Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO

[alex08060]

Need to remember that if not for Disco we would not be getting Star Trek Spin offs like Lower Decks, Strange New World, etc, etc. I would say Disco is an experiment on how Star Trek should be in the new era of TV. And Strange New World/Lower Decks and others came out great because of it.

 

[Frontis]

I don't see Lower Decks and SNW as DISCO spin offs.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't see Lower Decks and SNW as DISCO spin offs.

I wouldn't say Lower Decks has anything to do with Disco at all, except for being greenlit due to its success.

But Strange New Worlds stars three characters from Discovery, including its captain, it features a ship introduced in Discovery, and a bridge set built for Discovery. Plus the first episode is all about the consequences of Discovery's s2 finale and the show deals with the aftermath of the Klingon War in a number of stories.

 

[James Cole]

All DISCOVERY season 1 revealed was that demand for Star Trek exceeded the supply of Star Trek circa 2017. It's crazy to go back and look at all the mainstream coverage the early episodes received in the mainstream legacy media and general pop culture YouTube.

The internal reception to the series was to retool everything while doing whatever it took to lure Patrick Stewart into returning to the franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

Need to remember that if not for Disco we would not be getting Star Trek Spin offs like Lower Decks, Strange New World, etc, etc. I would say Disco is an experiment on how Star Trek should be in the new era of TV. And Strange New World/Lower Decks and others came out great because of it.

Definitely agree, but the growing pains were completely rough and not sure it was worth the cost.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't see Lower Decks and SNW as DISCO spin offs.

Strange New Worlds is literally spun-off from Discovery Season 2.

Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard aren't Discovery spin-offs, though.

 

[Lord Garth]

Definitely agree, but the growing pains were completely rough and not sure it was worth the cost.

I think they've learned the wrong lessons. SNW wants to be text-book bread-and-butter Star Trek. DSC tried to be something else and got blasted for it. Thankfully, for a lot of things DSC wavered on, there was a lot it didn't waver on.

SFA, I have mixed thoughts about, pre-series. Not the concept, but the situation it's in. I think they absolutely need to build a new audience and not be afraid to shed the old audience if that old audience isn't enough to keep them afloat. As long as they gain more viewers than they lose, they'll be fine. But I think SFA will have a hard time doing that being on Paramount+. I think that's part of why SFA has such a star-studded cast. They're hoping Holly Hunter and Paul Giamatti will bring more viewers, if nothing else.

 

[fireproof78]

I think they've learned the wrong lessons. SNW wants to be text-book bread-and-butter Star Trek. DSC tried to be something else and got blasted for it.

I agree. I think that's why we saw the more bread and butter approach because it was that reactionary approach of moving more towards was familiar.

I think part of that is the push towards becoming "Real Trek." This is the most common complaint that I hear in the more vocal circles (not just here) of Discovery-it's not "Real Trek." Regardless of how one defines that, the finger pointing of the perceived shortcomings were not story or writing but aesthetic and tropes that more align with past Treks. So, we end up with Strange New Worlds that I happen to like but is definitely pushing far more in to the familiar.

I do think that many criticism out there are legitimate, even if Id don't agree with them. But, I think the "not real Trek" stuck out louder and led to where we are at.

But I think SFA will have a hard time doing that being on Paramount+. I think that's part of why SFA has such a star-studded cast. They're hoping Holly Hunter and Paul Giamatti will bring more viewers, if nothing else.

I agree here as well.

 

[Mage]

I don't see Lower Decks and SNW as DISCO spin offs.

Strange New Worlds is literally spun-off from Discovery Season 2.

Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard aren't Discovery spin-offs, though.

I think @alex08060 didn't so much mean a literal spin-off as we know the word, but it opened up the way for more Star Trek on TV. And that is what Discovery did. The people that loved it wanted more, the people that didn't made the producers realise there was demand for more and different Star Trek.

Because people, not all Star Trek needs to be for everyone. We got Star Trek in all kinds of shapes and sizes since Discovery season 1 and you can't win them all, but a lot of Star Trek fans were happy with one of the forms of Star Trek we got since that first season. And we gained new fans! How friggin awesome is that?

Yes, I know the haters will double down on the Disco/NuTrek hatred now. Go for it. No one cares except for you.

 

[eschaton]

I wouldn't say Lower Decks has anything to do with Disco at all, except for being greenlit due to its success.

But Strange New Worlds stars three characters from Discovery, including its captain, it features a ship introduced in Discovery, and a bridge set built for Discovery. Plus the first episode is all about the consequences of Discovery's s2 finale and the show deals with the aftermath of the Klingon War in a number of stories.

The one way you can argue that Lower Decks is Discovery-related is that Mike McMahan had to prove his chops with the Short Trek The Escape Artist before Kurtzman let him become a showrunner for his own series.

Under the exact same rationale, since Calypso was also the first thing that Michael Chabon wrote for Trek, you could argue Picard wouldn't have happened if the short wasn't a smashing success.

Indeed, I think it's clear in retrospect that Kurtzman intended for Short Treks to be something of a proving ground for potential concepts for Trek shows, since a lot of the second season was essentially testing the waters for SNW.

 

[Frontis]

I think @alex08060 didn't so much mean a literal spin-off as we know the word, but it opened up the way for more Star Trek on TV. And that is what Discovery did. The people that loved it wanted more, the people that didn't made the producers realise there was demand for more and different Star Trek.

Because people, not all Star Trek needs to be for everyone. We got Star Trek in all kinds of shapes and sizes since Discovery season 1 and you can't win them all, but a lot of Star Trek fans were happy with one of the forms of Star Trek we got since that first season. And we gained new fans! How friggin awesome is that?

Yes, I know the haters will double down on the Disco/NuTrek hatred now. Go for it. No one cares except for you.I gl

Spin off or not. I'm glad they did SNW because I love it while I didn't enjoy DISCO. So if SNW wouldn't have happened without DISCO, it's something good about DISCO

 

[James Cole]

Yes, I know the haters will double down on the Disco/NuTrek hatred now. Go for it. No one cares except for you.

The opposite of loving/hating Star Trek is actually apathy and indifference. Much as anti-NuTrek people have their impressions frozen in place of DISCOVERY seasons 2 or 3 in their heads, very pro-NuTrek people seem to be freezing their impressions of the fan opposition from 2019/2020. Season 4 barely received any coverage, and season 5 was essentially covered as a public service by a few YouTube channels knowing they'd take a loss on it.

Various YouTube commentators have compared the polarizing reception of the latest season (series?) of DOCTOR WHO as well as THE ACOLYTE to DISCOVERY in its earlier stages, predicting that if similar trends continue streaming Star Wars might fall into apathetic indifference from hate watching.

Even Red Letter Media spends a decent portion of their recently dropped Acolyte review talking about reactions to NuTrek.

 

[fireproof78]

So, we're literally stuck in the past?

 

[kirk55555]

When it comes to DISCO overall, my general postmortem opinion is that I just couldn't stand it. Before it came out I didn't believe that Star Trek could make a show I couldn't watch, I even like and enjoy a lot of Voyager and Enterprise, but post season 2 I find DISCO completely unwatchable. Its got nothing I identify as Star Trek in it, its just a terrible drama show focused on the least interesting characters imaginable. Nothing in the story or characters is compelling or even slightly interesting. I have given an earnest attempt to watch Seasons 3-5 over half a dozen times, I can never make it more then an episode or two. There is just nothing there that I find worth watching.

The biggest take away for me is that star Trek should never be a one character show. Even Picard wasn't literally only about Jean-Luc Picard, but Discovery being the Michael Burnham show really hurt it. If you don't find her compelling, and I never did, the show has nothing else for you. All of the shows have underutilized cast members, but even TOS had the main three all getting stuff to do regularly. But with Discovery if you don't like Burnham then you don't like 90% of every episode. Sure Saru, the engineer, the doctor and the annoying ensign had story lines/arcs, but in the end everything comes down to Burnham, she's the center of the shows universe (and I think I mean that literally) and that just did not work for me.

I'm glad that DISCO seemed to convince Paramount to make more (and much better) Star Trek shows, but thats the only thing about DISCO that made it worth while.

 

[Frontis]

Yes there is a lot of hate on some YouTube chanels. I'm not a DSICO fan either but I don't hate it. Hate is a strong word. It's just a tv show.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes there is a lot of hate on some YouTube chanels. I'm not a DSICO fan either but I don't hate it. Hate is a strong word. It's just a tv show.

Exactly.

People let hate linger too long in their hearts over things that they cannot control.

Here's what I do...

 

[Daedalus]

Yes there is a lot of hate on some YouTube chanels. I'm not a DSICO fan either but I don't hate it. Hate is a strong word. It's just a tv show.

The ones that get me is the clickbaity ones with "Star Trek is DEAD" as the title. Actually all franchises get the "IS DEAD" upload now and then, but it's just so damn cringy.

It's not dead, they just don't like it. Just be honest.

 

[Lord Garth]

"STAR TREK IS DEAD," said someone before they took their Road Trip to Woodstock.

After ENT was cancelled in 2005, I knew Star Trek would come back. Sometime around 2011 or 2012, when I heard Star Trek was doing well on Netflix, I knew for sure it was coming back. Though I thought it was going to pick up after 2387 and focus on what happened after Romulus blew up in the Prime Timeline. So, oddly enough, Picard was closer to what I thought we'd get than Discovery.

In Picard Season 1 and Discovery Season 1, I could see the Prestige TV model they were trying to go for back then. In DSC, at first, Lorca seemed a cross between Tony Soprano (he's done some stuff) and Don Draper (he has something to hide). Then Picard Season 3 was the Final TNG Movie I wanted to see. Then there's the rest. Which I still like a lot of and, if that's it for me, it was a great experience.

 

[Daedalus]

Even if it goes off the air now, it'll still live on in books or comics.

In 100 years time there will be a Star Trek something, even if it's just a crudely drawn picture of the Enterprise on the wall of a bunker.

 

[Fateor]

So, we're literally stuck in the past?

If we were stuck in the past Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, and Prodigy wouldn't have been as well received as they were.