What do you guys actually like about discovery?

[William Gatsby]

One unfortunate thing I find about people who criticize Discovery is that I'm not always able to tell the difference between those who don't like the show but aren't bigots, and those who don't like the show because they are bigots.

They both say similar things, so it's difficult for me to tell the difference oftentimes.

As for why I actually like Discovery, it's because I like the Michael Burnham character.

My girlfriend who doesn't normally like science fiction likes Michael Burnham because she says that she sees some of herself in her. And I guess that's why I like her too.

They're both a bit of a know-it-all (in a positive sense) and feel it's their responsibility to save the universe.

It's rather surreal.

 

[fireproof78]

As for why I actually like Discovery, it's because I like the Michael Burnham character.

Indeed. One of my favorite characters in Trek.

 

[Heavenly Observer]

Indeed. One of my favorite characters in Trek.

Mine as well. Love Michael. Her sitting down in the captain's chair for the first time is one of my all time favorite moments in Trek.

 

[Lord Garth]

One unfortunate thing I find about people who criticize Discovery is that I'm not always able to tell the difference between those who don't like the show but aren't bigots, and those who don't like the show because they are bigots.

Unless they make it super-obvious, you just have to follow their posts over time to see what type of patterns emerge and if there are any double-standards.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

• Jett Reno
• Bringing back the Trill
• Showing the 32nd Century
• The Mirror Universe episodes
• Jett Reno
• A few other characters
• Jett Reno
• Jett Reno
• The cat

 

[ScottJ85]

Mine as well. Love Michael. Her sitting down in the captain's chair for the first time is one of my all time favorite moments in Trek.

She always reminded me of TOS-era Kirk in many ways, always biting off more than she can chew, and pulling it off through a combination of her crew, her own talent, and a bit of luck. Which, if I’m remembering seasons 3 and 4 right, is one of the reasons it took so long for the Federation president to trust her.

 

[DarthTimon]

There was actually a guy on this very board, some years ago, who posted a long manifesto demanding just that very thing, in all seriousness. A Star Trek crew series crewed by only straight, white, American men -- with "traditional Christian values" no less.

As I recall, he felt that "fans like me" were entitled to at least one Star Trek series along those lines, in compensation for all the "PC" multicultural casting he'd had to put up with for years.

Have no idea if he's still around, but this attitude seems to persist in some quarters.

I can entirely believe such fans exist, and to me, those fans have missed the point of Star Trek. I see them on Twitter, where they believe, completely and utterly, that Star Trek represents a capitalist utopia, where the free market solves all the world's problems. How they cling to that interpretation, given the real world, is beyond me.

 

[DarthTimon]

One unfortunate thing I find about people who criticize Discovery is that I'm not always able to tell the difference between those who don't like the show but aren't bigots, and those who don't like the show because they are bigots.

They both say similar things, so it's difficult for me to tell the difference oftentimes.

As for why I actually like Discovery, it's because I like the Michael Burnham character.

My girlfriend who doesn't normally like science fiction likes Michael Burnham because she says that she sees some of herself in her. And I guess that's why I like her too.

They're both a bit of a know-it-all (in a positive sense) and feel it's their responsibility to save the universe.

It's rather surreal.

There are people who don't like the show, and give their reasons, and that's fair enough. Then there are people who suggest fans of DSC aren't really Star Trek fans, because they jump through some incredibly convoluted hoops to suggest DSC isn't 'real Trek'. This kind of attitude swiftly leads to us to the self-appointed gatekeepers, with their quasi-religious crusade to 'protect canon', going through further convoluted hoops to imply DSC isn't part of the original timeline.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

Then there are people who suggest fans of DSC aren't really Star Trek fans, because they jump through some incredibly convoluted hoops to suggest DSC isn't 'real Trek'. This kind of attitude swiftly leads to us to the self-appointed gatekeepers, with their quasi-religious crusade to 'protect canon', going through further convoluted hoops to imply DSC isn't part of the original timeline.

And very confusingly, the people who do this are often "Enterprise" fans.

 

[Dee1891]

What did I like about "Discovery"? Season One.

 

[USSCoriolis]

I liked, well still my least favourite series, but I liked everything up until the moment they went into the future. After that it was a different show. Like Orville. Coloured uniforms, similar names....but a different show. Which is also why I likely wont watch Starfleet Academy. 32nd century is too disconnected to be relevant. It would be like a Star Trek show set in 1200.

 

[irons0]

I couldn't get into it. I watched season 1 and I thought the first half of the season was pretty good. I thought the second half was a mess so haven't gone back. I did like the look of it though, like other new Trek it looks very good.
I might give it another go. What is the best season of the next 3? Or do I really need to watch 2-4 in order?

 

[Lord Garth]

I couldn't get into it. I watched season 1 and I thought the first half of the season was pretty good. I thought the second half was a mess so haven't gone back. I did like the look of it though, like other new Trek it looks very good.
I might give it another go. What is the best season of the next 3? Or do I really need to watch 2-4 in order?

The fourth. Hands down. It's not even close.

Every season has its own beginning, middle, and end. So you don't need to watch one season to understand the other. Just know that there's a VERY gigantic shakeup at the end of the second season that changes the series permanently.

 

[fireproof78]

I couldn't get into it. I watched season 1 and I thought the first half of the season was pretty good. I thought the second half was a mess so haven't gone back. I did like the look of it though, like other new Trek it looks very good.
I might give it another go. What is the best season of the next 3? Or do I really need to watch 2-4 in order?

If you wanted to just jump in you could do Season 4. Season 2, at least at the end, will shake it up and give context.

Also, Season 2 introduces Pike. Which is great.

 

[Heavenly Observer]

32nd century is too disconnected to be relevant. It would be like a Star Trek show set in 1200.

Relevant in what way? It's still Star Trek. I don't think that 1200 analogy really works. I don't believe a Trek show has to be chronologically close to previous to be relevant. One of the things that's great about Discovery is that it isn't afraid to tell new stories and explore new settings, not having to lean on nostalgia.

 

[fireproof78]

One of the things that's great about Discovery is that it isn't afraid to tell new stories and explore new settings, not having to lean on nostalgia.

Agree to a certain degree. Certainly it started out with that nostalgic bent with Burnham being Sarek's ward.

Thankfully that has since past and Season 3 and 4 are among my favorites. But nostalgia is not completely gone...yet.

 

[USSCoriolis]

Relevant in what way? It's still Star Trek. I don't think that 1200 analogy really works. I don't believe a Trek show has to be chronologically close to previous to be relevant. One of the things that's great about Discovery is that it isn't afraid to tell new stories and explore new settings, not having to lean on nostalgia.

Lower Decks isn't afraid to tell new stories and explore new settings. Discovery is afraid, which is why they took it so far away that nothing matters and they basically rewrote and redesigned the whole universe. Its not Still Star Trek. Respectfully, you need more than blue, red, and gold uniforms and nacelles. You do need some real connection. Frankly it is exactly like 1200. 900 years difference. 900 years. And almost nothing tying it to any other series, not even much tying it to the first seasons of Disco. I tried to watch it, but its not the same show. When I want to watch random Sci Fi with universe scale stakes and no Star Trek connection, I just go to Star Wars or Netflix. Disco ranks below those on my Sci Fi scale. Star Trek ranks top.

 

[fireproof78]

Its not Still Star Trek. Respectfully, you need more than blue, red, and gold uniforms and nacelles. You do need some real connection.

Yes, and we have it in Burnham and her history with Spock. That's the anchor.

And almost nothing tying it to any other series,

Good!

 

[Heavenly Observer]

Lower Decks isn't afraid to tell new stories and explore new settings. Discovery is afraid, which is why they took it so far away that nothing matters and they basically rewrote and redesigned the whole universe. Its not Still Star Trek. Respectfully, you need more than blue, red, and gold uniforms and nacelles. You do need some real connection. Frankly it is exactly like 1200. 900 years difference. 900 years. And almost nothing tying it to any other series, not even much tying it to the first seasons of Disco. I tried to watch it, but its not the same show. When I want to watch random Sci Fi with universe scale stakes and no Star Trek connection, I just go to Star Wars or Netflix. Disco ranks below those on my Sci Fi scale. Star Trek ranks top.

Lower Decks (not trying to bring down LD fans) relies heavily on nostalgic elements for its bread and butter. Discovery doesn't do that. It takes risks, it's unafraid to tell new stories, explore new characters, and play with whole entire eras and settings. Further the idea that in order for a Trek show to be Trek, it needs connection to nostalgic elements seems rather a shallow basis for what makes a Trek show. Discovery absolutely is Trek, regardless of his closeness to prior series. The 1200 analogy doesn't work because at that point, such a show wouldn't even be set in space. Trek deals with the future of the human race among other things.

 

[Lord Garth]

Discovery is afraid, which is why they took it so far away that nothing matters and they basically rewrote and redesigned the whole universe.

Setting it in the 32nd Century and setting it after something like The Burn, where Earth is no longer part of the Federation, is the exact opposite of afraid. No other series has gone that far out. No other Star Trek would ever do those sorts of things. Afraid is doing what's safe. Shortly after Nemesis would've been safe. Before you say something, bare in mind that I'm also a fan of Picard. But, as much as I like the series, 20 years after Nemesis was the safest way to go. People freak out of they go backward (see every argument about prequels ever) or if they go too far forward (like right here).

Its not Still Star Trek.

Tell me with a straight face that Discovery using reason and communication to stop Species 10-C isn't Star Trek. They used brains instead of brawn to reason with life-forms that wanted to wipe out entire planets. There was even a debate among different civilizations over how to deal with Species 10-C where they talked it out and put it to a vote. Responding that type of threat is straight out of TMP. Hashing out how to deal with said threat, and presenting both sides of the argument on how to proceed in front so many people voicing their opinions is straight out of TNG, but on a larger scale.

But you think "It's not Star Trek because they jumped 930 years ahead!" That's superficial reasoning. That's like someone back in 1987 saying, "TNG isn't Star Trek because they jumped 80 years ahead of the movies! It doesn't even have to do with Kirk or Spock or everything from the last 20 years, so it's not even relevant!" How about Voyager being in the Delta Quadrant and disconnected from everything else and encountering aliens not seen anywhere else?

Are you going to tell me that Vulcans and Romulans finally reuniting has "nothing to do with anything"? Really? Really? Come on. Does "Unification" mean anything to you? How about Spock saying it might take decades or even centuries for Vulcans and Romulans to achieve reunification, but they would achieve it.

How about Zora having to defend her individuality and having her rights defined? That's not Star Trek? You're telling me that's not Star Trek? Ever seen "The Measure of a Man"? Remember that one? But no, Zora wanting to be recognized and crew fighting for her to be recognized as a unique lifeform isn't Star Trek, I guess. Because they jumped 930 years into the future.

It's Star Trek. It's just not Star Trek that you like. There's a difference.

Are you going to call Starfleet Academy "not Star Trek" if it dares to take place in the 32nd Century or are you just going to single out Discovery? What happens if there are other series besides DSC and SFA that take place in the 32nd Century? Are all of those not going to be Star Trek either?

How about "Calypso"? Easily the best of Short Treks. Are you going to tell me that something so beautifully written is crap and isn't Star Trek just because it takes place in The Future? "Calypso" was wonderful because of the small, romantic tale it told, and it was so mysterious because of everything it alludes to. "Calypso" really got me excited for Discovery to go into The Future. My one disappointment is that DSC hasn't fully lived up to that. Not because they shouldn't have gone into The Future, but because I saw so many possibilities with it, thanks to "Calypso".