I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.

[fireproof78]

At this point, I'm still convinced that Discovery doesn't know what kind of show it wants to be. It doesn't have a clear premise or well-developed characters. I've often asked people to just tell me the premise of the show and no one can ever truly answer it. The story changes each season, but, the overall premise of the series is practically non-existent.

The journeys of Michael Burnham in a voyage of self-discovery.

I know we will never see eye to eye because you point out the difficulty for you in the rest of your post: you're not invested in the characters. There's no way for the emotions to payoff because there's no investment in the outcome.

For me, Discovery is first and foremost the Michael Burnham show. It starts with her making a poor decision and moves through each stage of her making peace with that decision, and the people she has impacted along the way, directly (Detmer, Saru) or indirectly (Lorca). As well as the relationships she is building in her journey.

Now, that's me. And it's painfully apparent to me that what I want from a Trek show in a solo character focus piece, is not what a lot of Trek has been, being a more ensemble style production. Unfortunately, what has hog-tied the show is the inconsistency in the production teams, and the need to assuage a nitpicky fanbase that "We're really Star Trek, people; we promise." So, the jump to the future. It's frustrating because what investment I did have in the characters in Season 1 and 2 were largely upended in Season 3, giving me less investment going forward. It's still marginal, but maybe as this new character of "exploring the 32nd century" may prove worthwhile.

I doubt it. So, I stay because Burnham, and Saru, and Detmer and Culber and Stamets are characters I care about.

 

[Lord Garth]

At this point, I'm still convinced that Discovery doesn't know what kind of show it wants to be. It doesn't have a clear premise or well-developed characters. I've often asked people to just tell me the premise of the show and no one can ever truly answer it. The story changes each season, but, the overall premise of the series is practically non-existent.

I've answered this question multiple times, though probably not to you, so I'll repost it: The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

You can boil it down to the most basic idea that it's about the crew of the USS Discovery in the 32nd century - but nothing else. The show has no arc.

That's because every season has a different arc. That's been clear since... Season 2.

It's not, "The crew of the USS Discovery explore strange new worlds in the 32nd century."

I didn't say it was. Just that it was their adventures.

[EDITED TO ADD: And it would be especially difficult to explore "new" worlds in the 32nd Century since all four quadrants of the Galaxy have been explored by this point. "New" to us, maybe, but definitely not "new" to the Federation. So it was never going to be about that.]

Absolutely nothing is earned. Story and emotional payoffs are often hollow and unsatisfying because they don't do the work in between to get there.

The reason you think this is because...

Four seasons in and I'm still not invested in any of these characters.

... therefore you'll never think anything is earned. You either connect with the characters or you don't, and you don't. Not a good thing or a bad thing, just what is. I do. So I get something different out of the show.

 

[Amasov]

I didn't say it was. Just that it was their adventures.

I didn't say you did either. My response there wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular.

 

[Amasov]

I've answered this question multiple times, though probably not to you, so I'll repost it: The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

...and doing what?

The journeys of Michael Burnham in a voyage of self-discovery.

I know we will never see eye to eye because you point out the difficulty for you in the rest of your post: you're not invested in the characters. There's no way for the emotions to payoff because there's no investment in the outcome.

For me, the characters are not written in a way that I can get invested. This isn't to say theyare written incorrectly, it's just that I can't get on board with it. If someone else can, then god be with them. That's where my difficulty lies in it.

Understand, I've invested four years in watching this show and with each new season I come at it hoping I can get more enjoyment out of it and I certainly did in season four. I've not abandoned the show nor do I have any plans to. I don't come at the show ready to not enjoy it, not get invested, or do...what do they call it? Hate-watch? No. That's completely absurd.

I consider myself to be a very open-minded Trek fan who will watch anything they put out in the hopes that I will like it. Each season, I cheer Discovery on hoping that it manages to get me to fall in love with it just as I have Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds.

It still could.

I've answered this question multiple times, though probably not to you, so I'll repost it: The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

...and doing what?

That's because every season has a different arc. That's been clear since... Season 2.

Obviously, I've acknowledged this. This is why the show has no overall arc and its premise isn't any more specific than what you told me it was.

[EDITED TO ADD: And it would be especially difficult to explore "new" worlds in the 32nd Century since all four quadrants of the Galaxy have been explored by this point. "New" to us, maybe, but definitely not "new" to the Federation. So it was never going to be about that.

But what's wrong with that? Sure, it's the same premise as Strange New Worlds and many Trek shows that came before it, but it's an entire millennia later. You've also highlighted another aspect of the show that is sometimes frustrating. The show knows more than its willing to let us in on. The characters may know the world better than we do, but, we aren't them. I don't want to just be told about it. I want to see and experience this world.

But let me just say one other thing. Whenever I discuss this show, @Lord Garth and @fireproof78 are the ones I have the most differing of opinions with. I love that you both love the show and in some way, I'm jealous that I can't seem to get the same level enjoyment out of it that you both do. Believe it or not, both of you have made me look at reviewing Trek as a whole with more open-mindedness and in organizing my thoughts when discussing it.

 

[fireproof78]

For me, the characters are not written in a way that I can get invested. This isn't to say theyare written incorrectly, it's just that I can't get on bored with it. If someone else can, then god be with them. That's where my difficulty lies in it.

Understand, I've invested four years in watching this show and with each new season I come at it hoping I can get more enjoyment out of it and I certainly did in season four. I've not abandoned the show nor do I have any plans to. I don't come at the show ready to not enjoy it, not get invested, or do...what do they call it? Hate-watch? No. That's completely absurd.

I consider myself to be a very open-minded Trek fan who will watch anything they put out in the hopes that I will like it. Each season, I cheer Discovery on hoping that it manages to get me to fall in love with it just as I have Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds.

It still could.

I doubt it will but I applaud your effort. And I don't say that to be glib or cynical. The experience you describe is similar to how I felt about TNG. I came back a couple of times and there are a few episodes that I genuinely enjoy. But there's no investment there. So, I don't get in to it, and I let it go. I get more enjoyment out of watching it with people who find enjoyment from it than I do from any of the characters because I just don't care about them.

 

[Lord Garth]

...and doing what?.

That's moving a goalpost. You asked what the show was about and I gave an answer. It's not an answer you're thrilled with, but it's an answer nonetheless. I wouldn't have even responded to you if you hadn't said "No one has ever..." The forum is five years old. Someone would've at some point. It just happened to be me. Though I'm sure there have been other cases. I don't remember everything everyone's ever posted. So I know better than to say "No one has ever... "

Anyway, I get that you want to like the show. I do. So we'll just leave it here and agree to disagree. I don't think you're a hate-watcher. If I thought you were, I would've responded very differently.

I've dropped three Star Trek shows: Voyager (although it took over five seasons with that one), Enterprise, and Lower Decks. I'll never get out of those shows what fans of them do, but I don't feel jealousy about it. I don't think much about it at all.

I like Strange New Worlds a lot. The story didn't grab me in two episodes out of six, but considering it's episodic, that's not a bad ratio. The characters have held up the episode when the story of the episode didn't interest me. All I'll say without going into spoilers.

fireproof78 and I don't seem to be on the same page about Picard. I'm a fan of it, I don't think he is. I like certain aspects of Strange New Worlds that he doesn't seem to care for. He likes the Kelvin Films, I just tolerate them. He prefers Discovery in the 23rd Century, I prefer it in the 32nd. So we have differences of opinion too.

 

[Amasov]

That's moving a goalpost. You asked what the show was about and I gave an answer. It's not an answer you're thrilled with, but it's an answer nonetheless. I wouldn't have even responded to you if you hadn't said "No one has ever..." The forum is five years old. Someone would've at some point. It just happened to be me. Though I'm sure there have been other cases. I don't remember everything everyone's ever posted. So I know better than to say "No one has ever... "

Anyway, I get that you want to like the show. I do. So we'll just leave it here and agree to disagree. I don't think you're a hate-watcher. If I thought you were, I would've responded very differently.

I've dropped three Star Trek shows: Voyager (although it took over five seasons with that one), Enterprise, and Lower Decks. I'll never get out of those shows what fans of them do, but I don't feel jealousy about it. I don't think much about it at all.

I like Strange New Worlds a lot. The story didn't grab me in two episodes out of six, but considering it's episodic, that's not a bad ratio. The characters have held up the episode when the story of the episode didn't interest me. All I'll say without going into spoilers.

fireproof78 and I don't seem to be on the same page about Picard. I'm a fan of it, I don't think he is. I like certain aspects of Strange New Worlds that he doesn't seem to care for. He likes the Kelvin Films, I just tolerate them. He prefers Discovery in the 23rd Century, I prefer it in the 32nd. So we have differences of opinion too.

I almost want you both on my podcast discussing this so we can all yell at each other.

 

[Lord Garth]

@Amasov -- as I mentioned before elsewhere -- I've been busy and will be very busy for the next few months. But, after that, this is something I'd actually be willing to do. No joke.

 

[Amasov]

@Amasov -- as I mentioned before elsewhere -- I've been busy and will be very busy for the next few months. But, after that, this is something I'd actually be willing to do. No joke.

My co-host and I are often in sync with pretty much everything, but, sometimes it just gets a little boring, IMO. In the five years we've done, we've never had anyone come on and offer a completely opposing point of view. I would kill to have an almost Siskel and Ebert type of conversation about it.

 

[Lord Garth]

So podcast. So I don't have to worry about makeup, having my hair be 100% totally perfect, or wearing anything fancy?

 

[Amasov]

So podcast. So I don't have to worry about makeup, having my hair be 100% totally perfect, or wearing anything fancy?

Only if we stream it live. When we record, we see each other, but, the listeners just hear it afterward. I always tell people - just assume you're going to be on camera unless you explicitly say you don't want to be.

 

[Lord Garth]

Only if we stream it live. When we record, we see each other, but, the listeners just hear it afterward. I always tell people - just assume you're going to be on camera unless you explicitly say you don't want to be.

Got it. No issues with that. Just wanted to make sure.

 

[Lord Garth]

We can talk more about this over PM. Looking forward to it!

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think DSC will get less hate now. Why do I say this? Because for most of DSC's life up to this point, it was the only new live-action Star Trek series. It had ALL the attention. Other than Picard Season 1 in 2020, it was just DSC for the first four years of its life. Again, on the live-action side. But between DSC Seasons 4 and 5, we'll have had two more seasons of PIC and the first two seasons of SNW. The attention on DSC will be a fraction of what it was because, mathematically, the attention will be shared with PIC, SNW, and probably whatever will replace PIC because I think they'll want to have some type of live-action 25th Century show. From here on out, the attention and type of attention is going to be different from what it has been.

Discovery started off as THE new Star Trek show, now it's just A new Star Trek show. Which means both less heat and less pressure.

 

[dupersuper]

[EDITED TO ADD: And it would be especially difficult to explore "new" worlds in the 32nd Century since all four quadrants of the Galaxy have been explored by this point. "New" to us, maybe, but definitely not "new" to the Federation. So it was never going to be about that.]

Mapped sure, but just because they may have the tech (though we haven't seen said tech) to travel anywhere in the galaxy in a reasonable amount of time doesn't mean they've actually explored each system. The galaxy has a lot of stars, after all...

 

[EnderAKH]

At this point, I'm still convinced that Discovery doesn't know what kind of show it wants to be. It doesn't have a clear premise or well-developed characters. I've often asked people to just tell me the premise of the show and no one can ever truly answer it.

Here is what the people who make the show say about it: Star Trek: Discovery follows the voyages of the USS Discovery on their missions to discover new worlds and new lifeforms, and one Starfleet officer who must learn that to truly understand all things alien, you must first understand yourself.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm jealous that I can't seem to get the same level enjoyment out of it that you both do. Believe it or not, both of you have made me look at reviewing Trek as a whole with more open-mindedness and in organizing my thoughts when discussing it.

I'm glad you're inspired like. It's a high compliment. Though, I have to compliment your stick-to-itiveness regarding this show. It is a quality I do not possess regarding shows.

fireproof78 and I don't seem to be on the same page about Picard. I'm a fan of it, I don't think he is. I like certain aspects of Strange New Worlds that he doesn't seem to care for. He likes the Kelvin Films, I just tolerate them. He prefers Discovery in the 23rd Century, I prefer it in the 32nd. So we have differences of opinion too.

I mean, we were bound to disagree about something

Discovery started off as THE new Star Trek show, now it's just A new Star Trek show. Which means both less heat and less pressure.

I think this is a good point. Instead of being the only target, there are now several targets.

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, it was lessons learned during and after ENT that made me accept DIS from the start. Earlier, I would have had many issues with the show and would have been on the hate bandwagon, but from episode one, I could appreciate and like the show for what it is--a modern take on Trek. No amount of mental gymnastics was going to convince me that DIS leads visually into TOS, but that didn't mean I couldn't accept it as a TOS prequel in principle. If asked if DIS was a prequel to TOS, I wouldn't hesitate to say yes--just don't ask me for details.

It is my opinion that DIS is a very different show now than when it started. Not just with the onscreen material, but behind-the-scenes as well. The decision to move the show into the 32nd-Century not only freed it from the continuity constraints of being a TOS prequel, but allowed it and its characters to cut loose and forge new paths forward. Some may not like the far future now depicted in DIS, and that's fine, but I don't think any show is worth actually hating. As they say, if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it.

But one thing I wasn't aware of--and probably because I still clung to the idea that Trekkers couldn't possibly do this--was the racist hate mail Sonequa Martin-Green and even Michelle Yeoh received for DIS.
https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-discovery-racist-hate-mail-michelle-yeoh-sonequa-martin-green/

I mean, come on...

 

[fireproof78]

But one thing I wasn't aware of--and probably because I still clung to the idea that Trekkers couldn't possibly do this--was the racist hate mail Sonequa Martin-Green and even Michelle Yeoh received for DIS.
https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-discovery-racist-hate-mail-michelle-yeoh-sonequa-martin-green/

This part bothers me far more, even if it isn't surprising. The very narrow thinking that is presented within fandoms extends to Trek. And I don't think it is anything of one particular political bent or leaning, but just a very narrow view of what makes Trek Trek.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I'm jealous that I can't seem to get the same level enjoyment out of it that you both do.

I think Trek fans put too much pressure on themselves to like every aspect of the franchise and deal far too often in black and white terms. There's a real sense that fans either have to blindly love a series and refuse to see it's flaws or a blindly hate a series and refuse to see it's positive attributes. I think many fans misunderstand that criticism doesn't equal hate and involves discussing the bad and acknowledging the good of something.

For myself, I gave up on Trek after ENT and Discovery is what brought me back to the franchise. I grew up loving TNG and VOY and now I can barely stand to watch either of them. Having said that, there are still things that i do love and appreciate and like about TNG, VOY and ENT and from time to time I will do rewatches and just skip the episodes I don't like. Lower Decks and Prodigy aren't really for me either and while I like the themes of Picard and how the show has explored that character I personally think it is the weakest of the new shows. But again, I've found things in each show that I really like and would likely make me watch them again at some point.

The days of homogenous, one-size-fits-all trek are done and dusted and each series is now catering for a different audience, which serves to prevent audience burnout and also acknowledges that not every trek fan likes the same thing. Maybe Discovery just isn't your thing and that is ok.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Trek fans put too much pressure on themselves to like every aspect of the franchise and deal far too often in black and white terms. There's a real sense that fans either have to blindly love a series and refuse to see it's flaws or a blindly hate a series and refuse to see it's positive attributes. I think many fans misunderstand that criticism doesn't equal hate and involves discussing the bad and acknowledging the good of something.

Exactly.

The days of homogenous, one-size-fits-all trek are done and dusted and each series is now catering for a different audience, which serves to prevent audience burnout and also acknowledges that not every trek fan likes the same thing. Maybe Discovery just isn't your thing and that is ok.

1000%!