Why the hate for Disco?

[Unicron]

Discovery.

Similarly, quippy Georgiou seemed tonally at odds with a lot of stuff happening around her. It's like she walked in from another show. After Fuller left, I get the vibe there wasn't consensus on what this show was going to be, so it ended up something of a hodgepodge.

I feel kind of the same way. I personally enjoy a number of things about DIS, and the original premise - had it been executed properly - to me sounds like it could have been quite interesting. But I also feel like other elements of the show have sort of been tossed in a blender, and even after several seasons there's not really a good sense of direction on many things. I think Michelle Yeoh is a great actress, but I also share some of the criticisms regarding the use of Mirror Georgiou. Among other nitpicks.

I also don't understand the view that because the bridge crew are not generally main protagonists, they shouldn't bother to get any real solid development. The one early episode that actually focused on that (for Airiam) didn't do the best job, IMO, and was unsatisfying to me because it wound up creating more questions that are unlikely to be addressed (if the technology exists to rebuild her so thoroughly, why wouldn't that same option be available for Pike after he's grievously wounded too?). O'Brien wasn't exactly a main character on TNG, but he did appear often enough to be a supporting character with some growth and development. And that development helped considerably when he was spun off to DS9.

 

[plynch]

Big space amoeba was one ep. In an often goofy show. Space Lincoln makes more sense to me given the Yarnoks' (?) abilities. But again, one ep. Same with the Space Hippies, whom I love dearly.

The magic mushroom invisible subspace threads connecting all matter in all? multiverses? is a pretty central conceit to the show.

It doesn't rankle me all that much, really. There are some much bigger things for me than its tech based on mushrooms.

 

[Sci]

Generally speaking: not as well written.

Totally disagree.

I wonder if that is part of the off putting nature of Discovery. It takes itself very seriously in a way that past Treks would do but in a different mixture. Discovery is something that takes itself incredibly seriously, has a lot of real world parallels of what the characters are going through without demonstrated easy answers at the end of the episode.

That's a really interesting point, and I think there's some validity there. When I've tried to introduce my partner to DIS, she's generally said that she has to get into a certain headspace for it because it's a show that has no chill. (Mind you, she's also a big fan of the Netflix show Sense8, which I think has almost no chill, so your mileage may vary on how much chill a show needs.) I think that being as serious and earnest as DIS is, is a valid artistic choice, but you're right to note that it's the kind of choice that may alienate a certain percentage of the traditional ST audience base.

(As previously stated elsewhere) In my opinion. it's a different Universe,

Your opinion is objectively wrong. ViacomCBS owns Star Trek, and ViacomCBS gets to dictate what happens within the narrative of Star Trek, and ViacomCBS has made it clear that the Paramount+ shows all take place in the same continuity as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and films 1 through 10.

Well, I call bullshit on them for that, that's just marketing nonsense, emphasis on 'nonsense', and my opinion stands unaffected by it.

Nope. That is not how intellectual property works. If the owner of, say, the film When Harry Met Sally declares that their film takes place in New York City, we as people who do not own the story do not get to declare that it actually takes place in Toronto. ViacomCBS says DIS and PIC take place in the same continuity as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/TMP/TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF/TUC/GEN/FC/INS/NEM, and therefore it takes place in the same continuity as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/TMP/TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF/TUC/GEN/FC/INS/NEM. Period.

We are certainly welcome to pretend that it takes place in a different continuity for our own enjoyment purposes, just as we are welcome to pretend that When Harry Met Sally takes place in Toronto if we'd like. But the setting is objectively determined by the owner of the story, not by we the audience members.

I also don't understand the view that because the bridge crew are not generally main protagonists, they shouldn't bother to get any real solid development. The one early episode that actually focused on that (for Airiam) didn't do the best job, IMO, and was unsatisfying to me because it wound up creating more questions that are unlikely to be addressed (if the technology exists to rebuild her so thoroughly, why wouldn't that same option be available for Pike after he's grievously wounded too?). O'Brien wasn't exactly a main character on TNG, but he did appear often enough to be a supporting character with some growth and development. And that development helped considerably when he was spun off to DS9.

I mean, I think at this point the bridge crew have gotten about the same kind of development O'Brien got on TNG -- one episode where he's a protagonist, and several episodes where he's an important supporting character. I certainly want to see their development continue, and I'd be fine with them becoming series regulars if the producers wanted. But I don't think the producers have any obligation to do so just because they're bridge officers. I think they should do so if they think the characters will be interesting and it enhances the series as a whole.

 

[Lord Garth]

No one's brought this up, that I can see. DSC S3 is the first piece of Star Trek, excluding "Calypso", to take place after the Temporal War. Any differences in the visual appearance between TOS and SNW or Early-DSC can be blamed on that. No fuss, no muss, "It was the Temporal War!" I'd rather not know how hairy it got. It's enough to know that whatever happened was probably crazy. So crazy that not even Doc Brown could explain it with a chalk board. So that would mean DSC's look back at Star Trek's 23rd Century could narratively be from a retroactive POV. Just like it is from a production standpoint in Real Life.

As far as besides the visuals, aside from some very minor things (no, not all inconsistencies are created equal), nothing in the story of DSC seriously contradicts anything from the first five series. If anything, it connects some dots between ENT and TOS where the Klingon Empire was divided in ENT, fell apart into different factions afterwards, and then reformed in DSC. I assume SNW will pick up on some of that since DSC no longer can, and bring it all the way up to where things were right before "Errand of Mercy". Let's be real. There's no way SNW won't have at least one Klingon episode somewhere in its run.

Incidentally, being away most of the time between ENT and DSC due to internal fighting helps to explain why the Klingon Empire didn't destroy the Federation after it first formed and before it could become something bigger. Which was a nit that ENT created by firmly establishing Earth as having had to have dealt with the Klingons so early on.

The Spore Drive? Well, it's been swept under the rug. Where it apparently stayed for 930 years. Water under the bridge, that I can't say I really care about. Especially since it's been addressed. How much people like the way it was addressed is a different story. They papered over cracks. Not the best way to handle it, but I can live with it.

 

[fireproof78]

Now why don't you go get CBS to sue me or something if it matters to you so much.

Because it would be tossed out of court.

 

[cooleddie74]

I think a lot of the visual aesthetic in DSC is either disappointing or downright sucks. But it's Prime Timeline and in the same continuity as both "The Cage(TOS)" and TOS proper. We're just left to head canon why the looks are different in-universe if the producers never bother to say why.

This isn't up to us. We can decide if we like it or hate it or simply tolerate it but we're not the ones who decide canon and status of in-universe continuity. The producers do.

 

[Lord Garth]

if the producers never bother to say why.

Hmmm... I think we're better off if they don't actively go out of their way to explain why and show it. We've seen how that's turned out before.

If they have to acknowledge it at all, I prefer my solution of "It was the Temporal War! Don't ask!" Which would basically be like another version of "We do NOT discuss it with Outsiders."

If they went any further into it than one in-joke line of dialogue, it would end up becoming an ENTIRE SEASON spent trying to explain away the look of TOS. It would be like that Klingon two-parter from ENT, except on steroids. And it still wouldn't satisfy the people who are most upset about it.

So, the way I figure it, it's just not worth it to go into some lengthy explanation. Some people might think that's what they want, but they really don't. I don't think they've fully imagined what that would actually probably be like.

 

[Vger23]

Neither you nor CBS gets to decide what I or anyone else thinks, and if you don't like that then that's just tough luck for you -- and oh by the way I'm FAR from alone in my opinion.
So far as I'm concerned -- and many others -- it's NOT the same Universe. Nothing you, CBS, or anyone else says or does is going to change my opinion.
Now why don't you go get CBS to sue me or something if it matters to you so much.

Bro, you need to chill out.

 

[fireproof78]

Hmmm... I think we're better off if they don't actively go out of their way to explain why and show it. We've seen how that's turned out before.

If they have to acknowledge it at all, I prefer my solution of "It was the Temporal War! Don't ask!" Which would basically be like another version of "We do NOT discuss it with Outsiders."

If they went any further into it than one in-joke line of dialogue, it would end up becoming an ENTIRE SEASON spent trying to explain away the look of TOS. It would be like that Klingon two-parter from ENT, except on steroids. And it still wouldn't satisfy the people who are most upset about it.

So, the way I figure it, it's just not worth it to go into some lengthy explanation. Some people might think that's what they want, but they really don't. I don't think they've fully imagined what that would actually probably be like.

No, they don't actually want it. It will either be mocked mercilessly, used as futher argumentation for how hostile the current production team is to Gene's Vision, or just accept it, which is pretty much what we do already. So, yeah, no benefit.

 

[dupersuper]

Totally disagree.

Really? She had one speech I liked at the end of season one (the "say no to fear" one), but otherwise I find her meandering, naval-gazing monologues don't hold a candle to Picard in Measure of a Man or The Drumhead or The First Duty or A Matter of Time or his Shakespeare quoting in Hide and Q...

 

[Zod]

I don't agree that all critique is negative and I am able to distinguish the difference between people like Nerdrotic/Doomcock/MechaRandom42/Critical Drinker and people like Plinkett/Red Letter Media. I think it's possible to like and hate the productions of those who currently own the "Star Trek" brand. It's important to remember that Star Trek is and always has been a product that inspires the imagination of its consumer. Sometimes it's laboratory quality and sometimes it's mixed with talc, chalk and god knows what else, sometimes it's full of MSGs and additives, sometimes it's organically produced and hand-crafted by monks. Sometimes it's Shakespeare and sometimes it's Sunset Beach, and it's ok that there's a difference, but there IS a difference.

This is a good point. Redletter media would not be making mockery of gay characters like the other channels you mentioned. Nerdrotic guy likes mocking the gay characters by changing his voice. Redletter media goes after the writing, the editing and pacing and the effects. So one group is focused on "woke" and others are focused on the content. I tend to ignore the "woke" critics.

 

[fireproof78]

Really? She had one speech I liked at the end of season one (the "say no to fear" one), but otherwise I find her meandering, naval-gazing monologues don't hold a candle to Picard in Measure of a Man or The Drumhead or The First Duty or A Matter of Time or his Shakespeare quoting in Hide and Q...

Cool. I don't want Picard's speeches back. I have those already.

 

[Lord Garth]

Nerdrotic guy likes mocking the gay characters by changing his voice.

Yeah. I can't abide that. He's a textbook example of The Fandom Menace.

Redletter media goes after the writing, the editing and pacing and the effects.

These people, on the other hand, are just people I disagree with. For the most part.

 

[InactiveBoimler]

The first half of Season 1 of Discovery was absolutely amazing, some of the best Trek ever made, including the films. The scene where Michael gets the computer to release her from the brig was brilliant, as was the idea that Lorca was mirror all along. I felt like the second half went downhill a bit.

Season 2 sucked for me. It was a crappy Terminator Skynet-style plot that didn't feel particularly compelling or important. And there was so much crying. Always so many crying scenes. I liked the scene where Pike had the time crystal experience, though.

Season 3 was an improvement for me, but I don't feel like they develop the issues and situations enough. Osyraa was dead barely after we learned she had aspirations for becoming some sort of philosopher king. The plot felt rushed. They solved the Burn right quick and I didn't love the explanation for it. DS9, partly by virtue of having so many episodes, did such a better job of gratifyingly moving long narrative arcs and also developing the hell out of its characters.

And as much as I appreciate the advances in special effects, I sort of prefer the fight scenes in 80s/90s Trek to the more kung fu type fast editing stuff in the new ones.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'll take the Klingon War over the AI/Section 31 crap anydays. The second season had Pike but in many respects was the worst season of the series thus far.

 

[gazomg]

I know HATE is not the right word, well certainly not for me....but I think its poor, and makes Voyager and Enterprise move up the rankings without doing anything.
Yes there is scope for development, and they are far shorter seasons than the older traditional trek, and I will still watch it.

Regardless of what any critic, tv company etc say, in the end it comes down to the person themselves, I have no issue with anyone that loves it or hates it, that is their opinion and entitled to it.

 

[fireproof78]

but I think its poor,

I think that's a great a descriptor for someone who doesn't like it.

 

[JesterFace]

Messages like this right here shouldn't even be posted on Star Trek boards, however....

I checked few threads here and tried not to say anything but I feel like I must. As if anyone is interested.... If you're a fan of 'Discovery' you might not want to even read this.
The first two seasons had their moments but as a whole, not my thing. First two episodes of season one were interesting and got me watching, but.... it went down the drain, especially when the mirror universe came along. The mirror universe was a good idea in the 60s, lets keep it there.
So, I was hoping when a new season begins after this huge change in the series, maybe it'll get better. A reboot in a way? No, I watched the first episode, it was really weak. Watched little bit of the second episode.... No, just no. Worst Star Trek ever. Actually, it doesn't even feel like Star Trek, more like Star Wars. And I don't like Star Wars that much. Maybe it's wrong to say worst Star Trek ever because this series doesn't even feel like Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Messages like this right here shouldn't even be posted on Star Trek boards, however....

I checked few threads here and tried not to say anything but I feel like I must. As if anyone is interested.... If you're a fan of 'Discovery' you might not want to even read this.
The first two seasons had their moments but as a whole, not my thing. First two episodes of season one were interesting and got me watching, but.... it went down the drain, especially when the mirror universe came along. The mirror universe was a good idea in the 60s, lets keep it there.
So, I was hoping when a new season begins after this huge change in the series, maybe it'll get better. A reboot in a way? No, I watched the first episode, it was really weak. Watched little bit of the second episode.... No, just no. Worst Star Trek ever. Actually, it doesn't even feel like Star Trek, more like Star Wars. And I don't like Star Wars that much. Maybe it's wrong to say worst Star Trek ever because this series doesn't even feel like Star Trek.

I don't see why things should not be said. That's kind of silly when Star Trek espouses celebrating differences...

I won't change your mind, aside from the whole Star Wars thing. Also, I still struggle with what Star Trek should "feel" like. What is a Star Trek feel?

I should add that this not meant to be argumentative and if people have different feels for Star Trek more power to them, go your own way, etc. But, I struggle to understand with how a Trek should feel when I went from TOS to TMP and got whiplash, then TMP to TWOK, then TWOK to TNG, then TNG to DS9. So, the "feel" has varied so much in my experience.

 

[Zod]

Messages like this right here shouldn't even be posted on Star Trek boards, however....

If you can't discuss it here, especially in a 42 page thread on why people dislike the show then where can you talk about it?

 

[JesterFace]

Also, I still struggle with what Star Trek should "feel" like. What is a Star Trek feel?

There's a good question, I don't know. The overall feeling of television, not just Star Trek, has changed over time, perhaps the 60s original thing and then 90s creations are what I think Star Trek should feel like. When it comes to how a series feel, maybe it has a lot to do with how it looks. Well, I'm a TNG fanboy so maybe the answer lies there, do a show that looks like TNG. =) But that's just me. However, Star Trek might create something in the future that feels OK to me, right now not so much. All this may change somethimes, who knows. Maybe I just like TNG too much and want all Star Trek to be like it.... All that probably doesn't make sense much.

If you can't discuss it here, especially in a 42 page thread on why people dislike the show then where can you talk about it?

Good point.