I agree. In terms of acting talent I'd rate her as slightly above average. Even within Discovery I think Cruz, Yeoh, Jones, Mount, Issacs and Fehr are superior actors over SMG. I personally think SMG's talents are a better fit for a supporting character. It's not that she's bad as the series lead, the show is still watchable. But she's not great either. If specifically looking for a black woman to fill the role, Rosario Dawson would have been a much better choice, but she may not have been interested or available.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
I agree. In terms of acting talent I'd rate her as slightly above average. Even within Discovery I think Cruz, Yeoh, Jones, Mount, Issacs and Fehr are superior actors over SMG. I personally think SMG's talents are a better fit for a supporting character. It's not that she's bad as the series lead, the show is still watchable. But she's not great either. If specifically looking for a black woman to fill the role, Rosario Dawson would have been a much better choice, but she may not have been interested or available.
I don't hate Discovery at all. But I find it a frustrating and often flawed series for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head.
- Plot-focused rather than character-focused writing, despite it being a serialized show. Season 3 was a bit of an improvement here, but in general Discovery just hasn't been interested in exploring who its characters (other than Michael, and to a lesser extent Saru) really are. Instead they veer suddenly in terms of personality or skillset as the plot of the week requires. This isn't new for Trek of course (all series except DS9 often wrote characters in a shallow and inconsistent manner) but I just expect...more...from serialized drama than this.
- Three seasons of serialized arc, yet none of them really had a payoff which in any way equaled the setup. Season 1 fell apart in its last three episodes. Season 2 had the weird mid-season rewrite where Control was pasted into the show, and tied itself in knots in the back end trying to weld the first half of the season (which was pretty good) to a conclusion it clearly was not meant to foreshadow. Season 3 was at least written coherently with no major plot holes, but the big reveal was underwhelming, and the end run of the season could just as easily have been a Voyager two-parter.
- A nearly relentless focus on Michael. I am not a "hater" of her by any means. At the same time, I think the show suffers because there aren't enough individual episodes (or even B-plots) which are written from the frame of view of another character. SMG is a fine actor, but I do sometimes wonder if she's cut out for the lead, because she doesn't have the same ability to elevate mediocre writing as some of the other leads had. It would be more refreshing to break things up a bit by having an episode (within the overall season arc) which was from the POV of Tilly or Stamets or something. Kinda like how in DS9 Sisko was the captain, but sometimes you'd have an episode where he just had 5 minutes of dialogue in his office and you'd go off somewhere with the Ferengi.
- The early seasons had a big issue with "show not tell" although this went away a bit by Season 3. What I mean here in particular is other characters telling Michael how smart she is and otherwise just openly complimenting her. This stuff is weird, and bad writing, because you're supposed to demonstrate a character is smart by having them do smart things, not by other people talking about how smart they are. The only other thing I can think of I remember in recent history comparable to this is how the later seasons of Game of Thrones talked up Sansa when she just came across as catty (and not particularly swift) - though it's worse here because of the relentless focus on Michael. At times it came across like the writers were basically trying to shill Michael's character, which is part of why I believe there were a lot of (false) claims Michael was a Mary Sue.
- One of the only non-writing concerns I have with the show is there's just been weird coordination between the VFX department and the story basically the whole way through. Examples abound, from Season 1's energy beings with yurts, to Season 3's ships somehow being visible as more than points in the sky from orbit. I honestly get the idea that the showrunners are not particularly visual people and sort of leave it up to the VFX team to improvise whatever the hell they want.
Last edited:
Michael is the main character in a much different way than past Trek. So, if finding her annoying as the prime mover then I don't know what to tell you because that is definitely a feature of the show. I would welcome more character focus on others, but I would not expect it.
I don’t hate the show either. I watch it and each season has had a few episodes I really enjoyed. I don’t think it comes close to touching TNG or DS9, but it’s about on par with VOY and ENT. Some things I’m critical of (which others have already mentioned are):
- Too much action, not enough substance (e.g. ethical dilemma, examination of the human condition, etc.). The show isn’t exceptional with its action scenes (it ain’t no Mandalorian) so at best the action scenes have a neutral impact on the overall show.
- Uneven serialized storytelling. The S1 arc started out strong and fell apart at the end. The S2 also started out strong and then got really convoluted when the showrunners changed and the story weirdly pivoted. The conclusion of the S3 arc was underwhelming to say the least. The show really wants to have season long arcs that are neatly resolved at the end like Stranger Things, Westword, etc., but isn't really that good at executing on it, particularly at the end. Most of the episodes I've enjoyed have been in spite of the serialized part, not because of it.
- A “checklist” approach to storytelling with a checklist that’s too big relative to the number of episodes in the season. So the story often has to grow around the checklist instead of vice versa. The show is then all over the place as it bounces around trying to check each box (e.g. a detour to set up the S31 show) and the show is often trying to make the pieces fit together in a way that feels forced at times. The Adira and Grey relationship is a perfect example. The characters are introduced to have trans and non-binary representation on the show (which I think is great) and an excellent story is told about them in Forget Me Not, but after checking that box it was pretty clear the writers didn’t know how to insert Grey into the rest of the season and as a result that relationship arc went nowhere and probably should have been cut out entirely in favor of fleshing out Adira’s character a little more. Another example is the music mystery, it wasn’t an interesting mystery on the front end, it did nothing to advance the plot, and the explanation made no sense, so what was the point of wasting precious screen time on it given all the other things they had to cover? I think they need to be more disciplined about this kind of stuff and cut things that don't fit.
- A decline of sci-fi concepts and storytelling. Say what you will about the spore drive, it was at least an ambitious science fiction concept. Science fiction ideas and storytelling have been on the decline throughout the series. In S3 the science fiction concepts were mostly reduced to novelties (detachable nacelles, personal transporters, etc.) that added some snappy VFX and some fun scenes but had no real impact on the story. I think this is partly Paradise’s influence, she doesn’t strike me as a sci-fi person. I sometimes joke that Discovery feels like watching Melrose Place, but in space (probably not an accurate analogy). But the show is leaning away from sci-fi and into drama (character driven emotional beats), which isn't my cup of tea.
- Speaking of VFX, I think it’s a mixed bag. Some of the scenes are good, others not so much. I'm not a big fan of the ship battles. I think this is Kurtzman’s influence, he seems to like the lens flares, spinning ships, flashing blue lights, and action sequences where all these little ships dart around the screen so fast you can’t see what’s happening. The big battle at the end of S2 was the biggest offender. This is one thing I really miss about old Trek. DS9 did ship battles with technology from 20 years so much better than Discovery is doing it today.
- Too much action, not enough substance (e.g. ethical dilemma, examination of the human condition, etc.). The show isn’t exceptional with its action scenes (it ain’t no Mandalorian) so at best the action scenes have a neutral impact on the overall show.
- Uneven serialized storytelling. The S1 arc started out strong and fell apart at the end. The S2 also started out strong and then got really convoluted when the showrunners changed and the story weirdly pivoted. The conclusion of the S3 arc was underwhelming to say the least. The show really wants to have season long arcs that are neatly resolved at the end like Stranger Things, Westword, etc., but isn't really that good at executing on it, particularly at the end. Most of the episodes I've enjoyed have been in spite of the serialized part, not because of it.
- A “checklist” approach to storytelling with a checklist that’s too big relative to the number of episodes in the season. So the story often has to grow around the checklist instead of vice versa. The show is then all over the place as it bounces around trying to check each box (e.g. a detour to set up the S31 show) and the show is often trying to make the pieces fit together in a way that feels forced at times. The Adira and Grey relationship is a perfect example. The characters are introduced to have trans and non-binary representation on the show (which I think is great) and an excellent story is told about them in Forget Me Not, but after checking that box it was pretty clear the writers didn’t know how to insert Grey into the rest of the season and as a result that relationship arc went nowhere and probably should have been cut out entirely in favor of fleshing out Adira’s character a little more. Another example is the music mystery, it wasn’t an interesting mystery on the front end, it did nothing to advance the plot, and the explanation made no sense, so what was the point of wasting precious screen time on it given all the other things they had to cover? I think they need to be more disciplined about this kind of stuff and cut things that don't fit.
- A decline of sci-fi concepts and storytelling. Say what you will about the spore drive, it was at least an ambitious science fiction concept. Science fiction ideas and storytelling have been on the decline throughout the series. In S3 the science fiction concepts were mostly reduced to novelties (detachable nacelles, personal transporters, etc.) that added some snappy VFX and some fun scenes but had no real impact on the story. I think this is partly Paradise’s influence, she doesn’t strike me as a sci-fi person. I sometimes joke that Discovery feels like watching Melrose Place, but in space (probably not an accurate analogy). But the show is leaning away from sci-fi and into drama (character driven emotional beats), which isn't my cup of tea.
- Speaking of VFX, I think it’s a mixed bag. Some of the scenes are good, others not so much. I'm not a big fan of the ship battles. I think this is Kurtzman’s influence, he seems to like the lens flares, spinning ships, flashing blue lights, and action sequences where all these little ships dart around the screen so fast you can’t see what’s happening. The big battle at the end of S2 was the biggest offender. This is one thing I really miss about old Trek. DS9 did ship battles with technology from 20 years so much better than Discovery is doing it today.
I didn't think you were. More of a general observation because Michael is often the target of Discovery "hatred*" I think you are spot on-the other characters get far more development than a cursory glance at reviews would indicate. We just don't sit down and receive long bouts of expository dialog about them. But, I still recall Bryce and Reese from Season 1, and Detmer was always a stand out character to me. So, the idea that Michael as the main focus somehow short changes the rest of the cast is dubious at best. It's just done far, far, different than past Trek or seven some current shows. And, honestly, as much as I love some contemporary shows, most of them have a lot of episodes with jack
actually being learned. *hatred in this instance includes legitimate criticism as well as random Internet fan ravings.
Aside from people who call the show "STD" allowing me to spot who hates it -- with 95% accuracy -- a way that I can instantly spot if someone hasn't kept up with the show is them complaining it's another prequel and Star Trek has stayed pre-TOS.
I just saw someone complain about it on Facebook and I was tempted correct them but decided against it. If I want to argue about Star Trek, I'll do it here. Not over there. Arguing about Star Trek online is a bad habit. A bad habit of mine since my late-teens. It's better to keep it contained here than have it spread everywhere else. Facebook is more something I use to keep up with people I know IRL and to do business with when it comes to those who insist on doing everything on Facebook. It's a platform that will live forever as long as there are so many people who are that dependent on it.
I just saw someone complain about it on Facebook and I was tempted correct them but decided against it. If I want to argue about Star Trek, I'll do it here. Not over there. Arguing about Star Trek online is a bad habit. A bad habit of mine since my late-teens. It's better to keep it contained here than have it spread everywhere else. Facebook is more something I use to keep up with people I know IRL and to do business with when it comes to those who insist on doing everything on Facebook. It's a platform that will live forever as long as there are so many people who are that dependent on it.
Last edited:
I'm more talking about how certain elements of the beginning of the season were awkwardly written out midway through - like Pike's religious inclinations and the whole "spiritual" aspect of the season in general.
My own interpretation is that once the showrunners were fired Kurtzman wanted to change the series arc very fast - possibly to avoid having to give them story credit for the back half of the season. So Control was pulled out of the novels, and some hasty reshoots were done of the earlier episodes to make it fit in somehow. Even with this, a lot of stitchwork was needed for Mama Burnham to explain away everything she did (which wasn't entertaining at all) and it still wasn't a compelling arc.
I want to make it clear I don't find Michael annoying. I don't find her particularly interesting, but she isn't annoying at all.
What is annoying however is how other characters have historically reacted to her. Like Sarek - a Vulcan who was notoriously cold and hostile towards his biological son - somehow being open, warm, and repeatedly offering praise so effusive it looked like he was going to break out into a smile at any moment. This aspect was admittedly toned down a lot in the third season (one of the steps up) with characters discussing Michael's weaknesses much more than her strengths.
Must not have encountered much favoritism in parents in real life, if I am reading this correctly. Sarek was notoriously cold and hostile for a wide variety of reasons, but namely because he felt rejected. And rejection from a child can be intensely painful. And Vulcans are not emotionless but repressed emotions under control of the Surakian logic teachings. But even that doesn't strip the emotions away completely. Otherwise, Kohlinar would not be a thing.
I don't like Discovery at all. Honestly, I hate it.
It's very immature. Much of it is juvenile. Too much action. No sense of grounding at all. Cheap CW / YA style writing.
It has lame attempts at trying to be "cool". It's a very self-aware show that's constantly responding to the external criticisms and trends surrounding it. It's always "chasing". The result is a messy hodgepodge of incohesive and mostly incomplete directions, themes, and ideas.
It's completely watered down corporate mediocrity.
SMG is a mediocre actress and not capable of being a lead.
Aside from Saru the show has almost nothing going for it all.
It's very immature. Much of it is juvenile. Too much action. No sense of grounding at all. Cheap CW / YA style writing.
It has lame attempts at trying to be "cool". It's a very self-aware show that's constantly responding to the external criticisms and trends surrounding it. It's always "chasing". The result is a messy hodgepodge of incohesive and mostly incomplete directions, themes, and ideas.
It's completely watered down corporate mediocrity.
SMG is a mediocre actress and not capable of being a lead.
Aside from Saru the show has almost nothing going for it all.
There was one thing about Discovery that rubbed me up the wrong way from the very start, something many shows are guilty of, and that was the announcement of "Trek's first gay character". Rather than focus on who the character was, what he did, where he came from, anything released about the character in press releases had him defined by his sexuality (much the same way the series lead was announced to be a "woman of colour").
As a gay man, getting someone like me in a Trek show has been something I've wanted for ages (though reading between the lines DS9 did it with Garak and ENT had Reed/Hayes, we all know what was going on there
), but to have that be all that the character was known as from day one, rather than just have it come up naturally through the course of story telling and character exploration is something that just annoys me with a lot of media these days.
As a gay man, getting someone like me in a Trek show has been something I've wanted for ages (though reading between the lines DS9 did it with Garak and ENT had Reed/Hayes, we all know what was going on there
), but to have that be all that the character was known as from day one, rather than just have it come up naturally through the course of story telling and character exploration is something that just annoys me with a lot of media these days.
It would be nice if sexuality didn't matter at all in storytelling. Just tell the adventure-I don't care who the person is attracted to. It's bull.
.There was one thing about Discovery that rubbed me up the wrong way from the very start, something many shows are guilty of, and that was the announcement of "Trek's first gay character". Rather than focus on who the character was, what he did, where he came from, anything released about the character in press releases had him defined by his sexuality (much the same way the series lead was announced to be a "woman of colour").
As a gay man, getting someone like me in a Trek show has been something I've wanted for ages (though reading between the lines DS9 did it with Garak and ENT had Reed/Hayes, we all know what was going on there
I agree wholeheartedly. I wish we lived in that world.
That said, I am happy to overlook the fact they announced it before it happened and applaud them for the diversity in the show. I like that Trek shows us that world is possible.
It would be nice if sexuality didn't matter at all in storytelling. Just tell the adventure-I don't care who the person is attracted to. It's bull
It can be important for character building. I liked that we were shown how close Stamets and the Doctor were before their story arc panned out, because then you empathise with them and feel their loss.
Imagine if we took Kirk's sexuality out of TOS
I would say Stamets' defining traits in Season 1 -- besides being gay -- were that he was an asshole (except when he wasn't), he was responsible for the Spore Drive, and he kept getting into arguments with Lorca.There was one thing about Discovery that rubbed me up the wrong way from the very start, something many shows are guilty of, and that was the announcement of "Trek's first gay character". Rather than focus on who the character was, what he did, where he came from, anything released about the character in press releases had him defined by his sexuality (much the same way the series lead was announced to be a "woman of colour").
As a gay man, getting someone like me in a Trek show has been something I've wanted for ages (though reading between the lines DS9 did it with Garak and ENT had Reed/Hayes, we all know what was going on there
I don't 'hate' Discovery, but I really didn't like it. It just doesnt have much of what I enjoyed about Star Trek. I know a lot of people say that it's just a modern version for a modern audience or what have you, but my general impression was that it's Star Trek trying to be like other modern shows and never really succeeding. Picard even more so, although I could only get through a few episodes of that.
I guess ultimately it boils down to the fact that...
I don't think they are quite doing that. Of course, that's partly because of the new landscape and the freedom to watch so much of whatever you want. If Disco had come out 25 years ago when there wasn't much good TV and you had to wait a week between episodes, I'd probably have watched it. We're so spoiled for choice now that if a show doesn't really engage me I just don't bother and move on, especially when it doesn't feel particularly new or have its own identity. Not that new Star Trek does anything particularly poorly, but I can't think of anything I can get from Discovery or Picard that I couldn't get from another show.
However, what I do hate is all this crap about people disliking Disco because:
1. They're bigots.
2. They get triggered over the slightest change.
Not that these can't be factors, but it is also possible that people genuinely just don't enjoy the show. Also remember seeing a lot of this when The Last Jedi got such dislike.
I guess ultimately it boils down to the fact that...
I don't think they are quite doing that. Of course, that's partly because of the new landscape and the freedom to watch so much of whatever you want. If Disco had come out 25 years ago when there wasn't much good TV and you had to wait a week between episodes, I'd probably have watched it. We're so spoiled for choice now that if a show doesn't really engage me I just don't bother and move on, especially when it doesn't feel particularly new or have its own identity. Not that new Star Trek does anything particularly poorly, but I can't think of anything I can get from Discovery or Picard that I couldn't get from another show.
However, what I do hate is all this crap about people disliking Disco because:
1. They're bigots.
2. They get triggered over the slightest change.
Not that these can't be factors, but it is also possible that people genuinely just don't enjoy the show. Also remember seeing a lot of this when The Last Jedi got such dislike.
Thats probably where I am not affected as much, as I really watch very little TV. I tune in just for what I would like to follow - like Trek. For that reason I think I am quite a rare person in that I turned on Netflix specifically to watch Disco, and therefore am not likely to go surfing for something else. Maybe that narrow view means I miss deficiencies I would have spotted if I was more of a TV aficionado. Hence me asking the question in this thread.
I've never really cared about following something. If a show or franchise suddenly isnt enjoyable, I'm done. I don't care what happens to the Cardassians or whoever in some new show. It's not even that I watch that much TV. I just dont have much patience for anything as (IMO) 'meh' as Discovery when I could be watching something better or at least more interesting.
Thinking about it, I really can't come up with anything I particularly liked or hated in Discovery (aside from the shift away from episodic). It was all just kinda ok.
TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT all improved after rough starts. Discovery has gotten worse.
From what I'm seeing, even most of the people who claim to like Discovery think season 3 is the weakest.
Season 1 of DSC was bad, but at least it had some semblance of vision and atmosphere in it. As its progressed, its gone more and more through the corporate grinder of focus groups, surveys, and market research. The result is an increasingly McDonaldized product.
Last edited:
Really? I thought season one started a bit odd and took me some getting into. But its only got better and better from there. I mean those Turbo Lift scenes were in S3, but still.......
Season 3 was so bad, when Michael Jackson wrote 'Bad" he was singing about that, I'd say it peaked in Season 2 - it was owed mostly to Pike.
- Status
Similar threads
