Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

But it was contrasted with lots of fun and adventure, and a sense that people wanted to be there doing what they are doing. There is no contrast with Discovery which makes it the weakest entry by far in the franchise.

Star Trek's greatest strength has been that it is a platform to do pretty much anything. Discovery, for some reason, decided to discard that particular piece of the format. Instead deciding to do what pretty much every other sci-fi show does, grimdark future.

These are the words of one who is not watching. You're just fault-finding.

DSC is the "weakest" entry in the entire franchise "by far"? You can say this after 9 episodes? Because guess what? At only 9 episodes, TNG was objectively a piece of shit. It got waaaaaay better. At this point in their respective runs, DS9 was boring, VGR was aimless and ENT was unsure of itself. DSC has had the absolute strongest first 9 episodes of any spin-off, and isn't "grimdark" (an overused word if ever I've heard one) in the slightest.

 

[ichab]

These are the words of one who is not watching. You're just fault-finding.

DSC is the "weakest" entry in the entire franchise "by far"? You can say this after 9 episodes? Because guess what? At only 9 episodes, TNG was objectively a piece of shit. It got waaaaaay better. At this point in their respective runs, DS9 was boring, VGR was aimless and ENT was unsure of itself. DSC has had the absolute strongest first 9 episodes of any spin-off, and isn't "grimdark" (an overused word if ever I've heard one) in the slightest.

No kidding. By this point I had already quite watching Voyager and Enterprise.

 

[jaime]

These are the words of one who is not watching. You're just fault-finding.

DSC is the "weakest" entry in the entire franchise "by far"? You can say this after 9 episodes? Because guess what? At only 9 episodes, TNG was objectively a piece of shit. It got waaaaaay better. At this point in their respective runs, DS9 was boring, VGR was aimless and ENT was unsure of itself. DSC has had the absolute strongest first 9 episodes of any spin-off, and isn't "grimdark" (an overused word if ever I've heard one) in the slightest.

In the slightest?
Really?
Georgiou has been nommed.
There is a room of ripped open corpses on the Klingon ship, likely having been nommed.
There is torture, there are innards, there is implied rape, on screen rape, PTSD, goring to death, people wearing their insides on the outsides, and impalations. There are child deaths in terrorist attacks, there is death in vacuum, and there is Tilly.
All to a background of morally grey characters in a war.
What the heck there doesn’t qualify it as grimdark? One of the leads literally has to turn the lights down in every room he enters, if that helps.
That DSC has improved...it’s batting about fifty-fifty atm, and that’s largely because of its last episode...is no doubt, but it’s definitely grimdark.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I actually found ENT's opening season quite effective and enjoyable during a recent re-watch, more so than I did originally, and not least because it was no longer in context of a barrage of people bitching about how "wrong" everything looked, not to exclude myself. The revelation that in hindsight all that was little more than closed-minded fan hysteria is probably part of what successfully inoculated me against any possibility of getting drawn into or lending any credence whatsoever to that sort of overblown reaction to DSC.

 

[jaime]

No kidding. By this point I had already quite watching Voyager and Enterprise.

It’s amazing you stuck around for DSC then...Caretaker and even Broken Bow we’re better than the opening three hours of DSC. But we are starved of new Trek, so we kept chewing until the meal got better. I still don’t know if the cooking improved or I just got used to the taste though.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

DSC has been the best Star Trek we've had in a long time, by my reckoning. I was skeptical of the opener at first, but overall it's working marvelously for me.

But then, I just said above that my favorite of the movies is TMP, and that I actually like GR's theme lyrics, so...

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

In the slightest?
Really?
Georgiou has been nommed.
There is a room of ripped open corpses on the Klingon ship, likely having been nommed.
There is torture, there are innards, there is implied rape, on screen rape, PTSD, goring to death, people wearing their insides on the outsides, and impalations. There are child deaths in terrorist attacks, there is death in vacuum, and there is Tilly.
All to a background of morally grey characters in a war.
What the heck there doesn’t qualify it as grimdark? One of the leads literally has to turn the lights down in every room he enters, if that helps.
That DSC has improved...it’s batting about fifty-fifty atm, and that’s largely because of its last episode...is no doubt, but it’s definitely grimdark.

You don't really know what "grimdark" means, do you? Grimdark isn't about portrayal. It's a mindset. It's an outlook. It's about how there's no such thing as genuine good and no point in hope because everything sucks.

So much of what gets labeled "grimdark" is really just stuff that's unflinching in its portrayal of violence. But DSC gives us real heroes (and a few anti-heroes) and genuine hope. So, no, not grimdark.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It’s amazing you stuck around for DSC then...Caretaker and even Broken Bow we’re better than the opening three hours of DSC. But we are starved of new Trek, so we kept chewing until the meal got better. I still don’t know if the cooking improved or I just got used to the taste though.

Caretaker was boring as hell and Broken Bow only slightly better. The first three hours of DSC were miles better than both of them combined (and all three of them reveal how horrifically terrible Encounter at Farpoint always has been).

These are not vague memories congealed into long standing assumptions, by the way. I rewatched every pilot after DSC debuted.

 

[jaime]

You don't really know what "grimdark" means, do you? Grimdark isn't about portrayal. It's a mindset. It's an outlook. It's about how there's no such thing as genuine good and no point in hope because everything sucks.

So much of what gets labeled "grimdark" is really just stuff that's unflinching in its portrayal of violence. But DSC gives us real heroes (and a few anti-heroes) and genuine hope. So, no, not grimdark.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimdark

Or you know...not. Ignoring its attachment to fantasy, or science fantasy, DSC is exactly what this describes.

 

[Vger23]

And yet they went with another prequel. Officially The Most Hated format by genre fans in general.

And yet Discovery is doing well despite of that. Kudos to everyone involved!

These are the words of one who is not watching. You're just fault-finding.

DSC is the "weakest" entry in the entire franchise "by far"? You can say this after 9 episodes? Because guess what? At only 9 episodes, TNG was objectively a piece of shit. It got waaaaaay better. At this point in their respective runs, DS9 was boring, VGR was aimless and ENT was unsure of itself. DSC has had the absolute strongest first 9 episodes of any spin-off, and isn't "grimdark" (an overused word if ever I've heard one) in the slightest.

DSC is FAR from the weakest installment. By my scoring (see thread in General Board comparing all the series first 9 episodes) it is as close to TOS as you could get without going over!

 

[jaime]

Caretaker was boring as hell and Broken Bow only slightly better. The first three hours of DSC were miles better than both of them combined (and all three of them reveal how horrifically terrible Encounter at Farpoint always has been).

These are not vague memories congealed into long standing assumptions, by the way. I rewatched every pilot after DSC debuted.

Emissary is the gold standard, but putting that aside, no, DSC took until its third episode (second if they had done a feature of the first two) to get some..but not all..of its lead characters on screen. If a pilots job is to show you what to expect in some way, to open the story and introduce you to a World and it’s characters, then DSC failed. It’s literally called a pilot because it serves as something of a guide. In serial TV, maybe that doesn’t apply, but I draw your attention again to Emissary, and DS9s overall serial approach.

 

[Vger23]

I actually found ENT's opening season quite effective and enjoyable during a recent re-watch, more so than I did originally, and not least because it was no longer in context of a barrage of people bitching about how "wrong" everything looked. The revelation that in hindsight all that was little more than closed-minded fan hysteria is probably part of what successfully inoculated me against any possibility of getting drawn into or lending any credence whatsoever to that sort of overblown reaction to DSC.

This is preciselsy the phenomenon I encountered as well. I supported ENT through the first half of its first season, despite realizing that I really wasn't enjoying it. Everyone was bashing it, and it almost subliminally made me think it wasn't any good as well. I only watched a handful of episodes across the 4 year run as a result.

I just finished a complete watch-through this past spring and summer. I thought it was a very good show, when freed of all the expectations and baggage of where it was "in the moment"

I vowed I would not allow that to happen with me and DSC, and that I would judge it completely on its own merits. The results have been great. I'm FULLY enjoying weekly Star Trek episodes for the first time since TNG aired. (I didn't get into DS9 until a rewatch as well).

 

[Vger23]

Emissary is the gold standard, but putting that aside, no, DSC took until its third episode (second if they had done a feature of the first two) to get some..but not all..of its lead characters on screen. If a pilots job is to show you what to expect in some way, to open the story and introduce you to a World and it’s characters, then DSC failed. It’s literally called a pilot because it serves as something of a guide. In serial TV, maybe that doesn’t apply, but I draw your attention again to Emissary, and DS9s overall serial approach.

DS9 didn't adapt a serial approach until 3rd-ish season. It's first season (despite the pilot episode being fantastic) was practically unwatchable.

And that series turned out to be the best of the modern era.

So far, DSC has blown it and every other post-TOS series out of the water in the first 9 episodes. It's still choppy, but it's far better than anything else we've had in 48 years at this point in its lifecycle.

I think that's enough for me to argue that its worth my continued support.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

"Emissary" was indeed a bold and effective start to DS9, a show that reached a number of very high points during its run, and which is among my favorite Trek series overall. (I like it better than TNG, which for me has really not aged that well, to be honest.) But to my recollection—although I haven't rewatched in years, so I could find it inaccurate when I inevitably do—it suffered from a fair number of suuuuuuper-boring-and-stilted episodes early on before it found its footing.

-MMoM

 

[XCV330]

I kind of liked each of the premier episodes from Farpoint on, there was some excitement in a new trek series. In retrospect Farpoint has not aged all that well I guess, but its still better than most of season 1. That's not a high hurdle of course.

For Deep Space 9 I think part of the problem, if memory serves, is the show did so many Bajoran specific episodes early on, and I never liked them much.

It might have been different if they had made Bajor's culture a little more truly alien, but most of them time Bajor came off as a place that had had a mildly unsettling occupation, but not all that bad. The people were all North Americans dressed like a Joann Fabric store had started puking up outfits, and the culture just was in general too damned mild. When the writers wanted to approach ideas like faith, fate, caste, resistance, etc, they always seemed a little afraid to boldly go where their intentions led, or else they were not allowed. The rest of the series was fine though, to me.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s amazing you stuck around for DSC then...Caretaker and even Broken Bow we’re better than the opening three hours of DSC. But we are starved of new Trek, so we kept chewing until the meal got better. I still don’t know if the cooking improved or I just got used to the taste though.

Those episodes may have been better, but the following six episodes were a sharp decrease of enjoyment for me.

DSC was a rocky start, but the characters engaged me and kept me interested. I can't say the same for VOY or ENT.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I really mean beyond just the sick bay scene and any previous scene with Spock. Everything else just feels sterile...

With regards to Spock, that's exactly what I meant. It's SUPPOSED to feel sterile. Spock even remarks about this at the end of the movie: "As I was when I came aboard, so is V'ger now." Kirk has his own moments with McCoy in the transporter room and on the bridge, tension with Decker, and a lot of back slapping with Scotty. Decker and Ilia have their whole "the one that got away" thing that is kind of sweet but not really well developed. And EVERYONE is happy to see Spock again, even though his emotional reaction is.... absent.

A favorite trope of mine from TOS is when Kirk and Bones have a heart to heart. In TMP it's just lacking, cold. It may have helped a little to just have Bones pour some drinks but since this is Roddenberry's "true" vision and that TOS was just "dramatization", I guess not.

That was one of the things I really loved about the Kelvinverse movies. The working dynamic between Kirk, Spock, Bones and Uhura. They make a good team together and their ability to work collectively and trust each other's abilities is what saves them 99% of the time.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

TMP is a deeply flawed film but I still love it. It comes the closest of any Star Trek film in the franchise to actual science fiction and being a story devoted to exploration of the truly and frighteningly unknown. I will rewatch TMP over more than a few of the other films released since and the Jerry Goldmsith score remains my all-time favorite Star Trek movie soundtrack.

It is now by second favorite Trek movie after "Beyond" and basically tied with ST09 depending on what mood I'm in

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimdark

Or you know...not. Ignoring its attachment to fantasy, or science fantasy, DSC is exactly what this describes.

Adam Roberts described it as fiction "where nobody is honourable and Might is Right", and as "the standard way of referring to fantasies that turn their backs on the more uplifting, Pre-Raphaelite visions of idealized medievaliana, and instead stress how nasty, brutish, short and, er, dark life back then 'really' was". But he noted that grimdark has little to do with re-imagining an actual historic reality and more with conveying the sense that our own world is a "cynical, disillusioned, ultraviolent place".

Nope, doesn't describe DSC.

Genevieve Valentine called grimdark a "shorthand for a subgenre of fantasy fiction that claims to trade on the psychology of those sword-toting heroes, and the dark realism behind all those kingdom politics".[

I might kinda grant you this one, but this is hardly the defining factor in Grimdark.

In the view of Jared Shurin, grimdark fantasy has three key components: a grim and dark tone, a sense of realism (for example, monarchs are useless and heroes are flawed), and the agency of the protagonists: whereas in high fantasy everything is predestined and the tension revolves around how the heroes defeat the Dark Lord, grimdark is "fantasy protestantism": characters have to choose between good and evil, and are "just as lost as we are".

Again, I can kinda grant this, but I don't call anything that goes for realism, flawed heroes and eschewing the notion that everything has to end on a happy not automatically "grimdark". If that's the case, then "The Best of Both Worlds" was the grimmest of grimdark. We weren't even guaranteed that Picard would come back (as there were rumors that Patrick Stewart wanted out).

Liz Bourke considered grimdark's defining characteristic to be "a retreat into the valorisation of darkness for darkness's sake, into a kind of nihilism that portrays right action ... as either impossible or futile". This, according to her, has the effect of absolving the protagonists as well as the reader from moral responsibility

Nope, doesn't describe DSC.

To be Grimdark, a work has to have all these elements, not just some, and the first and last are the dealbreaker; without them, you just have "gritty realism", not "grimdark."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"The Expanse" (TV version, not so much the novels) comes pretty close to being "Grimdark" in that half of the politician characters are back-stabbing psychopaths and the main characters are constantly at each other's throats for one reason or another. This is in contrast with the novels which, IMO, are actually pretty close to Discovery in how they deal with character interactions and politics; unlike the grimdark depiction in the series, the political figures are shown to be mostly trapped by their own choices and occasionally grieving over them; meanwhile, the crew of the Roci have become a sort of ad hoc family unit that would (and sometimes do) take a bullet for each other without hesitation.

Hope and optimism can't exist in a vacuum. As Sisko said "It's easy to be a saint in paradise." If you show me someone clinging to hope and optimism in a world that has gone completely to shit, then you've shown me a really good Star Trek story.