Spoilers Star Trek Discovery Season 1: Overall Review Thread

[Donker]

Wow. You know, people are entitled to their opinions. You come in here with a very brash statement which basically suggests, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong.”

What the hell is the point of rating a series if the ratings mean essentially nothing? The ONLY point of rating something is to compare it with it's competition and the fact is, Discovery hits nowhere near the highs on a OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL level of other major TV productions and even other Star Trek series.

This is why I ask, if Star Trek discovery is a 8, 9 or 10, what the hell are the better seasons of DS9? What is Game of Thrones? The Expanse? The Wire? Band of Brothers? These shows are vastly, VASTLY better than Discovery in every objective way from writing to production to characterisation to plotting. As I said, I don't even like The Expanse, but I can recognise beyond my own personal feelings that on a sheer technical level it's a vastly better show than Discovery.

The idea that art is purely subjective is just not true and never has been. There has always been a technical and objective element to art. If there wasn't, then artistic skill means absolutely nothing.

 

[Vger23]

This is an interesting assertion.
Because for me, it's actually quite the opposite. Mainly probably because I really didn't get anything out of the main story arc(s): I think the klingon war arc was one big clusterfuck. And the mirror universe - while very enjoyable, mindless schlocky fun, didn't feel meaningfull in any way and just like a "detour". And if you look at the episodes singularly, most of them are really weak.

The strongest aspect of DIS is mostly the character work - specifically the actors, not necessary the dialogue. But DS9 had a much stronger character focused first season. TNG on the other hand had massive problems with characterisation - but it was so chock-full of ideas and plots, it made up for them. And VOY/ENT? Well, I think if you chose a random episode from each's first season, chances are, it's a better episode than any random episode of DIS' first season.

So. IMO DIS has actually the worst first seasons of any Trek show.... BUT!
And this is a BIG but! That's still a good show. Like - being almost there on a TREK-level of quality, is actually still pretty amazing. If a new show from another franchise tanks - think Stargate:Universe - that show is utter crap. DIS is still Star Trek! Not great Star Trek. Probably not even good StarTrek, more "mediocre" when compared to the rest of Trek. But that is STILL miles and miles beyond most competition!

Like, DIS season 1 is never going to be my favourite season of Trek. In most likelyhood, I probably won't even rewatch it (and I rewatched most of Trek). But still - I'll be back when it continues. Because, warts and all, it sill is essential Star Trek. And that's what I'm here for.
And who knows? Maybe it becomes the next TNG in the long run?

Though I disagree...this is an extremely thoughtful response, and I totally respect it. It's funny how different tastes and emphasis on what matters / doesn't matter to people create different perspectives.

I'm just glad to be talking Trek with people at this point!

 

[Ovation]

The idea that art is purely subjective is just not true and never has been. There has always been a technical and objective element to art. If there wasn't, then artistic skill means absolutely nothing.

You’re WAY overthinking this. The effect art, commercial or otherwise, has on the audience is ALWAYS subjective. And the vast bulk of any audience asked to rate an artistic experience will do so against their personal, entirely subjective, experience. Of course there are technical and other objective elements to art that can be assessed (usually helps to have some education and training in them to do it well), but the bulk of the audience lacks such knowledge AND doesn’t care—nor do they need to do so.

Consequently, in this highly informal setting (a fan BBS), a wholly subjective approach to rating a TV show is totally acceptable and, frankly, entirely unremarkable.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Discovery hits nowhere near the highs on a OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL level of other major TV productions and even other Star Trek series.

By what metric?

 

[Cyrus]

I was going to give it a 7, but I find the detractors so annoying that out of spite I voted 8.

interesting online review:
http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/star-trek-discovery-season-1-finale-review.html

 

[Vger23]

Honestly the opposite is the problem. Most here (and on /r/StarTrek) view Discovery with massive rose tinted goggles because it has Star Trek in the name.

Seriously, people here are rating this season 7, 8, 9, 10. But let me ask you. If that is the case, say Discovery is a 8 or 9 out of 10. What does that make S1 or S2 of TOS? what does that make the better seasons of DS9? TNG? S3 and S4 of Enterprise? All those shows rose to much, much higher highs than Discovery. So what score do you give them? 25 out of 10?

Outside of Star Trek, if Discovery is a 9 out of 10 series, what in hell is Game of Thrones? The Thick of It? Mad Men? Breaking Bad? The Expanse? Band of Brothers, The Wire? Black Mirror?

The fact is, Discovery just isn't very good on any real level. The show FAILED at what it set out to do, the entire production was a mess, the writing was objectively crap, the acting was sub-par, entire plot arcs that spanned episodes went absolutely nowhere or ended in massive asspull eye rolling events (and character assassinations).

We're at the end of S1 and the show basically still doesn't actually have characters. There is little to the what.. 3 or 4 characters we have beyond what the plot needs them to be.

Discovery is not a 7, 8, 9 or 10 show, it's a 2, 3 or 4 show. I don't even really like The Expanse because I really dislike the Main Character, but even though I don't like the Expanse, I can still say that the Expanse is a vastly better sci-fi show than Star Trek Discovery in every way from writing, to plotting, to acting, to VFX, to production.
If I'm going to rate it, I'm not going to rate Discovery based on absolutely nothing like most people do, I'll rate it based on what it could be and compared to it's competition and compared to its competition, Discovery is flat out bad.

You have problems with the concepts of people having a different set of tastes and likes than you, huh?


The rottentomatoes.com episode-by-episode critic's scores range from 70's to 100. Mostly 80's and 90's. These are people just judging the show on it's entertainment value, not from a place of biased (either way) fandom. The jammersreviews.com have been all favorable (above the 2/4 star mark)...and that is someone who's reviews I have respected for many years as being pretty unbiased when it comes to Star Trek, Battlestar, Orville, Star Wars and a number of other sci fi franchises.

I think it's perfectly ok if you think it's a bag of shit, and I can see why just about anyone might feel that way based on their own tastes. But please don't be so narrow that you can't POSSIBLY imagine how anyone in their right mind might rate the series as a 7, 8, 9 or 10 show. I'm terribly sorry that your view of things can't be affirmed, and that you're largely in the minority...but that's your problem. Please stop trying to come off like it's everyone else's problem.

 

[Vger23]

I was going to give it a 7, but I find the detractors so annoying that out of spite I voted 8.

That's pretty awesome. Much respect, son.

 

[lawman]

Very much the same, in fact, I wanted visual reboots but I wanted a visual reboot that paid respect to the source material, not threw Star Trek out the window for Mass Effect.

People keep making this comparison. Mass Effect is a video game, right? I am totally not a gamer, so this is basically lost on me. Care to elaborate a bit? How are they similar?

...given my need to be active on Twitter for business purposes and some idle perusing today of what a lot of the "non-hardcore fans" think. Yes we love fanwank on ship design, canon etc. However, there are lot more people out there who appear to be getting into DSC but who don't get a lot of the references we love, who may be younger, watched some ENT and ask questions like "but the Enterprise is like 75-100 years old by now isn't it? And doesn't look like that! WTF?" In short, a lot of confusion, and that's before you even add in the Kelvinverse stuff. I think S2 will have to do a better job in treading that fine line of satisfying "us" regarding canon and the much larger "them" who have next to no knowledge of early iterations of ST and who are getting confused.

Interesting. So there really are people who are watching this despite not previously being Trek fans?

On the one hand, my heart doesn't exactly go out to them. I mean, nobody in this day and age starts watching the New Show in a 50-year-old franchise and expects to be up to speed on everything right out of the gate... it's just not realistic. Plus, after all, the internet exists... which gives new viewers today a bit advantage over new viewers back in the movie/TNG/DS9 era. The show has literally told us when it's set on-screen, so there's no reason anyone should be confused about seeing Pike's Enterprise.

On the other hand, it is possible to launch a new show in an old franchise and do it in a way that's welcoming to newcomers while still embracing the underlying heritage... gradually, not obsessively. The 2005 Doctor Who relaunch springs to mind, and its success at this feat doubtless contributes to the fact that it's still going today, 13 years and four Doctors later. Where DSC is concerned, spending four episodes in the Mirror Universe — much less making the MU's existence the primary motivating force driving your most compelling character — seems like a particularly odd decision. The MU has always worked best in small doses, after all, because it really doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, and even then it works best when you're already intimately familiar with the characters and concepts it's mirroring. So for both new viewers and old, I'd say that was a very strange call for this series at this stage.

 

[Vger23]

People keep making this comparison. Mass Effect is a video game, right? I am totally not a gamer, so this is basically lost on me. Care to elaborate a bit? How are they similar?

It's a silly comment/complaint. I've played all 4 Mass Effect games (also not a gamer...but ME is pretty much my lone exception) and I see virtually no connection other than base sci-fi elements. Designs, uniforms, aliens, hardware, plots...none of it has anything to do with DSC.

 

[urbandefault]

I don't watch shows so I can dissect them bit by bit until there's nothing left but a pile of offal.

If the only episodes of Discovery had been the two parter, I'd have been done. But I stuck with it, and from #3 on it kept me interested. I don't care about canon or making it fit into some contrived personal head continuity, so as a whole, the season was an enjoyable look at a completely different take on Trek.

Warp factor 9. Engage.

 

[fireproof78]

This is why I ask, if Star Trek discovery is a 8, 9 or 10, what the hell are the better seasons of DS9? What is Game of Thrones? The Expanse? The Wire? Band of Brothers? These shows are vastly, VASTLY better than Discovery in every objective way from writing to production to characterisation to plotting. As I said, I don't even like The Expanse, but I can recognise beyond my own personal feelings that on a sheer technical level it's a vastly better show than Discovery.

I don't do it that way.

 

[Refuge]

I can't remember my ratings, I gave a six I think for 'Lethe' and a one for 'What's Past is Prologue'. There were a couple I couldn't muster a rating for.

Less inclined to give an average of episode ratings as such because there's a 'collective' or overall impression one is left with that encompasses the identity of 'Discovery'. It's its own little beast, part of Trek but all 'Discovery'.

I found much of the experience - unpleasant. Unlikable characters given tedious presence because of their listing place in the order of the cast. Michael, so flawed, so monotone in her tiresome voice-overs and speeches, so bland, so - uninspiring. Tilly - an utter drip.

Saru improved. Stamets lost a lot of face in my eyes for his lack of depth over Culber's death, yet both actors in the Saru and Stamet's roles were at least convincing. The overall acting ranged but mostly it was good.

Tyler/Ash was simply tortured. L'Rell was actually rather well played until she was thrown in the pen. Sorry... I didn't like the acting for either of the Georgious, even though I wanted to connect with at least the first one. Lorca became practically my raison d'être on this forum. I found myself posting high and posting low on the character. He had the 'it' factor, until he lost it. Cornwell gets the award for taking a support type of role and making it shine.

I like the ships. They pretty. Science fiction is the food of wonder and when Discovery gets it right it works.

Frankly I got used to the Klingons. Sweet Ripper, best peripheral alien in the season. Spore Drive best gimmick of the season. Mirror Universe? Scene of the biggest crime of the season - a dead Lorca. I don't know. The writing was pretty bad and it's reflective in mine, lol. I HATED the misdirection, the set up for development in character and plot only to be resolved with smoke and mirrors. Burnham absolutely rode to the end of this season on the writer's pen guaranteeing it. It makes 'her' weaker for it.

Overall I'm giving the whole season a 5.

 

[Kane_Steel]

5/10.

The show is 'turn your brain off' schlock.

They burned through an entire war storyline in a matter of episodes, while DS9 played it out over seasons and made it emotionally connect with the audience.

The characters aren't very engaging or likeable, mainly because Burnham takes up the majority of the development and Sonequa is a weak lead playing a mediocre and poorly executed character. That 'speech' in the finale....*cringe*

Jason Isaacs played the most engaging character and they turned him into a moustache-twirling villain and then killed him off unceremoniously.

To me, it ultimately comes down to characters that drag STD down. Previous first seasons (perhaps with the exception of Enterprise), always had engaging characters and heroes you could root for. I definitely was far more engaged with Kirk, Spock, Bones, Picard, Data, Sisko, Kira, O'Brien, Janeway, Paris, Torres, and others in their respective first seasons than what we got here.

STD has the modern effects budget, but really that's about it.

I don't believe the producers behind this show really love or 'get' Star Trek, they just want to retool the TOS era to fit their own perception of what Star Trek is.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't believe the producers behind this show really love or 'get' Star Trek, they just want to retool the TOS era to fit their own perception of what Star Trek is.

GR did it first

 

[eschaton]

I don't do it that way.

What? Do you mean you grade shows as if they are actual school grades - so an 8 equals a B?

 

[fireproof78]

What? Do you mean you grade shows as if they are actual school grades - so an 8 equals a B?

No, I don't grade them at all. Entirely arbitrary system that people get all knotted up over.

 

[Campe]

The idea that art is purely subjective is just not true and never has been. There has always been a technical and objective element to art. If there wasn't, then artistic skill means absolutely nothing.

You really just don’t understand art, emotion and people’s reactions to such things. You ultimately can rate the show however you want. You want to rate it technically? Fine. Other people have different ways. Ive done theater the majority of my life. Even the shows I thought I gave the worst performances for, people complimented me for. They loved the shows. It brought something out in them. There are technical aspects, sure. But the endgame to art is the audience’s emotional reaction. If you look at art solely for technical aspects, well, you’re missing a huge part of it.

 

[Kane_Steel]

GR did it first

GR didn't go back and retool the TOS era. He never did prequels. He just did sequels that evolved from TOS. The movies and TNG are believable evolutions of TOS.

Discovery, no matter what mental gymnastics you do to try and make it work, is an awkward fit into the Post-Cage TOS era, a few short years before Kirk's adventures.

 

[eschaton]

You really just don’t understand art, emotion and people’s reactions to such things. You ultimately can rate the show however you want. You want to rate it technically? Fine. Other people have different ways. Ive done theater the majority of my life. Even the shows I thought I gave the worst performances for, people complimented me for. They loved the shows. It brought something out in them. There are technical aspects, sure. But the endgame to art is the audience’s emotional reaction. If you look at art solely for technical aspects, well, you’re missing a huge part of it.

Speaking personally, 90%+ of film and TV has no real emotional impact on me - even if I like it. Comedy can make me laugh. Touching pathos can make me cry (including about 10 or so episodes of Trek). Sometimes gripping action can get me at the edge of my seat. But I can't think of a single time I've identified with a character in...any media really. I enjoy the actors when they portray a good role, but I don't give two shits about the characters independent of that role. Which is one reason why the interest in fanfic has never, ever made sense to me personally. I just want a good story which makes me think - I don't care who it is about.

 

[fireproof78]

GR didn't go back and retool the TOS era. He never did prequels. He just did sequels that evolved from TOS. The movies and TNG are believable evolutions of TOS.

Discovery, no matter what mental gymnastics you do to try and make it work, is an awkward fit into the Post-Cage TOS era, a few short years before Kirk's adventures.

No, he just tried to distance himself from TOS as much as possible, as evidenced by TMP and TNG.

If TMP can fit then DISCO can fit since the time frame is the same from TOS.