Discovery Renewed for Season 5

[Procstar]

I've watched the first three seasons of Discovery and while it isn't my favorite Trek it's not bad and doesn't deserve the hate it gets.

I kind of agree as well. It was kind of daring as a production since it was the first small-screen return of Star Trek post-Berman.

I thought Season 3 was a big improvement overall because of the setting change. That time skip also allowed Michael to change herself up a lot, going from a stoic Vulcan-like figure to...well...somebody more human.

[Frustration]

I've watched the first three seasons of Discovery and while it isn't my favorite Trek it's not bad

Yes, it is. It's full of contrivances, poorly-considered 'magic' technology, soap-opera-style 'drama', and an extreme emphasis on eye-catching special effects rather than quality writing.

There are lots of things that people like yet don't match my personal tastes. They're not bad, even though I dislike them. Star Trek Discovery IS bad, and anyone saying otherwise is disregarding even the most basic principles of what makes for good stories.

[sayla0079]

I'm not going to argue with you on this so we can agree to disagree.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I can't wait to see what other mystical powers the Klingons are capable of.

[Frustration]

we can agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that!

[Frustration]

Look, I think part of the problem here is a confusion between whether or not you like the show and whether or not it is bad.

"I find the show quite likeable" is a subjective judgment of your own, and can't be argued against. Or, for. The statement carries no objective truth content at all, and has no implications that are really relevant to others.

"The show is good/bad" is a statement about objective reality, can be demonstrated to be correct or incorrect, and has tremendous implications.

I don't care whether you like the show. It IS a bad, terrible show, poorly written and plotted, and you must acknowledge this. Period. Once that's done we can discuss why you enjoy trash.

[Thebestoftherest]

No, I think that entertainment is good or bad is equally subjective.

[Mabus]

Look, I think part of the problem here is a confusion between whether or not you like the show and whether or not it is bad.

"I find the show quite likeable" is a subjective judgment of your own, and can't be argued against. Or, for. The statement carries no objective truth content at all, and has no implications that are really relevant to others.

"The show is good/bad" is a statement about objective reality, can be demonstrated to be correct or incorrect, and has tremendous implications.

I don't care whether you like the show. It IS a bad, terrible show, poorly written and plotted, and you must acknowledge this. Period. Once that's done we can discuss why you enjoy trash.

I pretty much have the same opinion. I don't care much if people love a bad show or hate a good show. If you really like a show you shouldn't be scared by the fact that many others dislike it, since you don't always like a show because almost everything about it is good, hell sometimes a bad show can have just one good element and that's sometimes enough for people to like that show. I think people sometimes mix up "entertaining" with "clever".

There isn't a "correct way" of watching a show. Some shows or films are beloved because they're so bad they're good, some (like Oscar baits) are good but most will not bother rewatching them ever again, others are just entertaining popcorn with zero substance, while some are really bad but for some reason people will love them for unique reasons (I for one love a lot of bad and really bad B movies that I watched as a kid, mainly for nostalgic reasons, when you have just a few TV channels for many years, you don't have much to choose from).

A show being bad or good is entirely based on its story, plot, acting, dialogue, character development, editing, camera work, soundtrack, neither which can be subjective, unless you don't understand what the terms "storytelling" or "filmmaking" mean. There's no way you can call films like "The Room", "Battlefield Earth", "Suicide Squad", "Jack and Jill" or even "After Earth" good films, since none of these films have any good plot, acting, dialogue or outstanding camera work.

[Frustration]

I sometimes find myself liking media that don't even try to "make sense", but the line between acceptable and unacceptable nonsense is so specific to each person that there really isn't any way to argue the point, merely to note whether approval of a given product is more or less accepted by people as a group.

There are times I've encountered media that leave me indifferent, that totally fail to engage me, that I can still recognize as having quality and that I can understand why others can like or even love it. The "Mad Max: Fury Road" movie is a good example. I like my stories to create the sense that they could be real, even if only in an alternative universe different from our own, which the original Mad Max movies did but Fury Road doesn't. Yet I also enjoy Lexx, which is absurd and totally ignores verisimilitude in the same way Fury Road does. The reasons are very complex and not fully understandable by me, and certainly not by others.

But Fury Road isn't a bad movie. It is in fact a very good movie, good as a piece of art; I just don't care for it.

Star Trek has always been a mix of good and bad, as is generally the case with products with many creators attempting many different things, and generally the risk of trying something that doesn't work is worth the chance of success. I've even found things to like in, say, the first two seasons of TNG, which had horrible spots but also redeeming qualities.

I can't find anything worth liking in DSC that makes its endless failures worth tolerating. I can't even really find anything worth liking in itself.

[sayla0079]

That's fair. I didn't say Discovery was my favorite Trek (That Honor goes to DS9) just that while it has problems I don't see many of the complaints people have had online minus the Klingons.