So what do I watch first? Picard or Star Trek Discovery?
- Thread starter urrutiap
- Start date
Discovery, as it's not building directly on top of another series like Picard is.
Any references Discovery gives to other series, it gives you enough information so that you won't feel lost. Picard can give you enough information to get by too, but it also assumes you've already seen The Next Generation and Voyager.
Any references Discovery gives to other series, it gives you enough information so that you won't feel lost. Picard can give you enough information to get by too, but it also assumes you've already seen The Next Generation and Voyager.
Depends what you're looking for. Discovery is supposed to be the look and feel of the recent movies in a TV series. Picard is what happened to Picard decades after TNG. Whichever floats your boat, go for it.
I'd say it doesn't really matter. Picard is a story contained to one season and you don't require any knowledge of Discovery to follow it. Though some sort of Youtube primer about the various TNG episodes and movies it ostensibly follows on from might help your enjoyment of it.
Discovery is again largely self-contained. Any references it makes to wider Trek lore are explained within the narrative.
Both are very different to each other in tone, intention and in the stories they tell.
ETA: The OP made me look up the Into Darkness Klingons and they look very much like the Disco version.
Discovery is again largely self-contained. Any references it makes to wider Trek lore are explained within the narrative.
Both are very different to each other in tone, intention and in the stories they tell.
ETA: The OP made me look up the Into Darkness Klingons and they look very much like the Disco version.
Kobayashi Maru.
DSC first.
If you've not seen TNG or don't think of it that greatly, a spinoff based on its lead character might not necessarily be as enthralling. Unless it is. It's up to the viewer and what they like to see in a show or 3what they might be surprised by, good and/or bad. Either which way, PIC does build and rely on heavily some elements from TNG far more than DSC did, hence my vote for DSC as well.
That said, DSC does throw around some TOS character names and a plot development from TOS or two, but not many, not so intertwined or deeply, and can be seen as reasonably distinct and not a prequel or sequel in any major conventional sense. It's not my go-to favorite of all the Trek shows out there, I'd coin toss but lean toward putting it over ENT anyway, but DSC has got some scenes that are really good and I liked how they re-used a certain TOS character...
If you've not seen TNG or don't think of it that greatly, a spinoff based on its lead character might not necessarily be as enthralling. Unless it is. It's up to the viewer and what they like to see in a show or 3what they might be surprised by, good and/or bad. Either which way, PIC does build and rely on heavily some elements from TNG far more than DSC did, hence my vote for DSC as well.
That said, DSC does throw around some TOS character names and a plot development from TOS or two, but not many, not so intertwined or deeply, and can be seen as reasonably distinct and not a prequel or sequel in any major conventional sense. It's not my go-to favorite of all the Trek shows out there, I'd coin toss but lean toward putting it over ENT anyway, but DSC has got some scenes that are really good and I liked how they re-used a certain TOS character...
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
Doesn't matter. None of them have anything to do with each other, and none of them have anything to do with Star Trek
...Lower Decks?
vENe'S gIsIOn
What does "vENe'S gIsIOn" mean? I note that backwards it is "nolslg senev" which doesn't make any more sense.
Gene's Vision, a.k.a. the thing Gatekeepers used to hide behind to bash Post-1991 Star Trek, but have now moved up to Post-2005.
Discovery is the better show. But neither reference the other.
Except for that one thing.
Was there some background reference I missed?
Qowat Milat
Similar threads
