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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

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 knowledge

Guess 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 science

Then 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?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    • 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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's a romantic comedy. Not science fiction. I lost it at the musical. Musicals are what happens when writers have no ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments