequently in the science community due to the studies being done on them.

Id have to watch the video again. I'm pretty sure tardigrades in the news is not a legal defense. But I didn't read your link. The original game apparently had a gay engineer too, so there were other similarities

trunkage:

Lil devils x:

trunkage:

Here's Leonard French, the lawyer who defended against Alex Mercer, giving his run down of the court case against Discovery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmdJbQzKIQ

It's from two months ago, so I might have forgotten details. I think CBS won based on the fact that tardigrades are real life animals

I think CBS would have won as well due to the story being completely different and the fact that this guy was far from being the first person to imagine that tardigrades were involved in space travel and at the time both his game and the show were written/ imagined tardigrades were in the news frequently in the science community due to the studies being done on them.

Id have to watch the video again. I'm pretty sure tardigrades in the news is not a legal defense. But I didn't read your link. The original game apparently had a gay engineer too, so there were other similarities

Having a gay character is far from being the same story, in addition the character in Tardigrades has a girlfriend that would be comparable to the primary gay character in Discovery. Two different stories.

In the Tardigrades game, it looks like people traveled the universe inside tardigrades, that never happens in Discovery, instead they travel in a ship on a mycelium network and only use a tardigrade to map it and read it for them.
Then the guy goes and picks out characters that have similar physical characteristics to star Trek cast members, but their actual characters have different personalities and roles. Considering the sheer size of any Star Trek cast, it would not be difficult to find numerous characters that would share similar characteristics to most every story out there. It's like omg she has red hair, How can she have red hair when I have a character with red hair?! Really some of his comparisons are absurd.

EDIT: It gets worse, looks like this guy actually ripped off dune rather than Discovery ripping him:
compare:
tardigrades trailer1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIYbDHt5EfU
Dune opening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2Nfvc8WMw

Well that was a big following of responses. Sorry for not replying to my own thread (like the arsewipe that I am) but Ido have a good excuse. I wanted to binge watch more episodes when I had time before talking about it somemore and HOLY SHIT THAT WAS A GREAT S1 of Star Trek!

Why oh fucking why did people bad mouth this series? That is hands down one of the coolest collections of Star Trek episodes in a single season.

It didn't end that great and felt disjointed a bit like the first two episodes, but other than that it was great! And the quality of effects and props does not diminish. The most 'plasticy' looking thing was, ironically, the Terran Emperor's broadsword. Still looked better than some of the TNG Klingon weapons, however, so who's complaining?

So just addressing some random comments...

Hawki:

...you kinda just described it?

Anyway, I'd say Discovery is...okay. When I reviewed it, I pointed out that its quality is like a bell curve. You start off pretty bad, but it gets better over time, peaking in the Mirror Universe. After that, the quality declines a bit, though still ends better than it started.

Well yeah, but is it legitimately worse than a lot of Star Trek pilots?

It was aiming high-drama and an officer that quite literally breaks under the pressure. And I think in a way it sells an idea of Burnham being rogue but with legitimately good (though misled) reasons and motives.

It's a functional opener pair of episodes.

Agema:

I thought it was good.

Except perhaps for the "alternate dimension" thing. I generally hate alternate dimension and time travel plots (or the Holodeck from TNG) because they are all too easily vehicles for lazy scriptwriters who have run out of ideas. It's different for things like Doctor Who, where time travel is rarely anything to do with the plot, and just an excuse to let the lead character turn up an anywhere and anywhen. Nevertheless, I'd grudgingly say Discovery handled it about as little cack-handedly as it could have been done.

I usually hate everything Mirror Universe ... especially the DS9 episodes dedicated solely to it that just felt like filler, but I thought it was handled pretty well. I would have liked the idea of the replacement Georgiou to lead a prolonged war effort over a number of episodes as if the Federation trying to re-instill hope by getting a great captain back who everyone thought was dead into the captain's chair once more. Of a ship that was singularly capable of creating terror and spreading utmost confusion across Klingon space with its spore drive.

That would have been a fun plot of an amoral captain allowed to be amoral because she was predominantly targeting enemy vessels and installations in exchange for not suffering perpetual house arrest.

Would have been a fun non-juxtaposition with Lorca and a figurative monster getting literal acolades by the Federation just simply by being an uncompromising soldier. The entire Federation chanting her name, Michelle Yeoh drinking it up.

It's kind of sad that I Have a sneaking suspicion she'll just be relegated to a minor or major villain role in the future as opposed to what she could have been. Basically that necessary evil that Burnham has to 'balance' between ideals and efficacy as the war shifted into a new high gear in the face of a desperate Federation buoyed by her captain's victories.

Adam Jensen:
Gene Roddenberry would definitely not approve. One of the things that he insisted on was the exact opposite - no drama on the bridge. Everyone had to act like a professional. Discovering solutions to complex problems was the focus, not interpersonal drama.

That being said, I don't mind it. I loved the first season. Especially the big twist near the end. Holy fun! It's still not as good as earlier shows, but there's potential there. Lots of it.

I guess? But that being said I think it better explores an idea of being human. TOS wasn't all that professional, however. I think the argument and nature for bureaucracy is stronger in Discovery. Burnham's redemptive arc was surrendering to an idea that rules and decorum are there for a reason. The interpersonal drama is more layered. As per the critique in my OP the way that (and TOS is guilty of this as well) Star Trek has handled the concept of a whimsical captain in the chair that simply flicks their hand with a; "Thatta'way..." is kind of at odds of a interstellar organization that at least bases itself on the highest ideals of order and professionalism.

That the 'Captain's Chair' in Star Trek was, in prior series, treated almost as if escapism incarnate of the viewer to project onto through the qualities of their captains that have taken that chair. So a lot of the characterisation of casts before is purely 'design the captain first, then have other characters as if bounce off them' precisely because of this.

The whole reason why people drone on incessantly about 'which captain is best' without an actual discussion of theme and mood that the specific series is trying to instill.

The greater focus on the quality of the crew actually better helps sell the idea of Starfleet actually living up to its highest ideals. Showing the crew being great by making them feel as if characters that actually had a life outside Starfleet. So that idea of characters in the background both as fully fleshed characters that don't belong to a captain's cult effectively.

Star Trek Discovery actually offers a moral argument that the bureaucracy is necessary. And it sells that idea better precisely by presenting characters that are uniquely talented and recognizably Starfleet calibur, but may not have necessarily been able to live up to Starfleet ideals without the known weight of signing your name down to wear the uniform.

Lil devils x:

I also think it was the best first season out of any Star Trek series, my only real irritation was " too many twists" like they went overboard with it really, that and WTH would they ever release ANYONE from the mirror universe into their universe instead of finding a way to force them back? What is stopping them from finding a way to bring more people from the mirror universe back or causing great harm in that universe. Seems like a ridiculously bad idea.

The knowledge of how to send people between the universes is unknown; it happened by chance and Lorca realises a way to do it deliberately.

So by the end of Discovery, the Federation knows it can be done and how to do it, but no-one in the mirror universe does because the only mirror universe person with that knowledge - Lorca - died. However, the minute the Federations sends Georgiou or anyone else back, at minimum they'd be telling the mirror universe it can be done, the mirror universe would work on trying to do it, plus a risk it might try to interfere or invade the Federation if it succeeds.

It's therefore safer to restrict the knowledge by keeping Georgiou in Federation universe and making sure she can't get up to anything dodgy. She dies, and the whole issue can sit in quiet, ultra-top secret Federation vault.

* * *

Although I would dispute whether it's an alternate "universe". The universe after all is the entirety of space and time etc. If we have two parallel "bubbles" of space and time between which energy/matter/etc. could be transferred - difficult as it may be - it would mean they are not independent bubbles and thus necessarily comprise the same universe.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Well yeah, but is it legitimately worse than a lot of Star Trek pilots?

We talking about pilot seasons or pilot episodes? If the former, no. If the latter, yes.

It was aiming high-drama and an officer that quite literally breaks under the pressure. And I think in a way it sells an idea of Burnham being rogue but with legitimately good (though misled) reasons and motives.

It's a functional opener pair of episodes.

Functional, maybe, but I find the opening episodes very flawed as in:

-The acting feels very stiff. I know that Michael is emotionally reserved, but this extends to the cast as a whole (compare the chemistry between Spock and Kirk for instance)

-It feels very rushed. There's a constant high pace that extends to what moments of downtime we have left.

-It has to dump a lot of exposition very quickly, especially with the klingons and giving the viewer insight into how they operate.

Now, these kind of problems are common for pilot episodes, especially in fantasy/sci-fi (where the setting has to be established along with the characters), but all the flaws you'd expect from a pilot are on full display here.

Hawki:

We talking about pilot seasons or pilot episodes? If the former, no. If the latter, yes.

Pilot episodes ... and what? Really? As much as I like DS9 and Voyager (for different reasons), both of them had really weak starts as well. Though it would be incorrect to call them pilots ... but regardless ... both of them had really weak starts.

Functional, maybe, but I find the opening episodes very flawed as in:

-The acting feels very stiff. I know that Michael is emotionally reserved, but this extends to the cast as a whole (compare the chemistry between Spock and Kirk for instance)

Kind of?I kind of wish there was more banter between the prisoners. I honestly don't get why they would, at that moment in the mess hall, decide to attack her. Also I like Lorca and Burnham's relationship. It helped sell the idea that, at the start, there was an edge of darkness that Lorca helped foster in the people around him and that maybe Burnham wasn't entirely on the level and created this alienating idea that something was wrong, only to not go that far ... rather pulled the reins back and sell the idea of genuine affection (however twisted it turned out tobe).

It helped sell the idea that they were only one or two shades of grey from an imagined line.

-It feels very rushed. There's a constant high pace that extends to what moments of downtime we have left.

To be fair they obviously had a very different idea of what they wanted their Star Trek to look like. You need to set up up that;

A: This is in the past.
B: This is not going to have a similar tone to Enterprise.
C: This is not going to have a crew of which feels Enterprise-adjacent. The crew has quirks, less polished around the edges, etc.

It's a lot to ask when prior series have tried to maintain a sense of cohesion that the recent movies have utterly tried to dismantle and reimagine, and Discovery felt like a compromise between the two.

-It has to dump a lot of exposition very quickly, especially with the klingons and giving the viewer insight into how they operate.

Now, these kind of problems are common for pilot episodes, especially in fantasy/sci-fi (where the setting has to be established along with the characters), but all the flaws you'd expect from a pilot are on full display here.

I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that is it essentially a new take with a lot of baggage. That it will (and I believe unfairly or inconsiderately) be compared to other Star Treks, and that the IP itself that has become 'up there' with something like Star Wars in terms of being one of the first things you think when you say 'sci-fi' in terms of mass consumption.

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I also think it was the best first season out of any Star Trek series, my only real irritation was " too many twists" like they went overboard with it really, that and WTH would they ever release ANYONE from the mirror universe into their universe instead of finding a way to force them back? What is stopping them from finding a way to bring more people from the mirror universe back or causing great harm in that universe. Seems like a ridiculously bad idea.

The knowledge of how to send people between the universes is unknown; it happened by chance and Lorca realises a way to do it deliberately.

So by the end of Discovery, the Federation knows it can be done and how to do it, but no-one in the mirror universe does because the only mirror universe person with that knowledge - Lorca - died. However, the minute the Federations sends Georgiou or anyone else back, at minimum they'd be telling the mirror universe it can be done, the mirror universe would work on trying to do it, plus a risk it might try to interfere or invade the Federation if it succeeds.

It's therefore safer to restrict the knowledge by keeping Georgiou in Federation universe and making sure she can't get up to anything dodgy. She dies, and the whole issue can sit in quiet, ultra-top secret Federation vault.

* * *

Although I would dispute whether it's an alternate "universe". The universe after all is the entirety of space and time etc. If we have two parallel "bubbles" of space and time between which energy/matter/etc. could be transferred - difficult as it may be - it would mean they are not independent bubbles and thus necessarily comprise the same universe.

It is unknown in this universe, however it is unknown if Phillippa from the mirror universe either knows how or knows how to find out. That is also unknown. In addition, she is extremely resourceful, intelligent, ruthless, and likely capable of finding ways to do things that others would not be, she was the emperor after all so setting her free means she could go figure out how to move between universes on her own, in addition to her being able to cause all sorts of trouble. Being an Emperor after all, would make her highly unlikely to remain content in some subordinate or peasant role for any amount of time. She isn;t dead, and that is why it is so dangerous to let her roam free, in addition, it is not like she is easy to kill. If they change their minds later any attempt to terminate her would be likely to fail.

Lil devils x:

It is unknown in this universe, however it is unknown if Phillippa from the mirror universe either knows how or knows how to find out. That is also unknown. In addition, she is extremely resourceful, intelligent, ruthless, and likely capable of finding ways to do things that others would not be, she was the emperor after all so setting her free means she could go figure out how to move between universes on her own, in addition to her being able to cause all sorts of trouble. Being an Emperor after all, would make her highly unlikely to remain content in some subordinate or peasant role for any amount of time. She isn;t dead, and that is why it is so dangerous to let her roam free, in addition, it is not like she is easy to kill. If they change their minds later any attempt to terminate her would be likely to fail.

That's a pretty big leap to make. Though I'd argue the bigger threat of just letting her go is that she's literally wearing the face of one of the most celebrated captains of Starfleet history and few know that she isn't that same person. Secondly she knows how the Mycelial network draws power and can blow up planets and transport a ship anywhere in the universe.

Whether she could build it or not is immaterial, someone with more resources and access to enough talent may be willing to buy that power off her. I would argue, however, that with that power she'd be content to stay in this universe if only because she's not being hunted and it's a new challenge to carve out a new empire out of.

There's the flipside that I'm actually kind of hoping for. That in the future she takes up a sweetheart deal commission with Starfleet because the Federation thinks they can keep her under thumb. I was honestly hoping for more episodes ofthe war continuing on with her in the captain's chair as if a morale booster to the battered Starfleet forces, and Burnham as if trying to keep her on the straight and narrow. As she ends up solidifying more public support through her accolades and begins undermining on the side the ideals of the Federation by being such a prominent face and 'heroine' of the war and she using that prestige to foster a streak of militarism amongst humanity.

I reckon that could have been a fantastic plot. Plus it would have been better than the whole bomb thing. And given that Mirror Georgiou has every reason to prosecute the war brutally, is a better way for certain prominent Klingons to reach out looking for peace to sympathetic characters and thus formulating a calculated plan to discredit Georgiou who has every reason not to seek peace, but rather prosecute the war as long as possible to maintain her political aspirations. A human that reflects the Klingon's aspirations of unity through naked strength and beats them at their own game through her calculated savagery. Someone who acts as both an enemy agitator as well as a 'champion' of the Federation.

That way it serves as a better admonishment of the Klingon's rage and militarism that is perfectly reciprocated in Georgiou. War begets war, Federation ideals, peace > strength, we can be our own worst enemy, yadda yadda yadda.

Not only that but the story would have flowed better. And it also seems like something she would have done. If she were forced to live in this universe, why wouldn't she try to reshape it in her image? Starfleet practically gave her the key to do so by creating a fallacy of her heroic return, as if from death itself emerging at the Federation's darkest hour.

I mean, c'mon. Put yourslf in her shoes. That would be something she'd do, right?

Get some shades of Kirk in The Undiscovered Country, only by design.

I always figured the Klingon/Federation "neutral zone" with apparent kill-on-entrance treaty rules kind of implied a big, fat war in the not-too-distant past, a la the Korean peninsula demilitarized zone.

What bugs me the most is that it isn't post DS9/Voyager.

Star Trek to me is about forward thinking, looking at what comes next etc. They could have done the new show as 200 years after the most recent, and that big gap means you can fix idiosyncrasies and issues with the setting.

Deciding that the new series meeded to take place between the red headed stepshild series and the original gangster series was dumb.

Because it's not a Trek show and they ripped it off from an indie game. It's a lot more than just the Tardigrade.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here