Star Trek Discovery: The Vulcan Hello

[J!!]

The show is fine as a show. But it doesn't feel like Star Trek at all.

TNG didn't 'feel' like TOS either, nor did DS9 'feel' like TNG. Both shows worked to establish their own unique identities, separate and distinct from what had come before, and that's what made them so memorable.

Voyager & Enterprise didn't do that, they continued on in the shadow of their predecessors. And both were characterized by laziness and mediocrity.


The funny thing is that much of the criticism against Discovery is not new.

Mad about revamping the Klingons? Well they revamped them in the 80s too, and fans spent decades bitching about it. And while I'd agree that they went a bit overboard, this time is a much smaller change from the previous one.

Too dark & to gritty? Doesn't 'feel like' or doesn't 'get' what Star Trek is about? They said the same about DS9.

And as for TNG, well, just give this a read.



I think that fans have this bad habit of fixating on a sort of 'platonic ideal', which they construct in their own heads. And then when they see something new, they judge it by how closely it resembles said ideal. Risks, creativity, and innovation are all punished as some sort of betrayal, while safe, predictable, familiarity becomes lauded as the highest aspirational goal.

When you do that, you end up ignoring the thing for what it actually is; the actual strengths and flaws of the work, all of its actual triumphs and failures, all ignored.


I'm not saying that anyone here has to like Discovery, but can we at least try to do it the decency of judging it on its own merits? Maybe acknowledge its successes, and criticize actual flaws, rather than simplistically screaming "THEY CHANGED IT, NOW IT SUCKS!"?

And maybe, just maybe, can we at least agree that regardless of how it turns out, it's good for creators to take risks and try new things?

Maybe?

Please?

[Admiral X]

I think at least part of the reason people are harping on it for changing things is because the people running the show have been constantly saying in interviews that everything is supposed to lead up to TOS. Kind of like how Abrams said in an interview that you can't change something as iconic as the Enterprise and then proceeded to change it.

[Ghostdraconi]

And as for TNG, well, just give this a read.

Thanks for that article, I find it funny everyone thought Geordi was going to replace Spock.

As for Discovery, I found the Klingons more tedious than I usually do, especially since they seem to have trouble speaking under all that makeup. I can't speak for anyone else but my biggest disappointment with the show is that it doesn't really live up to what its name promised.

[Sir Will]

Ah yes, the old DS9 defense. This has nothing on DS9. DS9 could go to darker places and still be Trek. This is not the same. DS9 made a Ferengi bartender likable. Discovery's main character is insufferable. The Orville is Star Trek.

[J!!]

Care to elaborate on any of that?

[J!!]

And really, it was much more of an observation than a defense.

[WhiteDragon25]

Oh man, I have been waiting for this review. I hope Chuck absolutely rips it to shreds, because STD truly is a most terrible insult to virtually everything what Star Trek is and stands for. No Star Trek fan should tolerate such a slap in the face, least of all Chuck, whose very career has been built around it.

Care to elaborate?

Virtually everything about it is wrong on multiple levels: the design of the Klingons, being touted as a TOS-prequel despite having none of TOS's aesthetics, the continuing use of lens-flares and dutch-angles, the pitiful attempts at being 'dark and edgy', the literally dark lighting of the sets, the Shenzhou characters being utterly bland and forgettable (especially true since THEY ALL DIE IN THE SECOND EPISODE ANYWAYS), the fact we don't even see the titular USS Discovery until the third episode (which is impossible to view anyways since STD is only available on CBS All Access), the mere fact that CBS insipidly decided to use STD as their flagship attempt to launch their shitty Hulu/Netflix knockoff, the stupidity and incompetence of all the Starfleet characters (especially Michael Burnham, who should've been executed for attempted mutiny), and hell, Michael Burnham's very existence as a character, since she is a near-literal copy of the original Mary Sue. I mean, really? She's the adopted sister of Spock that we never knew about!? Remember the last time we had a sibling of Spock appear out of nowhere? We got Sybok from The Final Frontier.

And there's about a billion different continuity errors that would take forever to list fully. CBS pretty much made no attempt to make actually fit into Trek canon, while having the gall to think that the fans will flock to it anyways just from the mere mention of "tribbles". It's like they only have a cargo cult understanding of Star Trek, doing everything to copy the popular iconography without understand why and how they became popular.

Here's the link to the main thread over on SB: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... rt.362384/ Actual discussion of the episodes themselves starts on page 187 onward (as that's when the show itself premiered back in September of last year). You will find that a lot of people were extremely displeased with the final product.

TL;DR: STD is an utter flaming dumpster fire of a Star Trek show, and I hope Chuck rips it a new asshole.

[Ikiry0]

I'm really not a fan of it myself but I'll try to avoid talking about 'It's not star trek' or such. I feel like it's just...well, it's a miserable show I have a hard time enjoying. It very rarely feels like the stakes mean anything and very few characters are likeable in it. The autistic character is a painful stereotype to watch (Though being autistic myself I tend to get really irked about such portrayals). The Sporp Drive also has come of the most comically bad technobabble about, which is an issue as it's a very important recurring plot device so it comes up a LOT.

The lighting is rarely much good (To the point where Captain Jackass comments on it in-universe) which makes scenes rather indistinct a lot of the time and the Klingons are painfully dull to watch, especially when we are just watching subtitles.

[SiskosMuthaFknPmphnd]

Here's the link to the main thread over on SB: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... rt.362384/ Actual discussion of the episodes themselves starts on page 187 onward (as that's when the show itself premiered back in September of last year). You will find that a lot of people were extremely displeased with the final product.

187 pages of people complaining about the show before they ever saw it? Yeah, sounds like an completely objective discussion to me.

The Sporp Drive also has come of the most comically bad technobabble about, which is an issue as it's a very important recurring plot device so it comes up a LOT.

Like a virus that can not only infect an android but also get him drunk? Like giant space amoebas? Like shooting the event horizon of a black hole to open it up so you can escape? Like an alien that can send you to the far reaches of the universe powered only by creepy pedophilic thoughts? Like a virus that "de-evolves" people into spiders and fish and cavemen? Like a virus that grows to huge sizes so you can shoot it with a phaser? Like literal god beings that transcend normal laws of physics just by snapping their fingers?? An engine that can go infinity miles per hour and turns you into a salamander for no apparent reason???

This just fits in so well with established Star Trek silliness.

[Winter]

As someone who didn't really care for Star Wars: The Last Jedi yet also has a soft spot for The Star Wars Prequels though I admit that they are flawed, I get why a lot of fans don't seem to care for STD, (okay seriously no one caught what that while making the show? Let's talk about STD. What! I thought we were going to talk about Star Trek!) even though I personally like it, despite its flaws.

On the one hand I think there is way to much action in the show. Yes Trek has always had action but I think what Trek is, in the mind of pop culture, is a more intellectual series that has characters solving problems by talking it out whenever possible as the characters try not to killing their adversaries. They don't try very hard, but they do try.

I also feel that the first couple of episodes move a bit to fast. Even the quite moments seem to be ridiculously fast paced which means there's almost no chance to breath and take in what we're seeing.

However, I like the characters, Michael is off to a much better start then Picard, Janeway or Archer as, unlike the three of them, she actually has to pay for her mistakes instead of the show just sweeping it under the rug to make the characters look better. Also the sets are fantastic and I love the music and while there's a little to much action it's still good action.

Also I'm surprised that Chuck didn't point out how Georgiou and Michael say F the Prime Directed we're doing what's right insterad of just letting a entire race die simply because some rule says we should. It would be hilarious if the writes actually saw Chuck's reviews and went, "Huh, you know, he's got a point."

And in regards the overall quality of the show, let's be honest the first season for most of Trek is usually the worst, the one exception is TOS but TNG's first season is s#!t, Voyager and Enterprise are just as bad if not worst and DS9's first season is a mixed bag. So I say give it time, let's wait for the next couple of seasons and then lets see how the series holds up to the rest.

But that's just me, and I'm just a viewer with an opinion.