Should I give Discovery another chance?

[pst]

It's hard to make this stick as a serious analysis, since the whole season is known to have been written as a single plot arc.

well, it’s less a serious analysis than an opinion. i don’t really know what the producers were thinking but the season finale seemed like a mission statement that they’re taking the series in a different direction.

and yes the season was reverse engineered to bring us to that conclusion, but tightly plotted this first season was not.

 

[CRM-114]

If the presumption has been that the weakest element of the show has been the writing, could the problem be that the producers were left to interpret someone else's vision (namely, Bryan Fuller) without that person being present, and being collectively less familiar with Star Trek, struggled to execute that vision?

if that's the case, things could reasonably improve in the second season as it would be their vision they're executing, and not someone else's.

 

[Moe]

Answering the OP: Unless you like watching a train wreck I suggest moving on.

 

[Mudd]

Answering the OP: Unless you like watching a train wreck I suggest moving on.

The direction of a series can change radically between seasons based on many considerations. While I'd be more optimistic if the entire writing staff were sacked, I'm sure I'll give the first couple of episodes in 2019 a shot either way.

 

[Vger23]

Here's how I'd view it: If you did/could give TNG, DS9, VOY and/or ENT additional "shots" after the impotent dribble that constituted either of those series first seasons...DSC should be a cake-walk.

DSC is the first Trek series I've survived the entire 1st season of since TNG in 87/88, which I basically stuck with because I was in 7th grade and it was called Star Trek.

It ain't perfect by ANY stretch...but it sure as hell isn't boring. If you tend to get offended and claim that your childhood is ruined because things don't go the way you want and you find yourself using the phrases "Trek PHILOSOPHY" and / or "Roddenberry's VISION" a lot in your daily speech...yeah, you'll likely be wasting your time. Otherwise, you should be fine.

And, quite honestly, I think that S2 holds much more promise than S1 had.

Who knows? Everyone has different tastes. I think TOS S3 is really good.

 

[CRM-114]

Here's how I'd view it: If you did/could give TNG, DS9, VOY and/or ENT additional "shots" after the impotent dribble that constituted either of those series first seasons...DSC should be a cake-walk.

DSC is the first Trek series I've survived the entire 1st season of since TNG in 87/88, which I basically stuck with because I was in 7th grade and it was called Star Trek.

It ain't perfect by ANY stretch...but it sure as hell isn't boring. If you tend to get offended and claim that your childhood is ruined because things don't go the way you want and you find yourself using the phrases "Trek PHILOSOPHY" and / or "Roddenberry's VISION" a lot in your daily speech...yeah, you'll likely be wasting your time. Otherwise, you should be fine.

And, quite honestly, I think that S2 holds much more promise than S1 had.

Who knows? Everyone has different tastes. I think TOS S3 is really good.

DISCO is only the second Trek series I’ve had the chance to see from the beginning when it first launched, the other being ENT. Truth be told, I don’t know that I’ve seen even the majority of any shows‘ body of episodes, with the exception of TAS.

I’ve never been one to hold to the “Roddenberry Vision”, as I don’t think anyone of us could really define it to the satisfaction of everyone, and even his notion of that “vision” changed over time. So, I’ve never felt that aspect of Star Trek was sacrosanct or anything like that.

 

[fireproof78]

It ain't perfect by ANY stretch...but it sure as hell isn't boring. If you tend to get offended and claim that your childhood is ruined because things don't go the way you want and you find yourself using the phrases "Trek PHILOSOPHY" and / or "Roddenberry's VISION" a lot in your daily speech...yeah, you'll likely be wasting your time. Otherwise, you should be fine.

Exactly.

 

[dahj]

Unless you like watching a train wreck I suggest moving on.

Fake news, no trains on this show.

 

[Qonundrum]

Sure, make up your own mind man, can only do that by watching it.

But... muh groupthink! Rotten Tomatoes can't ever be wrong, at least before average audience viewers put in their fly-by-night hatred!

Some fans think it is the best thing on Tv today, some are arguing it is the greatest Trek of all time, others detest it for a number of reasons, Canon violations, poor characters.
Ultimately, I like to hear other peoples opinions but at the same time, make up my own mind.

I thought it was Ok....ish up until the Frakes directed episode, then it really kicked into high gear for the Mirror universe stuff.
Lorca was just immense week after week, then he became a Bond villain. The penultimate episode wasn't great and I genuinely thought the finale was up there with TATV.

But that's what I thought, watch it and see what you think,

Pretty much. Not everybody is going to like everything...

Though the MU stuff made more sense of the character, to the point it made sense if a lot of them were from the MU. (Only TOS got it right, used briefly as plot exposition to get into a situation for the sake of exploration into disciplined vs undisciplined human behavior... which reminds me, I need to do some dusting and cleaning up that coffee spill...)

I'm not a fan of season 1's issues, due in part because of all the behind-the-scenes problems, never mind how mind-numbingly stupid that premiere was, combined with the feel they took a bunch of swearing teenagers working for a fast food joint and transported them onto a starship to swear up the place, just after drinking a gallon of coffee. I like the idea behind Michael but a few more rough drafts were needed to iron out some major problems.

I'll be giving season 2 a proper chance, though. There's a lot the show got right or felt right despite the problems, and few TV shows belt out solid home runs in season 1 due to being rough around the edges. Especially if the season is only a dozen or so episodes. TOS had 34 or so and even then, it was rough on occasion and season 2 was easily its best. TNG didn't get on all cylinders until season 3 (it found the path in season 2 but still stumbled), DS9 was the strongest but in season 2 the direction started to kick in, with season 3 being extremely robust... that didn't stop them from doing a massive mini-reboot in season 4 that was home run after home run-- time for another marathon...

 

[Phaser Two]

I was incredibly disappointed. It was a fine sci-fi show, but it wasn't really Star Trek. Why they felt the need to make ANOTHER prequel instead of just going with a post-VOY period is beyond me.
Echo, though, that "Magic" is worth watching. In retrospect it was the best ep and the only one that felt like TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

I was incredibly disappointed. It was a fine sci-fi show, but it wasn't really Star Trek. Why they felt the need to make ANOTHER prequel instead of just going with a post-VOY period is beyond me.

Not as marketable or profitable. They took a big enough risk as it is.

Also, what's "really Star Trek?"

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, of those I saw, "Magic" was by far the best.

 

[Phaser Two]

Not as marketable or profitable. They took a big enough risk as it is.

Also, what's "really Star Trek?"

I think fans were pretty hungry and would have consumed anything. I also think there were many like me who groaned at the idea of another prequel - and were then just downright baffled at the utter failure to try to capture any aspect whatsoever of the look of TOS. If you want to show off cool CGI, etc., just set the show after Voyager and explain that the Klingon peace fell apart.

Sorry, I just meant it wasn't really Star Trek to me. Redesigning everything, the awful Abrams-lite look, no visible signs of rank apart from the dumb micropips (a huge pet peeve of mine), the "really f***ING cool" lines, and the pointlessly graphic chemical attack on the Charon are just a few examples. Also, they visited exactly two planets. The holograms everywhere. It just neither looked nor felt like Star Trek to me. Just my opinion.

 

[fireproof78]

I think fans were pretty hungry and would have consumed anything. I also think there were many like me who groaned at the idea of another prequel - and were then just downright baffled at the utter failure to try to capture any aspect whatsoever of the look of TOS. If you want to show off cool CGI, etc., just set the show after Voyager and explain that the Klingon peace fell apart.

That doesn't seem to be what the numbers say to CBS.

 

[Refuge]

I think fans were pretty hungry and would have consumed anything. I also think there were many like me who groaned at the idea of another prequel - and were then just downright baffled at the utter failure to try to capture any aspect whatsoever of the look of TOS. If you want to show off cool CGI, etc., just set the show after Voyager and explain that the Klingon peace fell apart.

Sorry, I just meant it wasn't really Star Trek to me. Redesigning everything, the awful Abrams-lite look, no visible signs of rank apart from the dumb micropips (a huge pet peeve of mine), the "really f***ING cool" lines, and the pointlessly graphic chemical attack on the Charon are just a few examples. Also, they visited exactly two planets. The holograms everywhere. It just neither looked nor felt like Star Trek to me. Just my opinion.

I groaned at at another prequel so that's why I'm super critical that they fit the timeline.

 

[donners22]

A major problem I’ve had with DISCO is that it’s started to color my enjoyment of other parts of Star Trek. I feel like I’ve become more aware (and more critical) of the weaker elements of the franchise as a whole.

That's an interesting point. I'm currently re-watching TNG with my partner for the first time in probably a decade, and geez it's a struggle even watching selectively (so many bland filler episodes!).

The good episodes and certain aspects still hold up, but so much of it does not. I quit watching an episode (Rascals) mid-way through last night; I haven't done that with a Trek episode in ages.

Maybe it was nostalgic memories, or maybe Discovery has coloured my viewing like you suggest, but I don't remember it being so bad.

 

[Admiral Bear]

That's an interesting point. I'm currently re-watching TNG with my partner for the first time in probably a decade, and geez it's a struggle even watching selectively (so many bland filler episodes!).

The good episodes and certain aspects still hold up, but so much of it does not. I quit watching an episode (Rascals) mid-way through last night; I haven't done that with a Trek episode in ages.

Maybe it was nostalgic memories, or maybe Discovery has coloured my viewing like you suggest, but I don't remember it being so bad.

TOS, TNG and DS9 was great sc-fi of its time, shows which many of us are still watching and enjoying religiously decades after they finished. OK, maybe not everyone. . .but I digress. The problem with Discovery is that it's a terrible show in its own time, and it'll still be terrible next year, and terrible in 20 years time. No one will be watching Discovery in 2038. In a few years time, It won't even be remembered as a TV show, let alone as Star Trek.

Avoid Discovery at all costs if it's turning you against all the great Trek that's gone before.

 

[Phaser Two]

That doesn't seem to be what the numbers say to CBS.

The numbers tell CBS that setting the show post-Voyager would have been unpopular? I don't think so. Like I said, the fans were hungry for anything. And "anything" is what they got IMO.

 

[pst]

If the presumption has been that the weakest element of the show has been the writing, could the problem be that the producers were left to interpret someone else's vision (namely, Bryan Fuller) without that person being present, and being collectively less familiar with Star Trek, struggled to execute that vision?

if that's the case, things could reasonably improve in the second season as it would be their vision they're executing, and not someone else's.

honestly, i don't think familiarity with star trek is a quality that a writer, producer, director, etc needs to make good star trek. i'm way more interested when i hear about the forces behind the scenes being unfamiliar with the universe and stepping in to bring something new to the franchise.

but, yeah i would expect that a lot of my issues with season 1 were due to the well documented troubled production history of the series. discovery often felt like multiple concepts at war with themselves. i am confident season 2 will be tighter if not because those troubles will have been ironed out then by virtue of the staff having had a full season under their belts by now.

 

[CRM-114]

That's an interesting point. I'm currently re-watching TNG with my partner for the first time in probably a decade, and geez it's a struggle even watching selectively (so many bland filler episodes!).

The good episodes and certain aspects still hold up, but so much of it does not. I quit watching an episode (Rascals) mid-way through last night; I haven't done that with a Trek episode in ages.

Maybe it was nostalgic memories, or maybe Discovery has coloured my viewing like you suggest, but I don't remember it being so bad.

Sometimes I wonder if Star Trek still has anything to offer me at all. It’s not really my “go-to” series/franchise anymore when I want to watch something. Even when it comes on TV, I might stick around for a few minutes, but I don’t often stay to the end of an episode, regardless of the series. While DISCO is certainly a different Star Trek from what we’ve had before, maybe I’ve just changed as a person and Star Trek no longer scratches that itch, so to speak.