What do you guys actually like about discovery?
- Thread starter dcm
- Start date
I love the characters. And the show looks gorgeous.
NOPE.
I'll throw some positivity out. I... don't like Discovery. But, there are positives in everything.
- Saru. Saru is awesome, one of the better characters in all of Trek.
- I liked going back to Talos and even seeing Vina again... that was kind of special and I never in a million years thought Vina would make another appearance.
- I like some of the attempts to make the 32nd century look more advanced, the detached nacelles, programmable matter and all that.
- The idea of the Emerald Chain is neat, and I really like the whole idea of what was happening during the time of the Burn.
- I liked the... idea of what they were doing with the Klingons in S1, story wise.
- Harry Mudd was pretty awesome.
- Saru. Saru is awesome, one of the better characters in all of Trek.
- I liked going back to Talos and even seeing Vina again... that was kind of special and I never in a million years thought Vina would make another appearance.
- I like some of the attempts to make the 32nd century look more advanced, the detached nacelles, programmable matter and all that.
- The idea of the Emerald Chain is neat, and I really like the whole idea of what was happening during the time of the Burn.
- I liked the... idea of what they were doing with the Klingons in S1, story wise.
- Harry Mudd was pretty awesome.
I'll add another positive, that bounces off a negative.
I like that when Discovery does attempt to recreate the style, feel, and otherwise general aesthetic of TOS, it actually does it well. Some of the props are outstanding, the communicators, phasers, tricorders. Some of the computer consoles look great, with tactile buttons and what not. I believe at some point they even bust out the colored "tapes" from TOS as storage devices. The arms dealers ship from the one Mudd episode looked spectacular.
The Enterprise, while I have reservations about it, is a very solid redesign.
Another thing I do appreciate is that while I think Discovery does a poor job on the macro scale for lore, it does a good job on the micro scale. There are alot of references and what not that are actually impressive.
I like that when Discovery does attempt to recreate the style, feel, and otherwise general aesthetic of TOS, it actually does it well. Some of the props are outstanding, the communicators, phasers, tricorders. Some of the computer consoles look great, with tactile buttons and what not. I believe at some point they even bust out the colored "tapes" from TOS as storage devices. The arms dealers ship from the one Mudd episode looked spectacular.
The Enterprise, while I have reservations about it, is a very solid redesign.
Another thing I do appreciate is that while I think Discovery does a poor job on the macro scale for lore, it does a good job on the micro scale. There are alot of references and what not that are actually impressive.
So, we're equating SMG's acting chops and the lackluster scripts she had to work with against the best of TNG's writers' room and veteran thespian actor Patrick Stewart in his prime? But they're both speechifying = /debate is as far as the rationale goes and conveniently ignores what made it fail / induce much cringe in one instance, and work in the other.
Yes.
Bad writing - Well technically, it's not *all* bad writing. So there's that.
Bad pacing - Apologies, I mistook the "painfully drag out a mystery box until the flaccid, underwhelming penultimate episode reveal" as bad pacing.
Bad plotting - See above.
Discovery is a show plagued with faults. Acknowledging them doesn't mean you aren't allowed to enjoy the show, though.
Comparing apples and oranges these days I suppose because of season length but Discovery is consistently better than TNG on a season basis.
I can give you a lot of 5-star and below TNG episodes but very few if any in Discovery.
The idea the endings are "bad" are subjective, personally I think 2 of the seasons have spectacular endings, and season 3 which I think disappointed some people have final episodes that are the most emotional and "Trek" style episodes of the bunch.
Is Discovery perfect? Of course not. At this stage it's unlikely the detractors and fans of the show will ever reconcile completely, so I'm resigned to that but it's by no means some foregone conclusion a majority of fans share a negative opinion, there is of course a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Sara Mitich.
All the actors are great, actually; the bridge crew is underrated. And once I decided it was an alternate timeline, and it sort of became an alternate timeline after all, I started enjoying the look of the ship quite a bit.
Big Burnham-Book fan.
The reveal of the reason behind the plot in S3 was extremely moving to me.
All the actors are great, actually; the bridge crew is underrated. And once I decided it was an alternate timeline, and it sort of became an alternate timeline after all, I started enjoying the look of the ship quite a bit.
Big Burnham-Book fan.
The reveal of the reason behind the plot in S3 was extremely moving to me.
Last edited:
My experience is trekkies are very tied to Discovery's characters, more so than other Trek series. It's not just liking their proclivities and such, there's a deep tie to their being. It's been that way since season 1.
The season 3 ending is both symbolically and actually a Gene Roddenberry special. It's both heart-rending and healing.
No.
We're noting that a character giving a speech is a part of the fabric of Trek. Some speeches work and some don't. Picard had cringe speeches too.
So you enjoy it?
Last edited:
First off, no one was comparing Sonequa Martin-Green's and Patrick Stewart's relative strengths as actors. No one. That was absolutely not part of the discussion, and turning this into an attack on her is frankly gross.
Now, I don't know what anyone compares to Patrick Stewart. He is a giant of the acting world, and I'm no more going to compare another actor to him than I'll compare a skyscraper to a mountain.
What I will say is that Sonequa Martin-Green is a damn good actor, in command of both subtlety and majesty. She has brought us along a complicated emotional journey as Michael Burnham has evolved from an emotionally repressed young woman only barely hiding her trauma behind a veneer of Vulcan-esque stoicism, to a lost and depressed woman trying to redeem herself, to a beloved sister and then a charismatic leader. Michael Burnham has probably gone through more evolution than any other Star Trek captain, and Martin-Green embodied that evolution truly wonderfully. So if you're here to attack Sonequa Martin-Green's acting chops, then frankly nothing you say has value.
Secondly: I'm sorry, but TNG had plenty of bad-to-mediocre episodes. This was not the greatest television series in history. It was a good show, but for every "Best of Both Worlds," there was a "Time's Arrow." For every "The Offspring," there was a "Power Play." Frankly, while I think DIS has only rarely achieved an A++ episode on the level of "The Best of Both Worlds," I think DIS has much higher percentage of B+ or A- episodes on the level of "Family" or "Data's Day" than TNG did.
The complaint was that Michael Burnham gives too many speeches. Jean-Luc Picard gave a shit-ton of speeches. The comparison is valid.
I liked the first two seasons. Having the main character not being the captain was a good idea, and having the main character screwing things up in the first episode, another good idea.
I'm going to assume you're one of those people who rates things: 1/10 bad, 10/10 good with little variation or subtlety.
There is NO actor in Trek that would elevate material to that degree, not even Patrick Stewart.
My reality is Discovery generally rates in the 8 to 9 range but if it gets a 6 it earns it. One actor's performance isn't going to change it much.
This was one of my problems with the show from the get-go... the main character didn't screw anything up at all.
Burnham doesn't screw things up. Burnham is always right. Everything that Burnham did in the first episode, she was right... she didn't start any war. The Klingons were going to attack. She discovered the Klingons were going to attack.
The real lesson from the pilot of Discovery was "Always listen to Burnham, Burnham is always right."
I think the idea of focusing on a character who is not the captain is a good idea... but Discovery executes it poorly by still making Burnham the most important person in like, basically all of history.
Contrast that Lower Decks, similar situation... not focusing on the Captain... and ALSO the characters are generally not all that important, but sometimes get a chance to shine.
Discovery did disappoint me slightly by not sticking to its guns on that though. When Burnham became captain, the focus should have shifted to another character. *ahem, Saru.
Burnham went about it wrong. The tragedy is yes, they'd have attacked anyway but even Burnham didn't know that. Her Vulcan Hello was meant to earn respect, but the Klingons had other plans, at least T'Kumva did.
Also, Burnham could not have foreseen killing a ritualistic Klingon warrior, which would have been yet another grounds for war.
Burnham's confusion was borne out of being raised on two worlds and reacting badly because of it. It's part of her character.
In the finale she learns she needs to respect the Federation and not fly off the handle.
We Are Starfleet.
PS it was always about Burnham. Look up the Fuller interviews.
Similar threads
