Is it worth watching Disc?
- Thread starter carcinoGeneticist
- Start date
As most on here know, my personal thoughts on any of the new Star Trek series are not positive. Only SNW season 1 was good enough to scratch my itch. Unfortunately S2 sank back down to the abyss of what new Trek has become (in my opinion).
You must decide for yourself. If you enjoy the new versions of Star Trek, then I am happy for you.
You must decide for yourself. If you enjoy the new versions of Star Trek, then I am happy for you.
Only if you've watched all the preceding Treks, and you have a love for Star Trek in general. And if you do, then watch it with the knowledge that it is set in an altered timeline, and the show is unique in that its the first show to be predominantly about one character.
No matter how often this lie gets repeated, it's never going to be true.
DS9 aside, the other shows failed at being ensembles everyone seems to think of them as.
Seriously! Look at TOS, say. Amok Time is about Spock, as is All Our Yesterdays. I guess For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky is about McCoy. Pretty much every other episode is about Kirk. In DIS, Through The Valley of Shadows is definitely about Pike, Forget Me Not is about Adira, The Sound of Thunder is about Saru, etcetera.
Because they were not treated as ensembles by the production team. TNG was the "Picard and Data" show, Kirk and Spock were famously the mains in TOS, so much so there was a rumored competition with Shatner and Nimoy. Voyager tried then moved to the Janeway and Seven and Doctor show. Enterprise had Archer-Trip-T'Pol as an attempt to capture the Kirk-McCoy-Spock triumvirate that became pop culture famous.
DS9 was the only one that hit that ensemble very well. The rest had their focus characters.
TBH not really. Everyone in here can endlessly talk about how it's not real star trek because it contradicts cannon, or that it's great because it's new and tackles new issues. But to me, star trek with its first 5 shows always stayed strictly a very low key and well written franchise. It was all about telling a morality play or character study or just having fun. Alex Kurtzman and his ilk genuinely doesn't understand this tone, pacing, feel, and writing level that the original shows had. Discovery has some ok moments in the middle of season 2 (Just watch Strange New Worlds instead of discovery) but most of it feels like over serious, badly written, too much mindless action shlock that I'd expect from transformers. Discovery apologists forget that we have the guy who wrote the transformers movies and The Mummy as our new Gene Roddenberry/Rick Berman.
Action roots? What does that even mean XD Not to mention The Mummy's ROOTS are universal horror movies from the 1930s-1940s
More in line with the action/adventure spirit of TOS. Not the quintessential action movie of today, but something that TOS was pitched as in a similar format. An "Action/Adventure" platform that allowed for a variety of story types to be told within its framework.
Which is why I don't see the problem.
Well I would agree with you if Discovery was trying to be corny action shlock on purpose while also having heady themes and stories (Star Trek). All that movie has in common with good star trek are the most dated elements. If all The Arena meant to you was "kirk throws big rock at godzilla", then yes The Mummy is just like star trek.
The Mummy is closer to The Man Trap is what I would say.
Star Trek does action as much other stories. It all belongs.
Come now. Roddenberry was most known for a cop show and some other failed projects when he made TOS. What they did before now isn't nearly as important as how well they're doing while actually making Trek.
As others said, just see for yourself.
As far as expectation management is concerned: DSC is different from "old" Star Trek (pre-2005), tries many new things, so it doesn't get boring (although for me, most of the new ideas didn't work) ... so if you're very fond of the minutiae of old canon, you'll be disappointed.
DSC lays more focus on just one main character, Michael Burnham. If you don't like her, there is no point in going on with the show.
There is also more focus on f/x action than in the older shows, so if that's something you like, you'll get lots of eye candy.
For everything else, just try ... good luck!
As far as expectation management is concerned: DSC is different from "old" Star Trek (pre-2005), tries many new things, so it doesn't get boring (although for me, most of the new ideas didn't work) ... so if you're very fond of the minutiae of old canon, you'll be disappointed.
DSC lays more focus on just one main character, Michael Burnham. If you don't like her, there is no point in going on with the show.
There is also more focus on f/x action than in the older shows, so if that's something you like, you'll get lots of eye candy.
For everything else, just try ... good luck!
Last edited:
This "lie" was depicted in s2 e3 Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow.
I think, with complete hindsight, it would have been better received as a show had it been set in the 32nd century straight out of the gate, and it could have greatly benefited from being afforded a slower pace. The stakes were always cataclysmic, and the pace was always so fast that secondary characters seldom got the development that their actors warranted.
With all that in mind, and to answer your question directly; yes, I think it’s worth watching.
Discovery basically exists in two forms. There's the first two seasons set about 10 years before the original show, then the show got radically retooled in the S2 finale. S3-5 are essentially a different show but retaining the ship and characters. I won't soil you on the retool, but it's good, at least in concept.
S1-2 are worth seeing. I haven't seen S3-5 beyond S3-E5, but from those first 5 episodes, S3 looked pretty good.
I personally think it’s a pretty great show from start to finish, though for different reasons at different times — it is one of those series that periodically reinvents itself along the way. But it covers a lot. I would argue it might be the best entry point for a new fan — for an old hand there are loads of references and new-aspects-revealed, but it all being Michael’s story also gives a new viewer a good “in” to follow from the start.
EDIT: I mean, to be fair, most of the mycelial network stuff makes no sense, so there’s that — but nonsensical science has been part of the franchise for a long time now, so eh.
EDIT: I mean, to be fair, most of the mycelial network stuff makes no sense, so there’s that — but nonsensical science has been part of the franchise for a long time now, so eh.
Last edited:
This thread makes me feel kind of old. Discovery started 7 years ago, and now it's in the "Should I watch" category. As for the question, there were things I liked about Discovery and there were things I wish they would have done differently. From a character development perspective, Seasons 1 and 2 were great, especially for Saru (Even though the back half of Season 1 and what they did with Lorca was awful). I even liked Detmer's PTSD storyline in season 3 and wish they had actually carried it to a more satisfying conclusion. I think the only season I didn't find entirely enjoyable was Season 5, so yes I think Discovery is worth watching but if you're expecting this great Star Trek series, you might be slightly disappointed.
Similar threads
