Definitely. Love individual episodes of TNG, but I’d much prefer an average Disco episode over an average TNG episode.
Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Definitely. Love individual episodes of TNG, but I’d much prefer an average Disco episode over an average TNG episode.
Shocked Haskell GIF - Shocked Haskell Star Trek - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
tenor.com
100% agreed.
They had 2 great actresses. Sonequa and Michelle.
I'd watch them anytime.
But DISCO did not have a point. Any great ST always begins with a point. TOS, TAS, TNG (my favourite thanks to Pic and Data), DS9, VOY...even ENT.
Lower Decks is excellent.
But DISCO? What exactly were they trying to do?
I'd watch them anytime.
But DISCO did not have a point. Any great ST always begins with a point. TOS, TAS, TNG (my favourite thanks to Pic and Data), DS9, VOY...even ENT.
Lower Decks is excellent.
But DISCO? What exactly were they trying to do?
Generally agreed, except I'm not sure Martin-Green can do much more than crying, looking as if she's about to cry and/or shaking her head in disbelief. She did that *a lot* and it became old quickly.
Tell Michael's story.
Quite an enjoyable one of her going from traumatized individual to successful Starfleet officers.
I’m rewatching Disco Season One, and I just got to the point they jump to the mirror universe. And I’m liking it a lot better this time.
For one thing, the episodes move at a lightning pace. Early on they were cramming as much plot into each 45 minute episode as they were stretching out to three episodes by the final season.
I don’t like all their choices (Klingon character and ship designs, for example are never going to work for me) but at least they were trying to do something different, something besides serve a giant Picard Season Three sized dish of memberberries.
For one thing, the episodes move at a lightning pace. Early on they were cramming as much plot into each 45 minute episode as they were stretching out to three episodes by the final season.
I don’t like all their choices (Klingon character and ship designs, for example are never going to work for me) but at least they were trying to do something different, something besides serve a giant Picard Season Three sized dish of memberberries.
The scripts in that first season were a lot tighter than in subsequent years. I think the writers still had that discipline of network TV pacing guiding them, which started going to seed a bit as the era of streaming changed things.
I finished season one the other day. As the season went on, it got progressively less satisfying for me. And the two-episode wrap-up was a staggering disappointment.
On to Season Two!
On to Season Two!
So much so that they forgot to tell anything about the rest of the crew!
I watch shows to enjoy them, not be the sponge for trauma dumping.
My honest opinion concerning DISCO?
Eh. It was okay. Season one was... rather meh, because everyone hated each others guts, but the show got better.
Eh. It was okay. Season one was... rather meh, because everyone hated each others guts, but the show got better.
Hardly. Rewatched SEASON 3 band Saru, Detmer and Culber all get good stories. Saru us excellent, Detmer is one of my favorites and Culber did pretty good.
Star Trek is full of trauma. That's a huge chunk of Sisko's story, especially early on. Not sure why Michael's story hits differently but it felt similar to the way other characters stories were told in Trek before. I didn't think it was trauma dumping but progression.
Just finished a season 3 rewatch for a project I'm working on and I couldn't agree more. Detmer's PTSD story in season 3 was engaging and Saru and Culber's story with Su'Kal was quite touching. People who say nonsensical things like "nobody else got to do anything" or my favorite, "all Burnham ever does is cry", are said by people who clearly didn't watch the show or have an agenda against it and so their opinions are useless and mean nothing to me.Hardly. Rewatched SEASON 3 band Saru, Detmer and Culber all get good stories. Saru us excellent, Detmer is one of my favorites and Culber did pretty good.
Star Trek is full of trauma. That's a huge chunk of Sisko's story, especially early on. Not sure why Michael's story hits differently but it felt similar to the way other characters stories were told in Trek before. I didn't think it was trauma dumping but progression.
Last edited:
It's quite confusing at times to me though. I get being biased against a show but at the same time I've seen Trek fans meticulously research something to prove a pop culture assumption is not true.
Man, Discovery really ruined something somehow, amirite?
Yes.Man, Discovery really ruined something somehow, amirite?
Now if only we could define the something and the somehow.
This sounds like a job for...
Detective Pikachu!
Oh, wait, I just realized in order for something to be ruined it has to be unsalvageable. And, well, my watching Star Trek on VHS continues on unabated despite this ruination of the highest order.
I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer this post, because I've only seen the first three seasons of DSC, and have little interest in watching the rest, which I've never felt about a Trek show since ENT (still haven't seen season 3.) I felt that the show just logically ended after S3, and that there was really no need to continue on, and that they should have just left the 32nd century 'rebuilding' to the audience's imagination.
I will say this: I initially did like season 1. I never drank the CBSAA Kool-Aid and not once ever thought the show was a legit 10-years-before prequel to TOS, because I was already aware that the only reason CBS made the distinction that the show was in the 'prime' universe was to differentiate it from the Abrams films, and they didn't want the audience to be confused into thinking their new show took place in the same universe as the KT. But judging DSC as just a stand-alone show/reboot of Star Trek, it was just fine. Even the Klingons and their ships, which I thought were absolutely stupid-looking, didn't stop me from watching the show. I even bought the Blurays of season 1 (which are now gathering dust in my closet and will soon be going on eBay.)
Then season 2 happened, and I initially was looking forward to it, based on the rumors that Pike, Spock and the Enterprise (which was seen at the very end of S1) would feature prominently. But then they went overboard with the stupid Section 31 and Emperor Georgiou crap, Spock acting out of character, the show revolving more and more around Burnham (whom I was starting to dislike) to the detriment of the rest of the cast, and the whole religious undertones with the Red Angel and Pike's Christianity, and that was the start of the turn-off for me. Honestly, if the show didn't switch gears and change its format to the 32nd century, I probably would have stopped watching after season 2. But the new premise intrigued me, and I will say that I initially enjoyed season 3. But by the end, I felt that the story was finished. However, CBS felt different, and dragged the show on for two more pointless seasons.
I will say this: I initially did like season 1. I never drank the CBSAA Kool-Aid and not once ever thought the show was a legit 10-years-before prequel to TOS, because I was already aware that the only reason CBS made the distinction that the show was in the 'prime' universe was to differentiate it from the Abrams films, and they didn't want the audience to be confused into thinking their new show took place in the same universe as the KT. But judging DSC as just a stand-alone show/reboot of Star Trek, it was just fine. Even the Klingons and their ships, which I thought were absolutely stupid-looking, didn't stop me from watching the show. I even bought the Blurays of season 1 (which are now gathering dust in my closet and will soon be going on eBay.)
Then season 2 happened, and I initially was looking forward to it, based on the rumors that Pike, Spock and the Enterprise (which was seen at the very end of S1) would feature prominently. But then they went overboard with the stupid Section 31 and Emperor Georgiou crap, Spock acting out of character, the show revolving more and more around Burnham (whom I was starting to dislike) to the detriment of the rest of the cast, and the whole religious undertones with the Red Angel and Pike's Christianity, and that was the start of the turn-off for me. Honestly, if the show didn't switch gears and change its format to the 32nd century, I probably would have stopped watching after season 2. But the new premise intrigued me, and I will say that I initially enjoyed season 3. But by the end, I felt that the story was finished. However, CBS felt different, and dragged the show on for two more pointless seasons.
