DSC Pros and Cons Game
- Thread starter Vger23
- Start date
I'm running out of negative things to say... so I'll go for the too easy one, after the Pro, then I'm done.
Pro: Spores make the world of Discovery go round!
Con: No hair on the Klingons!
Pro: Spores make the world of Discovery go round!
Con: No hair on the Klingons!
Pro: Burnham and Tilly's friendship is my absolute favorite on screen relationship in all of trek.
Con: The whole season storyline nosedived in the last several episodes with a totally nonsensical ending that did nothing to pay off all the setup that preceded it.
Con: The whole season storyline nosedived in the last several episodes with a totally nonsensical ending that did nothing to pay off all the setup that preceded it.
Pro: The Performances from the cast, amazing acting all round.
Cons: The pacing and length of episodes. Episodes were generally too short and felt rushed
Cons: The pacing and length of episodes. Episodes were generally too short and felt rushed
Pro:
Nice Sarek/Spock conflict explanation.
Con:
Too many predictable "twists"
Nice Sarek/Spock conflict explanation.
Con:
Too many predictable "twists"
Pro: I think Saru is a great addition, and I find Doug Jones' performance charming and funny and inspiring.
Con: the episode that was touted as the one where we would learn more about Saru and his people, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum," is possibly the weakest episode, and doesn't really tell us much more than we already knew about Kelpiens.
Con: the episode that was touted as the one where we would learn more about Saru and his people, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum," is possibly the weakest episode, and doesn't really tell us much more than we already knew about Kelpiens.
PRO: This is one of the best looking Trek productions ever. There are Trek movies (arguably the majority of them) that do not look as cinematic as this show does.
CON: The behind-the-scenes turmoil kinda shows in the resolution of the season arc.
CON: The behind-the-scenes turmoil kinda shows in the resolution of the season arc.
Pro: Stamets tells Michael to shush and mind her own business.
Con: Michael carries on speaking anyway to show how smart she is and that she won’t be silenced by someone smarter and more informed than her.
Con: Michael carries on speaking anyway to show how smart she is and that she won’t be silenced by someone smarter and more informed than her.
Pro: Captain Georgiou was absolutely awesome.
Con: She's dead and now we're stuck with ex-emperor Georgiou who is a terrible character.
Con: She's dead and now we're stuck with ex-emperor Georgiou who is a terrible character.
Pro: Michelle Yeoh
Con: Design aesthetics
Con: Design aesthetics
Pro: The cast is outstanding. You just flit from character to character and say, "Oh, she did wonderful work," or, "He has such presence," or, "She did everything she could to save that script short of throwing it on the floor and giving it CPR." There are no weak links. Everybody's got tremendous talent and everybody's giving it 100%. If you want to make the case that this is the most skilled cast Star Trek has ever had, I won't get in your way... and if you want to make the case that this is the most skilled cast in a new scripted drama on television today, I think you can make a good case for that, too. Regulars, guest stars, bit parts, even fake parts... it was a consistently amazing cast across the board.
CON: Star Trek has never had such abysmal writing. From the turgid, loooooonnnnng log entries that frame far too many episodes, to the insane season arc that didn't make sense at the plot level and never cohered enough to resonate at a thematic one... from the way individual scenes are constructed by smashing two characters together to try to get one of them to emote until you can call it "development," to the way nearly every episode is structured around some dumb twist or other instead of just telling a gorram story... Star Trek has never found its writers' room in such dire need of an overhaul. TNG S1 had several individual episodes that were worse than anything in DSC S1, it is true -- but TNG S1 also had a few good episodes, and DSC's highly serialized, highly continuity-porn-driven structure meant that its failures at both the macro and micro levels tainted everything. (Also, TNG S1 came out in 1986. There is much less excuse for being this bad in the Golden Age of Television.)
CON: Star Trek has never had such abysmal writing. From the turgid, loooooonnnnng log entries that frame far too many episodes, to the insane season arc that didn't make sense at the plot level and never cohered enough to resonate at a thematic one... from the way individual scenes are constructed by smashing two characters together to try to get one of them to emote until you can call it "development," to the way nearly every episode is structured around some dumb twist or other instead of just telling a gorram story... Star Trek has never found its writers' room in such dire need of an overhaul. TNG S1 had several individual episodes that were worse than anything in DSC S1, it is true -- but TNG S1 also had a few good episodes, and DSC's highly serialized, highly continuity-porn-driven structure meant that its failures at both the macro and micro levels tainted everything. (Also, TNG S1 came out in 1986. There is much less excuse for being this bad in the Golden Age of Television.)
Pro: The TOS era is, in my opinion, the best setting for Star Trek. Humanity has vastly improved by this point, but we're still not perfect. The technology is advanced, but not so advanced that it does away with the need for resources (including dilithium) and without holodecks a crew will still need a decent shore leave.
Con: Like with a lot of ensemble shows where the main character has a designated love interest, the romance was pretty poorly developed.
Con: Like with a lot of ensemble shows where the main character has a designated love interest, the romance was pretty poorly developed.
Pro: It is probably the most visually stunning Star Trek series. The ship is beautiful, particularly sick bay. The graphics are bang on. I love the CGI. The entire production looks like an expensive movie. It truly is impressive.
Con: Michael Burngam is everything and it's too much. It's obvious the writers love her so everything happens to her, both in the past and in the present. It's like every character on Star Trek is rolled up into this one character and it's exhausting.
Con: Michael Burngam is everything and it's too much. It's obvious the writers love her so everything happens to her, both in the past and in the present. It's like every character on Star Trek is rolled up into this one character and it's exhausting.
Pro: The show looks absolutely gorgeous.
Con: The Klingon redesign, while fine, isn't exactly inspired.
Con: The Klingon redesign, while fine, isn't exactly inspired.
Pro: Doug Jones acting
Con: Klingon head ridges
Con: Klingon head ridges
Similar threads
