I recently saw Star Trek Picard, the first season was okey, season 2 was awful, the season 3 was nice.
Acording some critics last Discovery season is bad, so now I’m afraid of looking a series who has a bad ending, it worth to watch or is as painful as Picard Season 2? Or I should watch Strange New Worlds and Enterprise instead?
You must log in or # to comment.
I very much enjoyed the start but steadily lost interest.
There’s some good stuff in Discovery all the way through, don’t get me wrong. But they kind of flipped the script in a way I did not appreciate.
Most of classic Trek showed us a future with a largely functional society, mostly full of good people who were ready and willing to deal with occasional corruption.
Lots of newer Trek, and especially Discovery, showed us a future where society is largely dysfunctional and corruption is the norm. Almost everyone in the series who isn’t a main character (plus a couple who are) is a piece of shit. Even the “good guys” frequently encourage or at least tolerate clearly evil behavior as long as it serves their ends. But it’s okay because…friendship I guess?!?
Their heart is in the right place but the writing is generally bad. I think this generation of writers is incapable of imagining a better world, which, sure, is understandable, given how thoroughly corrupt our current society is. But it’s deeply depressing. It lacks soul.
SNW is better in this regard. But you’ll probably want to watch season 1 of Discovery first since there’s some crossover.
It’s fine.
And those that disagree should be forced to watch Star Trek: Section 31 until they can have a reasonable conversation like an adult.
Discovery was so bad I had to stop after season 2 and have written off everything that they’ve set in the 31st century
It wasn’t my cup of tea.
My favorite new Trek remains Lower Decks.
I’ve been doing a complete rewatch of Deep Space 9, and it really underscored why I didn’t enjoy Discovery and Picard. My favourite parts of DS9 are the character driven moments, whether they’re big and dramatic, or lightweight and silly. I like that the show has enough space for that. The show has more Plot than previous Star Trek, but that Plot still serves the characters. Discovery is not nearly as bad as Picard on this front, but I still found myself wishing for more opportunity to get to know the characters.
There is an entire season about warp drive not working anywhere in the universe. It turns out that it stopped working because an alien got really sad. Not because he did anything because he was sad, just because he got sad. Ohh, and somehow the Vulcans, with all their logic, never thought of tracking down the cause by triangulation.
That was the end of the series for me.
This, and he wanted connection from someone of his species, and the first officer of the one ship that can overcome the plot debuff happens to be that species, a species we barely see outside this plot…it’s writing so bad you can’t see the show through it. Emotional stories are appropriate, it’s why Troi was a bridge officer. But this show was constantly setting up unsolvable problems that could only be fixed by this one crew, which breaks immersion. Good trek doesn’t have 50 Galaxy or universe ending threats only fixable by plot-armored main characters, it has ship, person, and planet level threats giving you the space to appreciate the human story. Even DS9 kept the stories on missions while the thread of the war was just a hum with reasonable stakes.
I really find this narrative offensive.
First there’s the mischaracterization of a very young and completely dependent who child completely abandoned with the death of the last adult who cared or supported him.
But more than that, Star Trek is littered with a trope about children with incredible powers to interact with the universe who nearly destroy the galaxy or civilizations or large swaths of them.
It started with Charlie X, and was taken up by every other series, sometimes more than once.
On all those other occasions, our hero ship and crew miraculously saved the day and prevented disaster by psychic or superpowered child who was incapable of adult decision-making.
Discovery called the bluff.
Discovery reversed the trope, had the child’s powers actually destroy civilization.
Instead of the hero crew stopping the disaster in the nick of time (again), Discovery finds the child and solves the problem.
And long time fans are offended by THAT?!!
Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn’t actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.
Semi-related but I lost count of the number of times someone on Reddit described Adira’s coming out (a ten second moment in a larger unrelated scene) as a “huge story arc” or being comprised of “multiple episodes” being “shoved in the audiences faces”. I felt like I was taking crazy pills until I learned that’s exactly how the outrage-tubers were presenting it. If you’d never watched the season you’d have no idea it was such an inconsequential moment.
Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn’t actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.
Sorry to say, I watched every single episode, up until the end of that season, myself. I’ll admit to being extra harsh in judging this season since I was already pretty fed up with the writing by that point. I had very little patience left.
I’m sorry, but if you truly watched the entire season, you’d know that your description of the events is incongruous with the events as presented on screen.
I watched all of Discovery. It is, by far, the worst of all Star Treks. (Disclosure: I have not seen TAS.)
The reason is simple: Discovery is really the Michael Burnham show. She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued. Discovery could have been a really great show if it had been an ensemble show because it has a lot of very interesting characters whom we never explore.
Instead, everything centres around Burnham. She is the reason for the war at the start of the show. She is the magical, fated solution. She is Spock’s (adopted) sister and had immeasurable impact on his life. Even through timey-wimey things, her (biological) mother comes to save her and the universe.
And on top of all that is the crying. Oh, gosh, everything is so emotional on this show. There is a time and place for emotions, but Discovery was too much of it, including inappropriate times. Burnham and her maybe-broken-up-boyfriend stop in the middle of an infiltration in a hostile station to talk about their relationship.
Even the really great characters, Saru and (Emperor Georgiou) centre around Burnham. She is like a sister to Saru, she saved his life, he gives up being a Captain to continue serving under her captaincy. Burnham is Georgiou’s daughter (not actually), and Georgiou’s love for her (as much as she can love) changes her.
No one has a story unless its actually about Burnham. Or they get a story and then get killed off.
The best thing about Discovery is it brought Trek back on TV and it gave us the rest of this era of shows.
She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.
For clarity’s sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it’s described on TVTropes:
[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.
I’m curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam’s many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.
I think Picard was worse than Discovery. Discovery had major flaws but there were moments when it really shined. It had some interesting ideas too. It just wasn’t an ensemble show.
Picard is just awful. Mediocre S1-2 that doesn’t know what it’s trying to achieve, and then S3 abandons every plot thread that they bothered to build up in favor of nostalgia baiting and bringing back the Borg, which was very tonally confusing after S2.
The tone is also just bizarrely dire throughout. People complain about Discovery not feeling like Trek, but I had that problem way moreso with Picard. And now it’s this minefield in the canon of the early 25th century that every show that comes after will have to figure out what to do with. At least Discovery going immediately jumping to the far future means it wasn’t able to fuck up the timeline much, and what it did do was cheekily classified.
It’s not my favorite Trek, but I do like Discovery. That said, your summary is 100% accurate and emphasizes my least favorite parts of the show.
I am no fan of Discovery but can you re-read that and substitute another name, like I dunno James T Kirk? Why is it always about him? Why is he so good at everything?
Having a female MC does not make it automatically a Mary Sue. Especially not when they are smacked down constantly, shown making lots of mistakes, and having a character development arc.
The main problem with discovery is they set it basically in the tos timeline which created all these weird plot things that had to be resolved with weirder plot things. I firmly believe if they had set it a decent amount post voyager that it would have made it much better. I don’t want to spoil but I felt season 2 fit better but having such weird start really messed it up for me.
It’s not very good, but it does have some really good moments, and some really good ideas mixed in with the less-good stuff. It’s worth watching. Just put your fingers in your ears and la-la-la through all the Klingon retconning and inappropriate pathos. There are moments where the emotional storyline are good, but they cry wolf too often.
I have an intense distaste for Discovery, and wouldn’t recommend it.
I could rant about it a la Angela Collier for 4 hours but here’s my main issues boiled down to a bulleted list:
Some things I like about Star Trek:
• Optimistic future, humans can create greatness and beauty if they continue to check and overcome their faults
• No black and white villains. All antagonists are given nuance and development and many become favored allies
• Themes of teamwork, a functional ensemble, core crew are all valid and valued, no one star of the show.
• No such thing as magic or gods, everything is in the realm of human understanding if we have sufficient knowledgeGuess what Disovery has?
• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future
• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions
• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode
• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of scienceThen add on some blatant examples of total ignorance for the universe it’s set in, attempts at ham handed fan service by shoe horning in clumsy references to characters from other series, you have a show that is farther from Star Trek than a 14 year old’s submission on IO9. When it actually let the supporting cast do things, they were charming and likable, but Stamets, Saru and Tilly weren’t enough to keep me from getting mad at just about every episode.
If you don’t really care about or know anything about Star Trek it can be entertaining I guess, but why watch it when there’s Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks and The Orville?
The Orville came out at the perfect time. The world was craving a good Trek, and was served Discovery. Orville scratched that decade-long itch, hitting all the right notes (though S1 was a bit rough…)
Similarly with Picard and Lower Decks. Picard was a high-budget fanservice with a thin veneer of storyline. Lower Decks was good old classic Trek fun and shenanigans.
And all the crying… my god, so many tears 🙄
With the soft speaking and camera panning across the bridge to catch everyone’s facial expressions in reaction to Burnham’s 13th motivational speech for the episode.
I agree 100% with this take and want to thank you for that excellent video! I’m not all the way through yet, but I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
• Nihilistic, apocalyptic future
Do you have any examples of the Nihilism? I’m struggling to think of any… In fact Season 3 was about maintaining optimism and faith in the strength of the Federation against unbelievable odds.
• Bad guys that are just bad, they’re evil, don’t ask questions
Khan, Gul Dukat and the Clown from Voyager were all in Discovery?
• One principal star of the show that is the focus of nearly every episode
I agree that there was a main character, but I also enjoy a lot of media with a main character so I don’t see that as a bad thing.
• No attempt to explain things with any veneer of science
I suggest you avoid watching TNG and TOS because they do the same thing!
I don’t have much time to respond so I’m going to just hit one bullet for now:
Are you going to try to argue that Khan and Gul Dukat weren’t given nuance and development? Some of the things that made them such compelling antagonists is that we were given insight into their motives and backgrounds and perspectives. Khan absolutely was nuanced and the persecution and illegality of genetically enhanced humans was a great stepping off point for him. Just about every antagonist that pops up in Star Trek gets some kind of explanation why they are doing the things they are doing, and the crew takes a moment to acknowledge their inherent worth as living beings and, if they’re sentient, discuss possibilities for negotiations or nonviolence. I haven’t forgotten that Klingons, Ferengi, Borg, Cardassians and many others start off as villains, but we are given many opportunities for them to be “humanized” through characters like Worf, Quark, Hugh/Seven, Garak and others. There are no “good” or “bad” aliens in Star Trek.
So keeping that in mind, how did things go with the Ba’Ul? How did they handle Control? What nuance was Lorca given? In Discovery, your first impression of a bad guy being bad is always correct.
You didn’t say Discovery villains didn’t “have nuance and development”. So no, I didn’t say that either.
Gul Dukat
Maybe you drew too fast shot yourself in the foot?
Gul Dukat is arguably the most wellformed villain in ST canon. He is a delusional maniac pursuing a twisted vision of greatness. He even works alongside our heroes for a time!
Can I offer you an Armus instead?
I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!
It’s a romantic comedy. Not science fiction. I lost it at the musical. Musicals are what happens when writers have no ideas.
Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise
They’re also completely absent from Discovery…
OMG you’re so right.
Honestly I’m so used to hearing the same tired old arguments I didn’t even process that.
Naw it’s a journey. I accepted discovery like I did voyager. Once I saw what it was in it own, much better. Second watch got better, just like voyager.
The central character of the show is the least interesting person on it somehow despite having what could have been a good back story.
Everyone else seems to be some sort of real person to me. She is just so boring and flat and everything revolves around her for no real reason. Her purpose seems to be to be the fence post that stands there and eventually cries.
The best thing about the show was it gave us Anson Mount as Pike and he is outstanding. He was so good as Pike we got SNW as a spinoff.
No. Far from it. The First half of the first season sucks, second half gets better, Second Season is really watchable, third season is where it grows it’s beard.
I couldn’t make it through the first season and tried picking up season 2 to see if it improved any. Didn’t watch anything past that.
It was written by people who didn’t have a good grasp on what star trek was, or thought they could remake it better for a new generation. But they ended up making something that just leaves a sour taste in your mouth if you know what that setting is capable of being.
To me, STD and the first season or so of Picard feel exactly like when a video game you thoroughly enjoy gets adapted into movie. There’s recognizable elements there, but nobody is acting the way they should and everything has that uncanny valley affect where you know what it’s supposed to be but it’s clearly failing to do it convincingly. It’s hard to point to what is actually wrong but you know several elements are off.
Protip: “STD” is not the official abbreviation for Discovery, it’s “DSC”. If you call it “STD” people are going to assume you watch those outrage bait youtubers who complained about how Discovery was “too woke”.
It’s fine. It’s probably the weakest of the modern Trek shows, but only because SNW and LDS are so good.
