It's a CW-style teen soap opera in a Star Trek skin. What's to "get?"
Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
It's a CW-style teen soap opera in a Star Trek skin. What's to "get?"
We're not doing this. We were asked to give our "post-mortems" and we have. It's done.
We're going to agree to disagree and move on. Maybe we'll be more on the same page with a future series.
I've mentioned elsewhere that I travelled a lot during the last decade and lived in 5 countries, each of which corresponded to a season of Disco (thanks to the Netflix debacle of season 4 for keeping that on track). Disco was one of the things that continuously travelled with me. It will forever be associated with that, and season 2 will always remind me of sitting in Island Cuisine in Bermuda on a Friday lunch break watching an episode on my phone.
It's not my favourite show by any means despite my forum name but it is, to me, watchable and just about bingeable. But it hasn't produced many episodes I would watch again and again, nor would I watch the finale a third time after my obligatory watch once for the plot then a second time for the memberberries and things I had missed.
One thing I do like a lot about the show is the cast. They have always seemed a decent bunch of people (apart from Ian Alexander) and they obviously put a lot of effort into what they do. They really must need to be made of strong stuff with the criticism and hate constantly flowing their way, especially from the incel contingent who comment on anything Disco related on Facebook.
I disagree that as things stand, OWO or Detmer needed to be given more. They were not main cast and they were also not recurring cast (like Vance or Cornwell) so we wouldn't expect them in speaking roles and I think of them more as Nurse Ogawa or Carey in Voyager. Now there IS a strong case for them to have become recurring cast, as with O'Brien, Rom etc.
I am glad we had Discovery and grateful to the cast for what they gave us, despite the Covid, BTS dramas and changes, and other challenges they faced. I'm old enough to remember going down to HMV every 2 weeks and paying £15.99 (in 1990s prices) for two episodes on VHS; so being able to watch an entire new series for not much more than that is wonderful
It's not my favourite show by any means despite my forum name but it is, to me, watchable and just about bingeable. But it hasn't produced many episodes I would watch again and again, nor would I watch the finale a third time after my obligatory watch once for the plot then a second time for the memberberries and things I had missed.
One thing I do like a lot about the show is the cast. They have always seemed a decent bunch of people (apart from Ian Alexander) and they obviously put a lot of effort into what they do. They really must need to be made of strong stuff with the criticism and hate constantly flowing their way, especially from the incel contingent who comment on anything Disco related on Facebook.
I disagree that as things stand, OWO or Detmer needed to be given more. They were not main cast and they were also not recurring cast (like Vance or Cornwell) so we wouldn't expect them in speaking roles and I think of them more as Nurse Ogawa or Carey in Voyager. Now there IS a strong case for them to have become recurring cast, as with O'Brien, Rom etc.
I am glad we had Discovery and grateful to the cast for what they gave us, despite the Covid, BTS dramas and changes, and other challenges they faced. I'm old enough to remember going down to HMV every 2 weeks and paying £15.99 (in 1990s prices) for two episodes on VHS; so being able to watch an entire new series for not much more than that is wonderful
Too much focus on Burnham every single episode
Not enough development of other characters. Which is why Rayner became popular in just a few episodes
Glad I don’t have to listen to Burnham whispering every single word of dialogue
Book, never understood him. Had more character development than the actual crew
So many wasted bridge crew
Cannot stand mirror universe crap. It’s true jump the shark/Marvel stuff. Ooh what if we got all the superheroes to fight each other, because we’ve actually run out of ideas - but because they’re superheroes no one will actually die or get hurt. Ooh what if we had a bad Tilly and a bad whoever, because we’ve run out of ideas
Saru the best ST character in a long time. Would have liked to see him in charge more often
Writing often deplorable and hard to see how professionals get it so wrong
Overall: a series that tested the idea that any ST is better than no ST. Watchable but not compelling
Not enough development of other characters. Which is why Rayner became popular in just a few episodes
Glad I don’t have to listen to Burnham whispering every single word of dialogue
Book, never understood him. Had more character development than the actual crew
So many wasted bridge crew
Cannot stand mirror universe crap. It’s true jump the shark/Marvel stuff. Ooh what if we got all the superheroes to fight each other, because we’ve actually run out of ideas - but because they’re superheroes no one will actually die or get hurt. Ooh what if we had a bad Tilly and a bad whoever, because we’ve run out of ideas
Saru the best ST character in a long time. Would have liked to see him in charge more often
Writing often deplorable and hard to see how professionals get it so wrong
Overall: a series that tested the idea that any ST is better than no ST. Watchable but not compelling
I enjoyed the first two seasons, and there are some really memorable episodes in there that I'll always rank quite highly. New Eden is one that comes to mind. By the time it reached its final 3 seasons, it did become a bit forgettable.
I don't think it ever needed to be set in the 23rd century, but the introduction of Anson Mount as Pike would be a sorely missed factor had it not been. Had it been primarily set in the 32nd century, a time-travel arc could've been used to include him. But thats neither here nor there.
It's heavy focus on Burnham broke a lot of immersion for me, and it's unfortunate that half the bridge crew were relegated to glorified extras. A smaller ship, akin to the Protostar, might've solved this issue.
Aesthetically, some of the design (and redesign) decisions didn't appeal to me. However, the 2257 type-2 phaser was a great looking precursor to the TOS phaser, and I prefer it to the stylised SNW phaser. 32nd century weapons and ships seem a bit generic and touch bizarre, but I commend them for attempting a far-future look.
There seems to be a consensus that BTS turmoil impacted on the show's direction, so I simply wish that things had been a bit more organised in that department. The team behind SFA might be able to cherry-pick some of the better aspects of this show, and hopefully turn it into something remarkable.
I don't think it ever needed to be set in the 23rd century, but the introduction of Anson Mount as Pike would be a sorely missed factor had it not been. Had it been primarily set in the 32nd century, a time-travel arc could've been used to include him. But thats neither here nor there.
It's heavy focus on Burnham broke a lot of immersion for me, and it's unfortunate that half the bridge crew were relegated to glorified extras. A smaller ship, akin to the Protostar, might've solved this issue.
Aesthetically, some of the design (and redesign) decisions didn't appeal to me. However, the 2257 type-2 phaser was a great looking precursor to the TOS phaser, and I prefer it to the stylised SNW phaser. 32nd century weapons and ships seem a bit generic and touch bizarre, but I commend them for attempting a far-future look.
There seems to be a consensus that BTS turmoil impacted on the show's direction, so I simply wish that things had been a bit more organised in that department. The team behind SFA might be able to cherry-pick some of the better aspects of this show, and hopefully turn it into something remarkable.
In my personal ranking, DSC takes the least spot #11 of all Star Trek series. But there is something good to say about DSC after all, imo: My problem with the show was not that it was bland or wouldn't try anything new -- on the contrary, the producers at least risked something and presented many creative ideas (even though I feel they failed or at least didn't grab me most of the time). VOY is the 90s Star Trek show that I like least, but for the exact opposite reason: They tried to "play it safe" way too often, so that it often felt bland and unoriginal. You can't say that about DSC.
A major difference to other Star Trek shows was the focus on just one character, and the show probably stands or falls with how much you like Burnham. I didn't manage to like her, or find her interesting. My impression was that the writers couldn't decide, at least in the beginning, what kind of character she was supposed to be: Decisive risk-taker or emotionally unstable crybaby, know-it-all with almost superpowers or anti-hero. I didn't buy for a second she was Spock's stepsister and I have a hard time forgiving the writers for that retconning -- desecrating this character would only be allowed if the new show that does so is REALLY good, which DSC is very far away from imo. And what the writers attempted to sell as character development during most of the show's run, appeared like cheap superficial melodrama to me, most of the time.
As for the other characters, they were a mixed bag in my view, too: Saru was okay, but not particularly interesting, imo. I initially liked Tilly, but she became increasingly annoying in the later seasons. Stamits and Culber are a really nice, likable couple, but I felt they soon didn't really know where to go with them, first killing off Culber just to bring him back again soon, until they had not much else to do than being stepparents in the end. I hated mirror Georgiou with a deep passion -- not only did I find the character totally uninteresting and annoying, but I couldn't forgive the writers for turning this irredeemable genocidal, Kelpian-eating monster into a mascot-like "part of the family". Can't say that I care about Book. Adira remains regrettably bland, imo. Lorca was strong in the beginning, but his reveal appeared too cheap for my taste, it would have been more interesting to keep him in ambiguity. The undeniably strongest guest characters, imo, were of course Pike and Spock, and I can't thank DSC enough for paving the way for SNW, which for me is the greatest Star Trek series since the end of DS9 in 1999.
Another problem was, imo, unevenly written season arcs in DSC. If they are well written, serialized shows can explore their stories with more depth than episodic shows, but imo, DSC spoiled that potential. More often than not, the arcs felt aimless, with unnecessary detours, all-too-sudden deus ex machina solutions and cheap cliffhangers. And, as others pointed out, the entire universe's fate shouldn't have been at stake so often.
Also, I can't say I like the spore drive. It's stressing my suspension of disbelief hard on the edge. Arguably, a torpedo you shoot on planets to make them habitable is equally outlandish, but I could forgive that, because ST2&3 are really good movies. DSC is too uneven for me to overlook the absurdity of this gimmick.
The technical side of DSC was great, though: Visual effects, f/x left nothing to be desired. The show at least looked spectacular, even though I felt they should have put more efforts into real character development instead.
On the bottom line, it's a D- for me. Maybe I'll have a milder view on it after several years, like I have towards VOY after all the years ... but right now, DSC is the one Star Trek show I wouldn't miss if it didn't exist.
A major difference to other Star Trek shows was the focus on just one character, and the show probably stands or falls with how much you like Burnham. I didn't manage to like her, or find her interesting. My impression was that the writers couldn't decide, at least in the beginning, what kind of character she was supposed to be: Decisive risk-taker or emotionally unstable crybaby, know-it-all with almost superpowers or anti-hero. I didn't buy for a second she was Spock's stepsister and I have a hard time forgiving the writers for that retconning -- desecrating this character would only be allowed if the new show that does so is REALLY good, which DSC is very far away from imo. And what the writers attempted to sell as character development during most of the show's run, appeared like cheap superficial melodrama to me, most of the time.
As for the other characters, they were a mixed bag in my view, too: Saru was okay, but not particularly interesting, imo. I initially liked Tilly, but she became increasingly annoying in the later seasons. Stamits and Culber are a really nice, likable couple, but I felt they soon didn't really know where to go with them, first killing off Culber just to bring him back again soon, until they had not much else to do than being stepparents in the end. I hated mirror Georgiou with a deep passion -- not only did I find the character totally uninteresting and annoying, but I couldn't forgive the writers for turning this irredeemable genocidal, Kelpian-eating monster into a mascot-like "part of the family". Can't say that I care about Book. Adira remains regrettably bland, imo. Lorca was strong in the beginning, but his reveal appeared too cheap for my taste, it would have been more interesting to keep him in ambiguity. The undeniably strongest guest characters, imo, were of course Pike and Spock, and I can't thank DSC enough for paving the way for SNW, which for me is the greatest Star Trek series since the end of DS9 in 1999.
Another problem was, imo, unevenly written season arcs in DSC. If they are well written, serialized shows can explore their stories with more depth than episodic shows, but imo, DSC spoiled that potential. More often than not, the arcs felt aimless, with unnecessary detours, all-too-sudden deus ex machina solutions and cheap cliffhangers. And, as others pointed out, the entire universe's fate shouldn't have been at stake so often.
Also, I can't say I like the spore drive. It's stressing my suspension of disbelief hard on the edge. Arguably, a torpedo you shoot on planets to make them habitable is equally outlandish, but I could forgive that, because ST2&3 are really good movies. DSC is too uneven for me to overlook the absurdity of this gimmick.
The technical side of DSC was great, though: Visual effects, f/x left nothing to be desired. The show at least looked spectacular, even though I felt they should have put more efforts into real character development instead.
On the bottom line, it's a D- for me. Maybe I'll have a milder view on it after several years, like I have towards VOY after all the years ... but right now, DSC is the one Star Trek show I wouldn't miss if it didn't exist.
Last edited:
I felt that DISCO was the spiritual successor to DS9:
-Both series were led by Black actors.
-Both main lead characters don't start their respective series in the captain's chair. And both became captain in the third season. And both characters got married in the series.
-Both feature wars with Klingons and have arcs dedicated to the war (or in DS9's case, wars) storylines.
-Both also featured Section 31 and the Mirror Universe. And DISCO brought back the Breen, as had DS9.
-Both depicted a humanity far more flawed than most of the other Trek series.
-DS9 got the Trek ball rolling on serialized storytelling and DISCO took it to ran with it.
-Both series look like they might get lost in the shuffle of more popular or buzzier Trek contemporaries (like DS9 being sandwiched between TNG and VOY, and also having to contend with the TNG movies, while DISCO has never gotten the praise that Picard's third season did, or the sense of fondness that many have for SNW).
DS9 is the best Trek series to me. The Dominion War put it over TNG. As for DISCO, I feel like it was okay. It looked amazing (best looking Trek series thus far), the cast was as strong as any of the other series, but I don't feel the series ever quite gelled. They took some big swings, had some big misses, and then seemed to do soft reboots for each season after the first. I appreciate that they listened to fan feedback somewhat, though I can't say I always liked how they responded. But I kept coming back, so there's that.
The first season is still the best for me. Despite my gripes about the Klingon makeover and some of the other aesthetics, I thought the two mini arcs were gripping enough, and there was a danger, an unpredictability that was lacking as the series went on. I also preferred the second season (despite the slow going with the first part of that season) to the last three. I think the last three seasons, under Michelle Paradise, raised the stakes but the payoffs were never that satisfying (and Season 3's finale was so ridiculous it was abysmal). I just think these big, galaxy in peril stories each season got repetitive, and I don't think the writers had enough story to sustain ten or more episodes. In the last three seasons, there were some cool new characters introduced, some of the older characters finally started getting a bit of development, and there were some neat looking new ships, as well as ideas and hints at world building, but the focus on this big season-arc got in the way of exploring this whole new future they had created. Rebuilding the Federation alone could've been the arc for all three seasons without resorting to some galaxy-wide danger. Heck, DISCO did that in every season, but the first season (though arguably, the danger posed by the mycelial network could arguably also count).
So, for me, DISCO looked great, had very good special effects, and some of the best action in Trek. The Kelpiens were neat (the best new aliens that came out of DISCO), and I could see Saru being remembered fondly, and he easily sits in the pantheon of great Trek alien characters. I think DISCO will also be praised for its diversity in front of, and behind, the camera.
Burnham is the most fleshed out captain in Trek (within her series). It took Kirk his series and seven more movies to get there, and for Picard, it was likewise, plus his eponymous series. Sisko is second to Burnham now when it comes to a captain getting that kind of exploration within their series.
-Both series were led by Black actors.
-Both main lead characters don't start their respective series in the captain's chair. And both became captain in the third season. And both characters got married in the series.
-Both feature wars with Klingons and have arcs dedicated to the war (or in DS9's case, wars) storylines.
-Both also featured Section 31 and the Mirror Universe. And DISCO brought back the Breen, as had DS9.
-Both depicted a humanity far more flawed than most of the other Trek series.
-DS9 got the Trek ball rolling on serialized storytelling and DISCO took it to ran with it.
-Both series look like they might get lost in the shuffle of more popular or buzzier Trek contemporaries (like DS9 being sandwiched between TNG and VOY, and also having to contend with the TNG movies, while DISCO has never gotten the praise that Picard's third season did, or the sense of fondness that many have for SNW).
DS9 is the best Trek series to me. The Dominion War put it over TNG. As for DISCO, I feel like it was okay. It looked amazing (best looking Trek series thus far), the cast was as strong as any of the other series, but I don't feel the series ever quite gelled. They took some big swings, had some big misses, and then seemed to do soft reboots for each season after the first. I appreciate that they listened to fan feedback somewhat, though I can't say I always liked how they responded. But I kept coming back, so there's that.
The first season is still the best for me. Despite my gripes about the Klingon makeover and some of the other aesthetics, I thought the two mini arcs were gripping enough, and there was a danger, an unpredictability that was lacking as the series went on. I also preferred the second season (despite the slow going with the first part of that season) to the last three. I think the last three seasons, under Michelle Paradise, raised the stakes but the payoffs were never that satisfying (and Season 3's finale was so ridiculous it was abysmal). I just think these big, galaxy in peril stories each season got repetitive, and I don't think the writers had enough story to sustain ten or more episodes. In the last three seasons, there were some cool new characters introduced, some of the older characters finally started getting a bit of development, and there were some neat looking new ships, as well as ideas and hints at world building, but the focus on this big season-arc got in the way of exploring this whole new future they had created. Rebuilding the Federation alone could've been the arc for all three seasons without resorting to some galaxy-wide danger. Heck, DISCO did that in every season, but the first season (though arguably, the danger posed by the mycelial network could arguably also count).
So, for me, DISCO looked great, had very good special effects, and some of the best action in Trek. The Kelpiens were neat (the best new aliens that came out of DISCO), and I could see Saru being remembered fondly, and he easily sits in the pantheon of great Trek alien characters. I think DISCO will also be praised for its diversity in front of, and behind, the camera.
Burnham is the most fleshed out captain in Trek (within her series). It took Kirk his series and seven more movies to get there, and for Picard, it was likewise, plus his eponymous series. Sisko is second to Burnham now when it comes to a captain getting that kind of exploration within their series.
Last edited:
Postmortem? It wasnt renewed technically. It was given extra money to film more scenes. Not really something that was killed. There's almost a direct sequel coming too. One that's cheaper to film.
It's the most successful trek show to date, surpassing TNG. Seen by more people worldwide and more immediately for a few years than that show, revived the tv franchise, had 5 spinoffs. Won many awards, critical praise, but also controversial for modernizing a dead, old fashioned era of Trek into something vibrant, new and exciting. It makes older, stodgy trekkies angry for actually putting into action what older Trek paid lip service to.
It's probably my 3rd or 4th favorite Trek show, but I watch it more because you can only watch the older ones so much.
I quick ranking of modern Trek:
1. Discovery
SNW
Short Treks
Picard
Prodigy
LDS
Last edited:
It died peacefully but dead she be.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, although I don't share it. But it's good to see that even this show manages to enthuse people and expand the franchise.
Not sure if the popularity comparison with TNG is fair, as modern streaming shows are more often fleeting stars, hyped at first, but quickly forgotten -- but time will tell.
Because of its original era and the long period of people rewatching, then streaming on Netflix, TNG is certainly the most watched overall.
Discovery is without question the most watched worldwide on its release due to universal access and streaming. Paramount should have stuck with Netflix for season 4 and 5.
Its a Star Trek show. It's not fleeting at all, it'll be rewatched, re-appraised, and I'm sure will climb up people's ranking for decades to come.
If actual history has taught us anything, it's that Trek shows are an incredible value for the studios because they don't disappear. Which is partly why the deep-sixing of Prodigy for a tax write-off is one of most boneheaded moves they've made.
I really disliked S1 - the Elon Musk line is still burned in my memory and is an example of how bad it was to me - and while S2 wasn't perfect, it birthed SNW and set up the move to the 32nd century.
I still think S3 is a missed opportunity. Rewatching the first episode, I still got chills watching the Starbase scene where Burnham meets the guy who has been sitting there for 40 years simply because he believes in the Federation even after it was essentially destroyed... and then him asking her to put up the Federation flag. It's the most Star Trek moment of the Franchise.
But instead of rebuilding the Federation, they have this boring Orion arc... and then skip rebuilding the Federation entirely and it's all just done by the start of S4. Now that I think about it, it's almost like how they ignored Voyager's resource problem entirely after a while.
S4 and 5 are frustrating in that I like many aspects of it, but I don't think they come together. Even ignoring the fact that they skipped over the most interesting thing they could have done with the premise, drawing the main mystery out over the entire season was a mistake because they simply couldn't sustain those stories for that long. Just really good ideas executed in a flawed way... kind of like someone microwaving an expensive steak instead of properly cooking it. It's still an expensive steak, but it doesn't taste that great.
Overall I'm positive on it and there are moments that I do genuinely enjoy, but taken as a whole it's a show that's firmly in the middle for me. Both of the new shows (Prodigy > SNW > Lower Decks > Discovery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picard) and of the overall franchise as well.
I still think S3 is a missed opportunity. Rewatching the first episode, I still got chills watching the Starbase scene where Burnham meets the guy who has been sitting there for 40 years simply because he believes in the Federation even after it was essentially destroyed... and then him asking her to put up the Federation flag. It's the most Star Trek moment of the Franchise.
But instead of rebuilding the Federation, they have this boring Orion arc... and then skip rebuilding the Federation entirely and it's all just done by the start of S4. Now that I think about it, it's almost like how they ignored Voyager's resource problem entirely after a while.
S4 and 5 are frustrating in that I like many aspects of it, but I don't think they come together. Even ignoring the fact that they skipped over the most interesting thing they could have done with the premise, drawing the main mystery out over the entire season was a mistake because they simply couldn't sustain those stories for that long. Just really good ideas executed in a flawed way... kind of like someone microwaving an expensive steak instead of properly cooking it. It's still an expensive steak, but it doesn't taste that great.
Overall I'm positive on it and there are moments that I do genuinely enjoy, but taken as a whole it's a show that's firmly in the middle for me. Both of the new shows (Prodigy > SNW > Lower Decks > Discovery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picard) and of the overall franchise as well.
Discovery is my least favorite Star Trek series, but I watched it because it was Star Trek.
It had its high points. Vulcans are my favorite alien culture and I enjoyed the episodes that featured Sarek, Amanda, and Spock and a young Michael on Vulcan. I also like T’Rina and her relationship with Saru. I liked Lorca until they turned him evil. I like Reno and her snark. I liked Stamets when he was snarky and prickly and less so in his touchy feely phase. His relationship with Culber is quite romantic and emotionally realistic. I like Saru, both predator and prey versions, though it took me awhile to get used to his appearance. I liked Mirror Universe Georgiou better than her Prime counterpart. I like Zora the sentient computer and all episodes focusing on her. I love Grudge the cat. Christopher Pike was terrific. I like Rayner. I liked Tilly, for the most part, though she began to get on my nerves in later seasons I would have liked more stories focusing on the bridge crew.as main characters. I liked Harry Mudd. I liked Book, though I have been irritated by the destruction of Kweijon story, I thought the episodes where they go into the future were busy, but exciting. I liked that they gave Burnham a happy ending with her husband and son.
i disliked:
The redesigned Klingons.
Ash Tyler and his entire storyline
The Mirror Universe episodes.
Adira and Gray, alone and together and with all other characters.
Episodes about the Trill, a species that has always given me the creeps
The way they resolved the Burn.
The way they resolved the Progenitor technology storyline.
The constant speechifying in the middle of action scenes and the touchy feely writing.
It had its high points. Vulcans are my favorite alien culture and I enjoyed the episodes that featured Sarek, Amanda, and Spock and a young Michael on Vulcan. I also like T’Rina and her relationship with Saru. I liked Lorca until they turned him evil. I like Reno and her snark. I liked Stamets when he was snarky and prickly and less so in his touchy feely phase. His relationship with Culber is quite romantic and emotionally realistic. I like Saru, both predator and prey versions, though it took me awhile to get used to his appearance. I liked Mirror Universe Georgiou better than her Prime counterpart. I like Zora the sentient computer and all episodes focusing on her. I love Grudge the cat. Christopher Pike was terrific. I like Rayner. I liked Tilly, for the most part, though she began to get on my nerves in later seasons I would have liked more stories focusing on the bridge crew.as main characters. I liked Harry Mudd. I liked Book, though I have been irritated by the destruction of Kweijon story, I thought the episodes where they go into the future were busy, but exciting. I liked that they gave Burnham a happy ending with her husband and son.
i disliked:
The redesigned Klingons.
Ash Tyler and his entire storyline
The Mirror Universe episodes.
Adira and Gray, alone and together and with all other characters.
Episodes about the Trill, a species that has always given me the creeps
The way they resolved the Burn.
The way they resolved the Progenitor technology storyline.
The constant speechifying in the middle of action scenes and the touchy feely writing.
Last edited:
Decided to throw on the first handful of episodes of season 1 this weekend. It’s funny of fundamentally different it feels as a show. There’s a freshness and an edge that’s missing from the later seasons, and weirdly it feels more like an ensemble show. Burnham is obviously still the lead and does most of the heavy lifting, but it really does feel like so many of the other characters, especially Stamets, get to shine. It also seems to land the emotional moments with a lot more finesse.
As much as I still appreciate large parts of the later seasons, I do think something vital was lost when Paradise took over.
A rewatch will probably crystallise my thoughts but as of now I view the first two seasons as largely great, while the last three seasons are a lot more uneven.
On an unrelated note, it’s quite interesting seeing the show basically start with Burnham in a yellow prison uniform. It was probably supposed to serve as a nice parallel to her eventually getting a yellow command uniform when she became captain — a parallel that was largely lost when they jumped to the future where they’ve switched to command red.
As much as I still appreciate large parts of the later seasons, I do think something vital was lost when Paradise took over.
A rewatch will probably crystallise my thoughts but as of now I view the first two seasons as largely great, while the last three seasons are a lot more uneven.
On an unrelated note, it’s quite interesting seeing the show basically start with Burnham in a yellow prison uniform. It was probably supposed to serve as a nice parallel to her eventually getting a yellow command uniform when she became captain — a parallel that was largely lost when they jumped to the future where they’ve switched to command red.
Last edited:
Discovery I think will go down as a very uneven show, even in a franchise infamous for its rocky starts. My opinion (at least for the early seasons) has always been that they did a good job of writing each episode's individual plot, but never got the hang of the over-arcing season plot or the writing on a scene/dialog level. The Klingon War, Red Angel, The Burn, etc. were all ideas that had merit and started out engaging, but never lived up to their potential. On a smaller level, the dialog was never well received; I often see casual fans or outside observers noting that Discovery is the show where "the cast cries every scene". That's it's biggest reputation outside of the fandom and it's honestly not untrue. Was it a complete loss? No. It has a successful (and better in my opinion) spinoff in SNW with an additional spinoff and film in development. It brought back Trek after the films seemed to be done, and arguably launched CBS All -- er, Paramount Plus into success.
That being said, it's probably my least favorite of the live action shows.
That being said, it's probably my least favorite of the live action shows.
I hate Elon Musk more than anything but I don't forsee him being forgotten sadly. He will be remembered in a very Henry Ford way.
Excuse me while I vomit.
I agree. In fact, I don’t think CBS truly realizes how the classic shows being available on Netflix alone brought in a whole new generation of fans, and would have benefitted the brand more if it stayed on Netflix than their own service. But that’s true for most streaming services yanking back their IP (The Office, Friends, etc).
My dream scenario is that when all this streaming war business settles down that all the shows from all these various streamers get licensed back to Netflix. It can serve as the home for future Trek series worldwide.
I've watched every episode. The new Klingons gave me a sour taste in the first season. Episodes here and there connected with me. Besides Tilly in the beginning, I didn't connect with many of the characters. Unlike my previous favorite Trek shows, I don't go back to episodes often for repeat viewing. It's almost unfair for me to judge this series since I watched on a casual basis. It's ranked above Lower Decks.
