I gave it an 8. I think there’s some exceptional stuff in there and some other bits which really let it down. The shining light for me are the Short Treks. There’s some stellar episodes there. My ratings: DSC: 8 PIC: 5 LDS: 7 Short Treks: 9
I watched Children of Mars last night along with my official PIC rewatch start and I thought it was absolutely amazing. I know there were mixed reactions here. I thought it was very powerful.
Yep, definitely. I thought Calypso, Brightest Star, Q&A, and Ask Not were some of the best Trek content ever.
LD - 7 PIC - 5 DSC - 5 (I really liked S3 but 1-2..yeesh) Short Treks - 4 so that averages out to about a 5. So about average. a strong 2nd season would push LD into DS9/TNG territory. Nobody will catch TOS (for me)
I wish I liked LD as much as others here. I thought the best episodes were “cute” and I squee’d reflexively at the non-stop rapid fire references and Easter eggs...but it almost always left me with a headache and the weaker episodes were embarrassing and unwatchable, to the point where there were two that I offered to turn off while my wife and I were watching together. The last two episodes were better, though. But ultimately I couldn’t take it seriously or care about it. I had forgotten it 5 min after I turned it off. That doesn’t make it bad...and I watched every single episode (and will keep doing so) but I don’t care about it one way or the other with any particular passion.
I'm crazy enough to watch DSC and PIC as soon as they drop overnight. Not being married, not having kids, and being an insomniac lets me get away with pulling that off, even though I shouldn't do it. Coffee and energy drinks. What can I say? With LD, I took my sweet time. I'd watch it some time the next day. I've still only seen the episodes once. I've posted in the forum once in the past three months. I'll probably binge all 10 episodes of the second season in one go, after it finishes.
I’m rewatching DSC now and was pleasantly surprised how much I liked Season 1. I’ve said this before, but knowing what we know now about Lorca (Tyler, Georgiou, and I suspect Tilly) it’s like watching another series embedded in a preexisting one, and it’s a delight. There are layers everywhere. And the drama feels more real and less mawkish than in S3. I look forward to rewatching Season 2 next. S1: 8/10. Would have been higher, but I like my Trek more sci-fi than adventure and more utopian than contemporary. S2: ~7/10. I haven’t rewatched it yet but though Pike is now maybe my second favorite captain(!), I don’t think 2 will be as layered as 1, and the main storyline took too long to resolve and was ultimately meh — the 7 signals, the Burn... S3: 3-4/10. I couldn’t stand going to the far distant future to replay the present. Basically ENT 2.0 in the future instead of the past. Plus we played out the Andromeda/Fall of the Federation arc better on this BB a year before S3 aired. And, yes, Burnham being the center of the universe irks me. As Kirk was only more so — at least TOS had break-out character Spock to outshine Captain Proton himself. And the drama was, again, mawkish. That long funeral for cannibalistic genocidal Emperor Georgiou was trying.
Re: Ranking modern ST within itself. I'd say I'd go with: 1) PIC S1 2) DIS S3 3) DIS S2 4) DIS S1 PIC was brilliant out the gate. DIS was much better than people give it credit for -- I think "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" just might be the greatest series premiere of any ST series ever -- and keeps getting better. Lower Decks is so fundamentally different in terms of its conventions and creative goals that I don't feel comfortable ranking it compared to DIS and PIC. Re: Ranking modern Star Trek compared to older. I'm not entirely sure I like the idea of ranking modern Star Trek. The fundamental conventions of television have changed drastically since the Berman era ended -- just as the fundamental conventions of television had changed pretty dramatically between TOS and TNG. I feel like this is kind of like asking someone to rank, say, a silent film vs. a 1940s/50s "Golden Age of Hollywood" film to a 1970s "New Hollywood" film to a 2010s blockbuster film. The conventions of cinema are so different from era to era that it's hard to meaningfully compare them.
I'm taking this thread to mean ranking Star Trek made strictly from 2017 on. We're not comparing it to earlier Star Trek. But, for the Hell of it, I did rate all the entirety of different periods of Star Trek in a different post in another thread, where I split it up by regimes. -- Cutting and pasting. -- How I rate entire periods of Star Trek on a 10-scale. In a spin-off response to this thread. Roddenberry Trek (TOS, TAS, TMP, and TNG until his death): 7.5 Bennett Trek (plus TUC): 8 Berman Trek (from GR's death to the end of ENT): 7 Abrams Trek: 6 Kurtzman Trek: 8 Notes 1) Before someone points it out, yes, I know I'm being generous with the cut-off for Gene Roddenberry. 2) TUC is technically an orphan between major regimes, so I put it where it fits in best. -- End of Cut-and-Paste. -- If I wanted to rank Hollywood Films in general, it would go: 1. New Hollywood (late-1960s to 1970s) 2. Early-Modern Hollywood (1980s to 1990s) 3. Pre-Hays Code Hollywood (Up to mid-1930s) 4. Classic Hollywood (mid-1930s to mid-1960s) 5. Modern Hollywood (2000s to Present) These come down strictly to my own preferences. I'm really not a fan of newer mainstream films in general. Newer independent films are a different story. But for mainstream, as far as I'm concerned, TV is where it's at nowadays. That's why I was so glad when Star Trek returned to television. The Abrams Films were what they were, but they really just weren't doing it for me. Whereas I love Discovery and Picard. I thought PIC really made up for the TNG Movies in a big way.
Discovery and Picard seem very similar in style to the JJ Abrams movies and I didn’t like them. The older Trek shows always had an element of fun/comedy which is why I enjoy Lower Decks so much.
I disagree on both points. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your supporting arguments. While I can give you that DSC is comparable (I would hesitate to say “very similar”) to the Kelvinverse films in style, PIC is nothing like that. PIC has a much slower pace and is 100% character driven. Just by virtue of having action scenes doesn’t immediately make it a summer blockbuster wannabe. I also think that saying older Trek shows “always had an element of comedy” is a complete rose-colored fallacy, and claiming that the modern live-action series lack that element is also wholly inaccurate. And, comparing the older Trek show's comedy content to LD content is like comparing a dripping faucet to Niagara Falls.
I always need some distance from these shows before I can rate them honestly. Whenever new Trek is on the air, I tend to get caught up in the excitement and reflexively love all of it. Every week I couldn't wait to watch the next episode of DSC and PIC. I haven't felt that way about any TV show since ENT, which I gave up on mid season 1 only to enjoy later on DVD. LDS is more of an amuse bouche for me. I enjoy it; it's well written and more substantial than some give it credit for; but it doesn't push the envelope the way DSC and PIC try to and sometimes succeed at. Clearly this is by design, but I'm not exactly at the edge of my seat to catch the next episode. I love it but give it a 6. DSC is hands down the most ambitious trek show ever, more so than even DS9. It doesn't always hit its mark, but it always goes for broke. If anything, they dialed this back a bit in Season 3, which I thought was a good move, but I did kinda miss the epic sweep of the first two seasons. Therefore I give DSC, despite its flaws, a 10. PIC is also fascinating so far and appears set up to do some amazing stuff, if the next seasons are done right. The first season featured excellent world-building. Never before has the trek universe seemed so real or lived-in to me. The whole AI thing did seem kinda warmed over, especially following DSC S2, but I'm more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt moving forward. PIC is a promising 8 for me. Overall, I've lived through effectively 4 eras of Trek: the movies and twilight of the original crew, TNG and the progressive stereotyping of Trek under Berman, the attempt to reboot Trek as a blockbuster movie franchise, and now the Kurtzman trek-verse. In all honesty, I consider this the best, most promising, most true to Trek's potential era I've ever had the pleasure to experience. Solid 10 overall.
As usual, overall ratings may change over time and not always related to how much caffeine I'd ingested earlier: LD: 8 DSC: 4 PIC: 2 Short Treks: 1
If we're ranking CBS era seasons 1. DIS-2 2. PIC 3. DIS-1 4. LD 5. DIS-3 Last three are close, maybe I should put DIS-3 over Lower Decks, not sure.
Picard is very polarizing to people it seems, especially those who are "TNG first" fans. I thought it was good when I first watched it, but not great. I just re-watched it last week and, with re-set expectations and no preconceptions...and I honestly find it rather excellent. The acting and production values are top-notch, and the minor story quirks don't seem to bother me nearly as much as other people are bothered by them. It seems to have a "Last Jedi" effect on hardcore TNG fans...like the "how dare you pillage my favorite character" stuff. You could tell there was some considerable bias when there were pages of complaints about Raffi calling Picard "JL." Right there, you knew it was going to be polarizing. And, while I admit that the conclusion wasn't ideal....it wasn't NEARLY as off as I remembered it. I loved bringing closure to the Spoiler: Picard Plot Points death of Data by having him show up in that simulation. It was a beautifully written and performed scene. And, I really liked how they killed off Picard only to have him come back as a unique form of artificial life himself. I thought this worked really well given the themes of the entire season. Overall, I still like S1 of DSC better, but I think Picard may be the best overall Trek since DS9. Looking at it without any expectations or nit-picking, it's really a high quality production all around. I might have to up my overall score as a result. But, of course, I'm biased. I never really cared much for the character of Jean-Luc Picard...so for me, I found this series which largely humbled him and showed him as a flawed, arrogant man who must deal with his past mistakes (and poked-fun in a meta way at his annoying character traits) massively refreshing. I also like that it continued threads from NEM and ST09. And, since I'm generally more of a "character" guy than a "story" guy...the minor story flaws just don't register with me as much.
That sums up me as well. Jean Luc Picard is not my favorite character by a long shot; not the best, not the worst, but just kind of meh to me. So, getting to go in to this series without expecting much beyond an interesting adventure in space. And that's what it was. Would I have done it differently? Sure. More Romulans is about my only note. But, is it as bad as some would have me believe? Not really, no.