I agree with almost all of that, except for one detail: Her betrayal didn't actually start the war. Her crew STOPPED her betrayal before she could execute it. Everyone (including her) blamed her for the war, but what none of them knew (only we knew, because we saw his speech) was that T'Kuvma had almost persuaded the other Klingon houses that Starfleet's peaceful outreach was an existential threat to their culture. And then Giorgio reached out in peace, which to those Klingons' minds proved T'Kuvma right. THAT is what started the war. That war was inevitable. The only thing that could've prevented it, ironically, would be if Burnham had *succeeded* in betraying Starfleet and fired on the Klingons. If she'd done that, the other houses may have destroyed the Shenzhou, but they would have also thought T'Kuvma was clearly wrong about Starfleet trying to rob them of their warrior culture, and they wouldn't have united in that jihad against it. Also, some supposition here: I think they hinted at the reason why Klingons look different in DISC. It may not be that it's "just a show." They briefly mentioned an "augment district" in the finale. It's easy to imagine, from that alone, that years after the augment virus was spread throughout the empire, they could have tried using genetic engineering to restore themselves to their original nature. Could be they went a little too far back into their genetic history, causing them to become the sort of Klingon that existed thousands of years earlier, or longer. Since augments exist, I'm guessing there's going to be a power struggle, and the augments will prevail by the end of the series, explaining why the TOS Klingons looked as they did. Maybe in the years following TOS, Klingon science finally gets it right and restores Klingons to the way they were in "Broken Bow" just in time for The Motion Picture.
Starfleet at the time had no idea how to deal with Klingons. Which is odd, considering the Vulcans are a part of Starfleet and apparently knew how to deal with them. Perhaps its the human influence in Starfleet that decided to ignore history, and think everyone is capable of being as enlightened as they are and never really comprehending the concept that a culture can thrive on war. At this point Starfleet seems far too comfortable with itself, thinking itself safe and powerful enough to protect the Federation - and the Klingons see this as a weakness to be exploited. There is no way the war wasn't happening at that point. Only a decisive action would have delayed it - destroying the Klingon invaders in Federation space and telling the other Klingons to remember what happens when Federation space is intruded upon by hostile forces. Alas that didn't happen, and it took planting a bomb on their home to halt hostilities - which is by far worse of a solution then simply firing at Klingons on sight as the Vulcans did.
The problem for me with the "Shoot them on sight" solution is that Sarek is the one who drops that bit of wisdom. Why it bothers me is remember the episode Journey to Babel? One of the plot threads through that episode was Sarek shitting all over Spock. Not because Spock had any particular failing. Or the Abrams Trek style "Because he's an inferior half human" or something. But because Spock was part of a military organization. That he loathed the militant nature of Star Fleet. That he saw their starships and weapons as a thuggish, backwards way that was an impediment to peace, prosperity, and advancement. A perversion of everything Vulcans stood for. That's why that bit annoys me as a Trek fan. Because it takes what was well established and goes 180 from it. Both in the culture of Vulcans as we know it, and in Sarek in particular. Not that STD is really terrible or anything. But there's stuff like that which is such an out of nowhere retcon that it comes off confusing more than clever. Of course the interview with the writers about WHY they did that made it worse... but that's a different kettle of fish.
I think it's an original idea, to say the least, that the main long-range propulsion system of Discovery is _a dude high on magic mushrooms in a shower cabin_ .
Ever since the first time I compared any TOS episode to a TOS movie, I have just dismissed all changes in appearance as production value. I even applied that to Enterprise. The TNG Klingons are likely to always be my favorite, but I have no problem assuming that what Kirk saw on the viewscreen when he spoke to a Klingon is whatever the most recent onscreen version of a Klingon is. It really amazes me how many sci-fi fans seem to just lack imagination.
I just finished the first season. I like it a lot... But I hate the Lorca twist. Not that it wasn’t done well, nor that the character wasn’t acted superbly, but that they invalidated and threw away *all* of the character development they put into Lorca. I _liked_ there being a Starfleet captain with a dark side. We had a guy who went too far, had maybe been damaged, who genuinely did care even if it was twisted. Instead, we get a generic heel turn. None of the character mattered at all. Oh, he’s just a bad guy, it was all bullshit, none of the emotion or tension or arc were real. He made it all up somehow. It might as well have been “all a dream”. I did like it otherwise.
That my opinion as well, the first season of discovery is fine, it's no where near as bad as most people make it out to be But they really messed up Lorca
Changing the Klingons after only a handful of original series episodes is in no way the same thing as changing them much more dramatically after they have remained constant for hundreds of episodes across four different shows.
leoploriodon & @barbaramcgee Alternate universes are a definite thing in Star Trek since the get-go. Stop holding on to, "canon" when the whole series itself can change on a whim by ANY entity from the future/ with control of probabilities and time, a la The Guardian of Forever (TOS) Lt. Daniels (Ent) & Q (TNG). I LOVE THIS SHOW BUT IT AIN'T REAL. Like ALL OTHER iterations of the show, let the first season find its footing and THEN cast judgement AFTER they finally explain all of the plot holes we're missing.
True. I remember the outcry at the look of the Klingons for The Motion Picture. Then the idea grew on fans and including Worf in TNG and DS9 cemented that. Even Worf's throwaway line in 'Trials and Tribbleations' about the look of the Klingons without their ridges was a nice nod and then Enterprise went further with that back story. I remember reading somewhere that ridged and non-ridged Klingons are from two distinct areas of Qo'Nos, Northern Klingons and Southern Klingons. The Discovery Klingons is a move too far. And for any one bleating on about parallel universes or alternate realities, I could forgive the new Klingons in a Kelvin timeline. I could forgive the level of technology in the Kelvin timeline. But the producers did say it was set between Enterprise and TOS in the original timeline.
The Klingons are not that different from prior series of Star Trek. DIS has a greater budget than prior series of Trek, and honestly I am glad they have updated the Klingons (again). The Klingons from TMP onwards were able to be presented in a way that made them look alien which the Klingons from TOS was not able to realise because of budget constraints and because the Klingons were not fleshed out at that point. What Discovery has done with the Klingon is to build on the established ideas of the Klingons by adding layers of depth that are in continuity with the Klingons from TMP to ENT that could not be realised before, and it was done in two ways. First, the Klingons look like alien life form that evolved in a very different environment than we did, which is something the limited cosmetic budget could not always do from TMP to ENT. Whereas humans are essentially omnivorous scavengers, the Klingons are carnivorous apex predators. Second, the Klingons of DIS feel like a diverse people with each of the great houses having their own unique culture, whereas the Klingons from TMP to ENT were often presented rather homogeneously. There is great diversity among the seven billion people on our planet, so imagine the diversity that must exist for Klingons who have an interstellar empire. My favourite non-main cast Klingons, General Chang, Martok, and T'Kuvma are my favourites because they present Klingons as being something both familiar and alien, as aliens in Trek ought to do, rather than be the two dimensional caricatures that bad and lazy writing often reduce the Klingons to being space vikings, which was happening towards the end of ENT.
Barbara McGee, they didn't really change Klingon culture. T'Kuvma was the leader of a movement who, in the show's canon, was trying to break away from certain aspects of traditional Klingon systems, while still maintaining an honour system that suited him and his group, so obviously they're not going to act exactly like how other Klingons have in the TNG era. That's not a reflection of the entire Klingon race, since the rest pretty much act like Klingons regularly have. It's a reflection on how T'Kuvma is different than what we're used to given his faith--which is made pretty clear from the get-go. Also, remember in TOS, none of those Klingons went on about honour, glory, it being a good day to die or anything that the movies and TNG-era Klingons went on about. Matter of fact, they were shown and referred to as being sneaky, untrustworthy liars and manipulators in the early days (more like how the Romulans would be later), many of whom couldn't fight, and were extremely dishonourable. Also, sometimes in DS9 and many times on Enterprise, they went so far with everything, made them so stupid and brutish, that ya had to wonder how this group of morons ever got into space without annihilating themselves in the process. So dialing back on certain things was probably for the best. Though I do think their new look is both hideous and completely wrong-headed. I really wish they'd kept things like the wild hair and beards to make them more recognisable.
My main problem with Discovery (except the Klingons) is something I think I see more and more in American shows, they want us to care more about the characters than we (I) do. Burnham and Tyler, yeah, that's crap but they just got together like a couple of episodes ago. Lorca being from the Mirror Universe. Yeah, sorry, not a Darth Vader is Luke's father chocker. And it's weird because we cared a whole lot more for Luke after just two movies. In Discovery they've had 15 episodes and I still don't really care if they make the jump into the cave on Kronos or not.
One thought: Klingons were always an aggressive race BUT there where also laughing and having fun (in their way). I can not imagine this discovery-klingons to do the same from the way they were presented in the show. So they did not only change the look and made them like reptiles (like the cardassians?) They also changed their aura. I can not image general martok joking with sisqo in ds9 with this klingons🤦🏻♂️😂
Remember: most of the Klingons you see in Season 1 are religious zealots, not your average Klingon. When we see the home world, you see Klingons laughing and play fighting a lot. In Season 2, we see more traditional behaviour with the politics and backstabbing and laughing off injuries. It would be like comparing ISIS to the Vikings in terms of what humans be can. Klingons are varied too, which is part of their rich culture. Saying they all have to act like Martok, a Klingon from 100 years later after a stabilised Empire and long term peace with the Federation is... not good? If you met an American from 100 years ago they'd be shocked at your behaviour, and that's our own species and supposedly the same culture!
Star Trek truly changed during the 4th season of Star Trek: Enterprise. The franchise became mired in what I call, "nostalgia mining" and it's carried over into Discovery. "Look! We're at war with the Klingons! Look! A tribble! Look! Harry Mudd! Look! We're in the Mirror Universe!" And that's what this show leans on heavily. Star Trek has been looking backwards since 2001 and it's no longer about the future and forging a new universe but playing safely in its own backyard. And more that that it's ACTION, ACTION, ACTION. Star Trek wasn't non-stop action as a series. We had quiet, thoughtful episodes like "The Measure of a Man" or "The Inner Light". Will we see any of this during the run of this series? Probably not.
and the science? that spore drive become a slap in the face of may biologist, botanist, and astro phycist. star trek tradition is to inspire...not downright using bollocks term in science and uses it....in hillariously stupid usage
Please, season 4-7 of DS9 was pretty much one war after the other. Klingon War, Dominion war, federation luring in the romulans. And if they didn't have that soft reboot of DS9 with Way of the Warrior, no way it would've made it to 7 seasons. There's only so much of the Bajorn political/religious intrigue people can take before switching off entirely (seriously, Seasons 1 and 2 were like the Phantom Menace if they stretched out the political scenes across 52 episodes). And pretty much all Voyager's important episodes were fighting the Borg in later seasons, and the one where they sent the doctor across the galaxy? It's final big moment, battle with the Romulans. The TNG episode widely considered the best, Best of Both Worlds? About battle and war. Loootta nostalgia goggles people wearing when it comes to 90's trek. And playing the nostalgia card? TNG having Mccoy in it's first episode, bringing back Spock and Scotty. DS9 literally having an episode set on the Enterprise and gushing over it the whole time.
josh I think there needs to be a happy medium. I don't want it to be as episodic as TOS, but maybe have subplots that kinda contribute to the larger plot, like the Pahvo away mission. I saw an interview with the showrunner of DIS, and he said that they want to do more of that in season 2.
I like this format. But yeah, It hinders re-watching episodes on their own. Perhaps they should take a lesson from Season 4 of Enterprise 2-3 episode arcs that stand together while moving the larger arc forward.
Idk. I'm a huge Trek fan... loved TNG's episodic format but... as a teen watching DS9, its more serialized story in season 4 and beyond was fantastic. Amazing storytelling during the Dominion War. Discovery is even more serialized but, I don't think it's terrible, it's actually really engaging. Ok so, full disclosure, I binged the whole season after every episode was available on CBS all access, so I binged over 3 nights. Discovery lends itself very well to binge sessions. It's 2018 and it's refreshing to watch a sci-fi show not reset at the end of an episode. But, that's kinda how TV has been the last few years... Which is fine. Shit evolves to suit the current audience. Honestly, that didn't sit well with me at first. The first few episodes left me frustrated as a Trek fan. But then shit got real and the plot took off... I was hooked and HAD to watch the next episode... of course that's a huge departure from the Trek I grew up with... and it's probably the best thing to happen to Trek in the last few years. I got so attached to the characters that every little twist left me wanting to watch more to see how everyone reacted. Is it 100% in line with Roddenberry's original vision of Trek? No. But growing up watching his vision and learning to live in the real world, I grew to understand the world is more complex than the utopian vision of the Federation. Learning for myself the complexities of the real world, I've come to understand the Federation would also be equally complex. So Discovery succeeds on that front and, also gets bonus points for the hope the final episodes provide in reaching that perfect utopia that the Federation promises. All in all, I've enjoyed this 21st century take on Roddenberry's vision of a perfect 23rd century. Am I rambling? Probably. I'm intoxicated and watching Trek videos on YT... bite me, this post is my opinion...
I agree with you 100% I have caught living hell from other Trek fans when I say don't mind retcons in Star Trek...Discovery included! Some fans are Continuity and Canon zealots! I never bought into the explanation to why Klingons didn't have ridges in TOS. For over 30 years we didn't need an explanation for the retcon of the Klingons and I pretty much ignore the explanation and use my imagination and believe Klingons have always had ridges. People seem to forget the Klingons were retconned twice. In the motion picture the Klingons had one singular spine ridge on top of their heads and wouldn't get the more traditional turtle head look until Search for Spock and then TNG. So I'm used to retcons and I also love the effects in Discovery , I'm a special effects junkie, and will now imagine this is how everything always looked.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. This show more or less created that level of complaining among fans, and it will probably always foster it. A small group of fans will grow out of it, but most won't. But it's no big deal, really.
I actually liked Worf's throwaway line "we don't discuss it with outsiders". Star Trek recognizes that Klingons in that period looked different, but states that we don't need any explanation. Until that point I always just assumed it was the budget of TOS and that they always looked that. The ENT story that showed how they became smoothheaded was basically fanservice of highest quality. Not a story we needed, but one that put together multiple points of Trek. And about different klingon ridges I always assumed it's maybe a family trait just how there are different looking humans. Some are darker some are lighter, some are longer some are shorter, some have big noses and some have small noses etc. Why can't it be the same with Klingons, some might have one ridge, some might have more, some are spiky and some more bulbuous, etc. Maybe the ones we see in DIS are just from a certain region or clan that look like that, just like the ones we see in TMP are from a different clan etc. Power shifts cause different houses to be representative at different times. Same for the federation asthetics. If I assume it's not the actual things we see but a recording, basically a documentary from a point later in time, they might have unreliable sources.
In my opinion, the Klingons had so much culture, so much personality, and such an iconic look, that tossing it all away for redesign was like taking 15 steps back for the series. In the original show, the Klingons only had 3 episodes. But over the course of TNG, VOY, DS9 and even ENT, countless hours were spent fleshing out the Klingons. At that point, a "rebooting" them would just do far more harm then good. It's hard to watch a old Klingon episode now because of the stark differences. Can you even imagine Star Trek VI with the Klingons in the new makeup? It's like Discovery is trying to make the old movies obsolete, when they are in fact classics.
"the Klingons had so much culture, so much personality, and such an iconic look, that tossing it all away for redesign was like taking 15 steps back for the series" Thank you! Exactly my take of it. Couldn't 'convert' my thought to these new, revised Klingons. Can there ever be a Worf, Martok, even Garon and the despicable but wonderful Duras sisters.
I'd like to point out that they really, REALLY changed the Vulcans by inventing a Vulcan terrorist faction and Sarek's acceptance and advocacy of the genocide plan. That would have been virtually unthinkable before this show and adds a layer of ruthless amorality to the Vulcans that hasn't been seen previously. Even the premise of the first episode, the Vulcan Hello, points to this ethos.
Burnham's supposed redemption bothered me a lot. She handed a planetary scale weapon of mass destruction over to a religious extremist for the express purpose of holding an entire world full of people hostage. That is a reprehensible act. It's like if aliens came to Earth and gave a doomsday device to ISIS. In addition she released Emperor Georgiou, a mass murderer and torturer on a scale that rivals or surpasses even the most hideous atrocities in our history, who enjoys selecting which of her servants she wants to eat on special occasions, and who has huge amounts of sensitive and classified knowledge, some of which supposedly has the potential to destroy the entire multiverse...
I find this peace especially funny because If they didn't have torturer on board (moved to another ship or space station) then they probably would be left with no other plan and decided to sacrifice Federation to feel better.
Burnham mutined against a Starfleet Officer following protocol and kicked off a war that almost brought about the destruction of the federation. After ending the war she started that cost the lives of countless fleet personnel and civilians, she gets her rank back and record wiped clean. Kirk after saving the earth and the federation repeatedly got busted down to captain. The ending makes no GD sense.
They also horribly misused the Discovery all season. They seemed to use it mostly for defense and reinforcement missions. If you have a ship that can instantly travel anywhere behind enemy lines, you should strike at their shipyards, infrastructure, and supply lines. Pop in and destroy a torpedo factory, then a dilithium mine, then a supply ship. Attack in ten places each day widely spaced across the empire, leave commando squads behind to sabotage key facilities on twenty worlds then pop in the next day to extract them. Also give the gene therapy to more people than just Stamets, and start pumping out Crossfield-class starships, as fast as possible while mass producing spores. The choice is not do nothing, or commit genocide.
But it's the writer's darling that was doing it, so none of that matters a bit. Hell, she and Georgiou mined the bodies of enemy dead in the second episode. That alone would have both of them in jail in any decent military - it's an expressly defined war crime. But it's people the writers like doing it, so they can do no wrong no matter what they do.
You made up the idea that this was a war of extermination. There's no definitive figure, but based on the numbers given it seems like the Klingons killed at most a few hundred thousand federation citizens, mostly on Starfleet ships or stations. Are we supposed to think that fleet of five or so ships was unstoppable, and was going to destroy all of Earth? The fact that there were humans freely living on the Klingon homeworld seems to indicate that they wanted to conquer the Federation as a political entity, not exterminate them. Ultimately how does giving the bomb to L'rell even stop the war? Either her threat will be effective and she will unify the Klingon people making them more powerful than ever while removing the traditional outlet for their aggression, or she will be killed, things will return to the way they were, and the war can continue. About the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it wasn't "thousands of innocent lives", it was hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Estimates range from 129,000-226,000. It is debatable whether the bombing was justifiable, but in any case it was not this countries finest moment. Star Trek has always been about a better future in which humanity has learned to hold itself to a higher standard than we do today. This new Star Trek series settles for stopping just short of genocide on a scale that dwarfs world war 2, then pats itself on the back and congratulates itself for being so moral.
I think what made DS9 is that when the show started to get 'plot heavy' it stopped and the characters played baseball. When the story got muddled with plots again, they stopped and headed to 1960s Vegas. They gave the audience a reprieve. With Discovery it didn't happen.
I completely agree to most of your points. I dislike some things: 1) the drift of the world to being less sci-fi than all other star trek shows before and getting more in a fantasy direction. I mean StarTrek invented the Heisenberg compensator, when fans wrote letters that beaming someone on a planet would be impossible because of heisenberg's uncertainty principle. How does the spore drive fit in there?! How does the mind melt long range communication with sarek fit in? This is inconsistent with the other shows in this universe. You discussed the different look of the klingons. I don't care about how things look, but I do care about how things are. 2) You say that there was too much of plot. I want to add: I would like much more detail on the characters, on an emotional level. The two characters which really grew emotions in me were stamets and his mate! They were awesome! Second is Tilly. She is the one joining Ash Tyler, when he is sitting and eating alone. This is Star Trek! 3) Most of this season was about the mirror universe. And I do not like the mirror universe. The Star Trek universe is great, so why switch into another one? If I want to see a show, which does not take place in the star trek universe, I can watch Star Wars or StarGate or Andromeda.
I feel they're in such a no win situation by putting this show in the timeline between Enterprise and TOS. Why not just make this after Voyager. Everything would make sense and they wouldn't even have to explain why the Klingons look different, why they have future tek etc.
Muhammad Velji if they had put it 40years after ENT and 40years before TOS they would have lots of room to play in. And it would have helped not to make the Klingons look like the love child of worf and a promethian
I agree with you. The tech is the bugbear for me. If we consider Apollo to Shuttles to ISS to Enterprise to TOS to TNG to DS9 & VOY... You can see the progression of technology to the next logical stage. Adding Discovery after Enterprise is plausible. But when you realise that its supposed to be set BEFORE TOS, suddenly TOS looks like cardboard sets and blinky lights. That has a knock on effect because Discovery still looks more advanced than TNG, DS9, VOY et al. However, put Discovery in the Kelvin timeline and it's all restored. Except the Spore Drive. When they come to stop using what is effectively 'Warp 10' (existing at all points in space and time simultaneously), they had better have a good explanation for it.
Discovery cannot realistically exist in the original timeline between Enterprise and TOS. I can accept the progression of technology between NX-01 and NCC-1701. I can accept the incremental changes between NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A. I can accept the -B and -C changes and -D and change to -E. However, to move from a ship as industrial as NX-01 to something over engineered as Discovery and then back to 1710 is beyond the pale. If Discovery had been set in the Kelvin timeline, it would be acceptable but the producers decided against that, didn't they?
@@kjamison5951 thank you... i thought i was just not appreciating something that everyone else saw because the same stuff irks me. i can suffer it and casually watch. but it honestly sticks in my craw to the point of ruining the whole fantasy of the cannon for me.
Nailed it. I just binged both seasons of the show, and I really liked every bit of the entire show, save for the Blingons. The makeup was horrible, and the actors couldn't act in that getup.
The problem I had was that the actors can’t act in them, no facial expressions etc and they all look massively uncomfortable whereas Michael Dorn’s makeup was perfect
Excellent assessment of Discovery's first season. The people who created this show were willing to make something that was definitely Star Trek but also willing to takes some risks and do some things differently. The problems you mentioned - one plot twist after another, the lack of development of the "new" Klingons, how we didn't see much of the actual war - probably could have been solved with a somewhat longer season. Still, I think it stands quite well as it is. Even given the problems, this could be the best first season of any Star Trek series yet. I enjoyed it very much.
Discovery season one bothered my ADD. A lot of it was dark and blurry and I couldn't tell what was going on. A lot of Klingon subtitles with complex Klingon drama going on within that. Then just plot after plot without sitting with the characters or settings. I couldn't recognize which ship was which half the time or remember any ones name except for Michael. Maybe if I re-watch it I'll be able to get it. The second season solved a lot of those problems and I really enjoyed it.
If the producers of discovery wanted alien antagonists that didn't look or act like Klingons, why not just give their creation a new name? And if they wanted better technology than TNG, why not set it after TNG instead of before TOS?
It was Federation ideals that started the war, not Burnham's actions because she couldn't carry them through and nothing she did (apart from killing the first Klingon in self defense) started the war!! Oh, and I "love" the producer's and writer's way of thinking... "let's make the first openly gay couple in Star Trek history out of 2 very lovable characters, and then kill one of them off!!"¬¬ Also, one thing I'm probably going to groan about in season 2 if they decide to do it, it's been hinted that we will see a younger Kirk appear, supposedly serving on the Enterprise. Discovery is set 10 years before the famous 5 year mission, and the 5 year mission was from 2265 till 2270, which means Discovery is in 2255, second season being 2256. Kirk didn't graduate from Starfleet Academy until 2257, and his first posting after this was on the USS Farragut, which is where he had his first encounter with the dikironium cloud creature, and before that he was on the USS Republic... so... what will he be doing on the Enterprise apart from trying to cater to old-school trekkies saying "look, look, it's Kirk!!"?
I liked the Enterprise's new look a lot. It is MUCH better than the J.J. Abrams version. In fact, it is the best Enterprise look of all the Enterprise versions I have seen. Concerning how the war with the Klingons ended, it felt to me like the show's creators just wanted to get rid of it because they had come up with a better direction to take the show into and it had become inconvenient. Maybe it's just me.
I have several thoughts on Discovery . The visuals were awesome . The acting itself was pretty good . The premise for the show was interesting . That being said I couldn’t watch it past the middle of the season as I just couldn’t stand the writing and the story lines . And this pisses me off because I really wanted to like this show . I really like Star Trek as a whole .
I fully agree Steve that the plot twist were excessive and to me felt cheap. I feel like we really didn't get much character development. I think it was an amazing piece of sci-fi tv but the story lines lacked the star trek elements that make the show amazing. I'm so happy that season 2 is taking it slower and we're spending more time with the characters in purposeful ways.
The doods on Reddit figured out the Lorca twist after episode 3 or 4. It wasn't very shocking. None of the twists were. It was all pretty obvious. We all knew the Emperor had to be Georgiou ever since they said they didn't know who it was. Ash/Voq was the most obvious twist ever. It was painfully obvious.
almost like an insult to sci fi fans...nevermind star trek... hope they wont tries to writr a show in the crime-fiction genres icon...if they think sci-fi fans are rabid...wait untill they make enemy of fan bases that actually knows how to getaway with murder (allegedly). LMAOO.
I couldn't get past the "new look" of the Klingons at first, and after the first 3 episodes I kinda forgot about DISCOVERY...finally came back to it after so many of my friends said that I should stick with it, and... Ended up being a major fan! A lot of it has to do with, as you said, Steve, the actors, who were absolutely phenonemal! I liked the twisty plotting, it was different, and I appreciated the "risk-taking."
I also liked Suru, he was my favourite character , I did think that the makeup looked a bit like Mr Arex the Edosian (Triexian) in the animated series and thought it would have been neat if they had him as an Edosian to connect the series and have an animated character transpose into live action, however I still loved the character
A year later, I remember thinking it was a sort of enjoyable action series, with a lot of irritations I could put up with. I remember being angry that it was not like TNG, but not enough to not enjoy the episodes for what they were. But I think the main criticism I have now, a year on, is I don't remember any of the plot points you mentioned here - the series just left no lasting impression at all. Contrast that with TNG's ability to do excellent sci-fi - Measure of a Man, Yesterdays Enterprise, and one of my person favourites, The Offspring, which came back to me years after I saw them and made me want to see them again. Discovery just said nothing about life, didnt really touch on anything important, beyond the immediate concerns of the characters. TNG covered deep sci-fi topics that had relevance outside the show, and which stayed with you for some time after.
I have three problems with the Klingons' cosmetic difference; 1: It looks hideous. For a species we spend almost half the first two episodes, and a tonne of later scenes, having to look at and follow for long periods of time is really annoying. Their heads are weirdly bulbous in the back, they have ugly giant lips, four nostrils for some reason, all of which makes them really unappealing, and it's difficult to tell who the hell is who. I seriously thought Vok was L'rell in one of the mirror universe episodes, because they have the same damn face and practically the same outfit. 2: They've made a big deal on several occasions about Klingons' hair and beards before in various shows. Worf even said that for males, having a beard is a symbol of courage multiple times. Guess that means that none of these Klingons want people to think they have any courage? I'm not saying every Klingon has to be hairy, General Chang was bald, but every single one of them having no hair anywhere is distracting and the most inconsistent thing about the Klingons visually. Almost every important Klingon, even in TOS, had at least a goatee. 3: Without some of the aspects that'd finally become definitive visual markers to distinguish them by the time Star Trek III had come out (especially the hair), they are basically indistinguishable from any other alien race in Star Trek history who had bumpy heads. Whenever I look at shows like Voyager or Enterprise especially, I'll see an alien and genuinely think to myself "This could be the next Klingon makeup and I wouldn't bloody know." They took an alien race that, by now, has become distinctive, defined and recognisable look and made it generic. And yeah, I think that's a bit of a problem.
Completely agree with your take. It was flawed for sure but I don’t get the frothing hatred. The positives outweigh the negatives, and I didn’t think of it until you said it but Saru is my favorite character too.
I wouldn't describe my dislike of it as "frothing hatred" but rather frustration that the writers themselves don't seem to understand what they're writing. The Story starts with the federation encroaching on Klingon territory, which predictably starts a war. The Klingons fear that the Federation wants to erase their individuality is justified from the start, and completely validated in the finale in multiple ways - but that's not how it's presented.
Content With Jeremiah amen. What sets me off with people is that they finally are starting to dump money into trek. And you get ppl bashing it. Itll get to a point when we have no trek at all. I think its refreshing yo see the dark side of starfleet and that it is not all enlightened. Then to top it off and see the ncc1701 at the end. Nerdgasm!
Hey Steve, you are making really good videos. I like how chill you are about inconsistencies in Star Trek. It's just a show made by people. Keep it up!
I would have no problem in redesigning the Klingons in principle. The problem is that they look like beasts. They look ugly. Some people say this may be intentional to show that people who look monstrous actually aren't...except they are. The Klingons eat Georgiou. My biggest problem with them aside from that is that 1. It's just dumb to me that virtually all Klingons are bald now. 2. The prosthetics make it look very difficult to talk and, therefore, hinder the acting. 3. We now know it was just for the purpose of throwing us off the Voq twist. Imo, if you have to change the setting to make a twist work don't do the twist. Most of my friends who watched this show saw it coming, me included.
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I watch Trekyards and other Star Trek and Star Wars UA-camr's regularly but you are the first one who seems to have a viewpoint very similar to mine. I really appreciate your perspective and how you articulate your views. Keep up the good work man!
Season 1 sucked balls. I struggled through half a dozen episodes and gave up. Unlikeable characters, idiot plots, bad acting throughout, and most importantly, a show that took an approach to Trek canon that was physically painful to watch.
Just found your channel and slowly working through the videos... I just wanted to say THANK YOU for this. I really enjoyed season 1 also, but I spend a lot of time on Reddit (LOTS of haters over there), and I felt the same way that you feel. I'm not so wild about the Klingon redesign, and I'm a little hesitant about this "magical" technology that can instantly transport you to anywhere you want that is never mentioned in "later" series... And then it dawned on me that if the tech gets banned (like it's looking like it will after what's happening to Stamets), then characters would have no REASON to mention it in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY. But anyway, thanks for this!
Take the visuals and crappy effects of TOS out of the mix, and Discovery fits perfectly into the Star Trek timeline, both esthetically and historically. We have to remember, TOS is not the beginning any more, Enterprise is. So, Discovery fits perfectly after Enterprise. Then you'd have the stories of TOS, without the visuals. Then you have the movies, then TNG. The more we see TV shows and potential movies, the more TOS is the one that's out of place. And they can't continually work around TOS. It just makes no sense.
I agree, the positives easily outweigh the negatives in DIS. I wasn't a fan of the klingon redesign, really seemed to make it hard for the actors to speak (though I assume it'll change as we approach TOS era, maybe augment virus shenanigans) and I thought their ships were a bit overdesigned. As for the 'this looks too advanced for a prequel', didn't feel that, just thought that was the style of the show. early TNG was very late 80's, DS9 and Voyager were very 90's and TOS was very 60's. The swearing was unnecessary (yes, I know they did it a lot in the films but still, that F bomb?) people crying how the 'SJW's are in control!' are talking a load of BS and are likely just very insecure in themselves. I like how the darker tone cleared up by the end of the series and had a far more 'trek-ish' tone by the close of the last episode. As far as Season 1's of Trek go, definitely one of the best
Funny, I was so ready to hate this show, but once I actually gave in and watched it, I had the same reaction as you. It's a solid B+, not perfect, but definitely good and intriguing, and I want more.
I liked Discovery a lot more than I thought I would and I can’t wait for more. However, I’m really tired of producers/writers wanting to keep coming back to this era of Trek. I think a stronger choice would have been to create a show that takes place many years after the TNG era. They really write themselves in a corner because there really isn’t a lot of wiggle room with a prequel. Why do they continue to make it hard for themselves? Instead of a prequel series, again, how about we see the fallout from the Dominion War. How did the war shape the Alpha and Gamma quadrant!?!? Maybe have an alien race from the Andromeda galaxy. There is just so much more room to breathe as a Star Trek writer when you create brand new canon and you also avoid continuity issues. We need to move forward and create brand spanking new stories, stories that really parallel what’s happening here in our world today. What if there is a civil war within the Federation!? How cool would that be!? But maybe I’m just crazy, idk 😐
I like it quit a bit more than I expected to also. The second season is even better than the first. I'm actually enjoying it a little bit more than the Orville now. Orville is definitely still a great show, but it is a lot more like TNG, whereas Discovery is going for more realism. They're totally different styles. Orville is a lot more willing to do allegories to modern day issues, where Discovery is its own story in its universe without any real modern day allegories.
Indeed "how about we see the fallout from the Dominion War" and, possibly, the continuation of what happens to Sisko as a sub-theme? at the least an episode? as well as the 'fallout' that you mentioned.
Great review and great opinion piece to the redesigns! I feel the exact same way. My issue with the Klingon design is, that I just don't like it. The ships look clunky, the egg heads look ridiculous, the armor looks bulky, the Bat'leth looks flimsy. I only liked Kol and T'Kuvma's designs and the daggers were also great. Similarly, the mirror universe I.S.S. Charon just looked bad imo. And I also did not care for the bad-guys-eat-people thrope, even though on principle, I liked the idea that they aligned the Terran Empire with the Klingon Empire (which is something TOS also did). As for starfeelt designs: I noticed that many aspects of the ship's interior had ice callbacks to TOS, like the colorful data-cards, the hallway beams on top, the mess hall and the replicators, and the emphasis on Gold, Silver and Bronce in clothing, which TOS also dis quite a bit. And, of course, the new incarnation of a certain famous starship in the end was just perfect. As you said, keeping the cheap 1960s TOS designs in other Trek productions worked before, because there was always a humorous tongue-in-cheek element in it. "Relics" was a nice but breif callback and both "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" were very humorous and in the latter case over-the-top ridiculous episodes. As for the writing: very inconsistent, very gimmicky at times. But the show has a lot of potential and let's hope they'll improve in Season 2.
Nice round up of the season! I loved season one, and it's nice to see a positive and optimistic retrospective! When people say all Trek series take a season or two to find their legs, I think that really only applies to TNG. Voyager's first season was more consistent with its characters in the first season than any other, DS9 and Enterprise started strong out of the gate and TOS' first season was probably it's best. So yeah, I'm throwing a tiny bit of shade at Next Gen 😊🖖
I wanted to like Discovery. I really really did. But there are just so many problems in this show. The way the show goes out of it's way to be set in this era and then to go and retcon stuff, just because it's trying to be new and "edgey", reeks of a poor writing team desperately trying to justify it's existence for some other reason than "well TOS was popular so there." The finale especially was the biggest load of trite I have ever witnessed. The whole resolution to the Klingon War was just so unbelievably contrived. And then there's Burnham. Look I get being pardoned. That I can buy. BUT A FULL REINSTATEMENT OF HER RANK??? RECORD EXPUNGED??? FOR FUCKING MUTINY!?!?!?!?
That's what I don't get about these self claimed "true fans" of star trek who point out a flaw with the show and say it should be cancelled. I'm sorry, no "true fan" would be hoping for it to be cancelled, a "true fan" would be hoping that it gets a chance to fix these problems, to become a great show, and it cannot if it's cancelled
Redesigning things is not the problem as such, redesigning things so they look and feel nothing like the ST universe is the problem. The show is miserable to look at (sfx are good quality) but the tone is unremittingly dark, dreary, depressing. The characters are worse, either simple and annoying, like Tilly, or unlikable and evil like Lorka. Most of the crew we don't even have names for, they are just background no better than the props. Klingons dont just not look like Klingons they dont act like Klingons, they are just illformed alien barbarians (and like the term Barbarians it smacks of a simplification of culture and a racial slur by an Empirical power, in this case that being the Federation (that would make sense, propaganda and slurs against an enemy combatant) sadly they actually portray Klingons as being this way in actuality so its just the writers displaying that level of ignorance and lazy writing). The main character we are supposed to follow is dull, unlikable and one note. Nowhere near strong enough to carry a show as a central character and simply piling on ST connections, oh she is Spocks secret human step-sister, she is the first officer to be court-martialed in Starfleet, does not make her interesting it just smacks of them desperately trying to find something to cover up for the fact her core character is about as much fun to watch as watching paint dry. And who exactly sat down and watched previous ST and thought, 'I know what this needs, Klingon tits and plenty of gore and violence.' I got into ST because my Dad was a huge fan so we watched it together when I was a kid of about 8- I would not let a child of mine watch Discovery at that age, and as a large appeal of ST is a mix of nostalgia and a feeling of optimism and hope for the future, its why it inspired so many people, who is going to remember watching Discovery as a kid and being inspired by its dark depressing future of violence, unlikable people and self interests? Discovery is fundamentally the exact opposite of Rodenberry's vision.
Your last 2 paragraphs really hit home. My son is 7 and me and his Mom have been talking about watching 90's Trek as a family. We think he could find some real inspiration and great morals in them. I'd say Star Trek has made me a better person because I look up to Picard and strive to be someone he'd deem worthy of serving on his ship, I try to be as strong as Jadzia, as ruthlessly compassionate as Bashir, as curious as Trip, to learn from Spock's journey of logic and emotion, etc. Having R rated Trek is kinda cool but... yeah it's not really right is it? And it really does lack the inspirational moments. I had some fun watching Discovery (and a lot of wtf are you doing guys moments too) but you're right so far it's totally uninspirational. We'll see if that changes when season 2 airs this week. If it can't bring back the Trek, the wonder, the optimism, the inspiration, etc. then I think I'm going to have to call it quits on modern Star Trek. To be honest I don't think I could even bare to watch the new Picard series because I will become a stereotypical angry nerd when they ruin Picard.
What a refreshing review. Yes the first season wasn’t perfect but I thought it had a lot more bite to it than the other Star Trek series. We hardly got to know most of the crew in the show which leaves plenty of room for character development along with plot developments. My personal take on the look of the Klingons is I love it. They actually look and behave like a warrior race to be feared. Can’t wait for season 2.
Great review! I enjoyed this first season, and I was willing to accept the changes they made to the aesthetics and to some parts of the canon in order to be entertained by the show. I listen to a podcast that has reviewed each episode, and sometimes they would get very negative and butthurt over some issues the show certainly has had. But for me, being entertained has been the main goal, and it seems to me some people need to relax and focus on that goal, too. My personal favorite is Stamets. He's really great with Tilly, and for some reason, the chief engineers are my favorite characters in nearly every Trek show.
I wasn't surprised by any of those twists. Mirror Georgiou being the Emperor was the obvious cliche and STD went straight for it. AshVoq ´was so heavily foreshadowed that it was just a relief that the show finally admitted this. Lorca was also quite foreshadowed. I think he would have been an interesting character if he had been a (by the standards of the Terran Empire) liberal rebel. Instead he was complaining that Emperor Georgiou wasn't evil enough. Emperor Georgiou who eats people.
I thought it was horrible, Saru was the only cool character, Lorca was a decent character. Hated Jar Jar TIlly, HATED Ash Tyler and his droopy face. "Michael" seemed decent at first but I quickly got bored & annoyed with her. Another thing I hated was how half of the bridge crew got NO attention or background story whatsoever, every time you saw that robot dude turn his head an go "vrum" or that redhead with the thing in her eye turn her head and look like "what the hell am I doing on this show" etc. it reminded me of how not -Star Trek this show was. The Michael-Ash romance was... 2 unlikable annoying characters in a forced romance I couldn't care about. The gay dudes were not interesting at all. The whole spore-drive plot was nonsensical. Oh, and do we really need to start the first season with "this could destroy the entire multiverse!"??? REALLY?
Yeah, my biggest complaint with the show I think is that it went the route of having a main character(s), whereas all previous shows were an ensemble cast.
The new series wasnt bad but... am I the only person that hoped for a more episodic series? Like, all the episodes were part of the same arc. With all other episodes in the other series you could just watch an episode. Discovery, you cant do that without missing stuff.
You aren't alone. I don't necessarily want _completely_ episodic like the original series, but I think TNG/DS9/VOY got a great balance between episodic and serial, and I just wish we could've had more of that.
Totally agree, best first season of Star Trek ever. The characters are great, the visual feel of the show, whilst updated is a good evolution of the old style. Plus Tilly just rocks.
Entertaining video Steve. Thanks. I agree with your take. Personally, I accept a lot of creative freedom for people using 2017/18 movie making technology to tell a prequel to a story that was told using 1966 movie making technology. Same as for star wars episode 4 done in 1977 and episode 1 done in 1999. As for the look of the klingons, they really should have stuck with the TNG, DS9, etc look.
My observation of the latter half of Discovery Season 1 is that there was an effort to contain the first season storylines because of the level of criticism, which would allow the opening of season 2 to act as a "second pilot". This means that, to close out the storyline, a lot of twists that would have made good "season finales" needed to be rushed into a storyline that concluded at the end of the season. I wouldn't be surprised if their future was in question after season 1, because the reveal of the Enterprise makes a good "visual hand-off" between Discovery and TOS. The show could have ended there, or it could have continued from that point. I think a lot of the issues you mention in this video about Discovery Season 1 can be put into this bucket, and the rest will hopefully be resolved in season 2.
You're right about the war with the Klingons. It sure wasn't in the same league as the Dominion War, which the writers should have taken more influence from in terms of how Ron Moore played that.
MithraMusic Ds9’s first season wasn’t great, but it had some brilliant episodes and serious themes. Duet, The Emissary, In the Hands of the Prophets, Whispers and a few others are all grade A Trek in my opinion.
I agree the Dominion War was much more interesting, but... we already saw that. I don't really need another war series. I was fine watching a crew that was on the periphery of the war but still played a pivotal role in its end. If I want to watch multiple seasons of a well-played war, I'll just Netflix DS9 or watch B5 on Amazon again (which I think I'll start doing, now that I mention it).
I too love Discovery for what it's done, how it looks and where it's trying to go. In point-of-fact, it's actually my second favorite Trek behind DS9. However, I'm also a timeline zealot. And the show's aesthetic is a hard sticking point for me. I HAVE to divorce Discovery from the rest of Trek in my head in order for me to accept it as its own thing. And the sad thing about it is that it didn't have to be a problem. If the show runners had simply accepted the fact that they wanted to make a J.J. styled show and just admitted that the show was Kelvin not Prime (as the show's visuals CLEARLY showcase), then literally everything that they've done would have been accepted by the masses. Hell, that's what I tell myself when I watch it anyway. "It's the Kelvin timeline; not the Prime."
season 1 was awful. didnt feel one bit like Star Trek. season 2 was far better,much more of a Star Trek show. Hoping season 3 continues the upward swing in quality. ps...Steve....have you watched the Star Trek Continues series? If you can get past the fact that its not Shatner and co., it's a fun watch and made by people with an obvious love for the original show.
After watching the first episode of Discovery, I wasn't a fan and didn't give it another shot until months later. After 2 seasons I can now say that I AM a fan, but there are a few things I still don't like. First...you guessed it...the Klingons. Not simply because they look different (at least they got their hair back in season 2), but because almost everything about them is different. Their culture is different (though still a "warrior culture"); their ships look drastically different; their overall demeanor seems quite different; their weapons are different; and even their politics seem different. They might as well be an entirely new alien race. Second...since when does Spock have a sister? I mean, I like that whole storyline, it just doesn't fit AT ALL with what I know about Spock's family and personal history. I realize they sort-of explained why no one knew about Spock having a sister...but still...it felt like too drastic a departure from canon. I'm not obsessed with canon...I would just prefer more subtle departures from it. The last thing I'll mention here, is the spore drive. I like it...I just don't think it makes sense in a Federation ship from that time period. I mean, there's no mention of anything like it in any other show or film, despite that it was centuries ahead of its' time technologically...and why isn't Star Fleet trying to upgrade other ships with this superior tech? Maybe they addressed that at some point and I just missed it? Or perhaps they'll address it later? Anyway...season 2 was a drastic improvement over season 1 (in my opinion), and my hope is that the show will continue to improve.
You know why the new aesthetic of Discovery bothers me. Because they told us the series takes place in prime universe. PRIME UNIVERSE. If they wanted to change the universe to the extent they did, they should have placed it in the Kelvin universe. So much about this show is ridiculous. They could have made Michael Burnham be the daughter of a diplomat stationed on Vulcan, making her Spock’s sister makes no sense at all. Discovery and it’s abilities are ridiculous. The fact the Vulcans can have a fucking telepathic phone call with each other is ridiculous . The hologram capabilities are ridiculous. The medical advances the Klingons have is ridiculous. I enjoyed the show for what it was, but placing it in the prime universe was a spit in the face, and the main reason for my dislike.
I gave up about the same place halfway through the season. But eventually I went back out of boredom. I think they woke up and realized they were sucks, because they basically abandoned the whole first half and started writing a new season with a new storyline. Which actually did okay by the end of it all. THAT being said, the ORVILLE did a much better job of keeping up the whole Star-Trek feeling of social commentary. Discovery was more of an action adventure show, so I felt it lost the whole goal of the franchise.
I think it's more obvious than ever now that the show was written and filmed with binge-watching in mind. Which makes sense as the whole season had been filmed before the pilot even aired. Sadly, CBS made the bad decision (by which I mean a desperate attempt to make their streaming service relevant instead of just putting the damn thing on NetFlix, which is still my biggest complaint about the show and the only one I share with the Haters(TM)) to release it one episode at a time, and the show truly suffers for it. If CBS plans to continue this release schedule, then I hope that Season 2 is planned out more episodically. Not saying they can't have arcs, weekly TV shows have arcs all the time now. Even shows that probably would do just fine without them. Just that they film it one in such a way that if something early in Season 2 doesn't go over well, they have time to make a course correction and do their best to fix it for future episodes.
One of the things that could have helped with the first season is if the first half and second half season were either two separate seasons, or if the season had been longer. That would have given more space for the plot reveals to have an effect of shaking up the status quo and letting the audience get used to things before the next one came. This would also give time to build flavour for the setting because it would mean having more bottle show which were what gave life to TNG, DS9, and VOY. We could have seen more of the effect of the Klingon War on the Federation, life on the Discovery both during the war and in the Mirror Universe as the crew copes with it, and a chance to build up the ensemble more so that we can get to know our secondary characters. One of my favourite Star Trek episodes is ironically a first season bottle show from DS9, Duet, because the constraints of the episode forced the writers to be creative. The DIS episode "Magic to Make the Sanest Man go Mad" is probably the only bottle show of the season, and my favourite episode because it gave us great character moments from Burnham, Tyler, and Stamets. More episodes like that would have made a very good first season into an even better one. Overall, DIS season 1 is in my mind the strongest first season of Star Trek thus far, and I look forward to season 2.
Hi Steve, as often I tend to agree with you on most parts, so this video was fun to watch (people like having their opinions reassured by any form of authority, don’t they?). But there’s one major issue I have with the first season you didn’t address (probably in another video, I haven’t seen them all, yet), and that’s the mirror universe itself. I’ve enjoyed mirror universe episodes, but in previous series there weren’t any long term consequences for anything but the occasional next mirror universe episode. They were fun because they gave the actors an opportunity to break with their usual routine. I think "bad Kira" was outstanding. So I ignored that it is at least highly improbable, that the same genetic mixture that led to all our beloved characters, also happened in a completely different scenario with tyrannical regimes having killed millions if not billions AND they still are all connected to one another despite their obvious fundamental changes in personality. I could NOT ignore that in a show where this was the basis for half the season and had so much influence on the plot in general. Since you are mentioning “lazy writing” quite often in your videos, I was wandering if this is something you just not categorize as such and if so, for what reasons. I tried checking the comments if someone brought that up before but there were a lot of them, so I'm sorry if I repeated something which was already said here. Also please don’t give me shit for my language skills since I am not a native speaker. I encourage anyone though to give me shit contentwise.
I was never able to over come the canon contradictions and i thought Green's acting was not very good. This was the first Star Trek show where i found disliking the main characters. I do agree with all your other points.
Getting to this video a bit late. I really dig your content, but there's something you said in this video that really hit home for me and it feels really good to hear someone else say. Your bit about how everything in Discovery looks different and you don't care? We have advanced decades in special effects tech, of course the show is going to look different. There doesn't need to be a canon reason for things to look different. It all looks like scifi and it's really not a big deal that Klingon's look different, because they clearly look like Klingons still. Federation ships are still easily identifiable as Federation ships.
Yeah I don't get people complaining that they updated the look - would you REALLY want to watch them try and make 60s technology fit in the far future? Also everyone seems to skip over the fact that Trek used to update the look of the aliens all the time when the bugget got better. Though giving them hair again was nice
i enjoyed it but the pacing of each episode was different, plus what you said. Hopefully season 2 will rectify this. the fact that the klingons speak mostly klingon is awesome. Accepting the new visuals wasnt hard.
i generally liked the effects,characters, battle scenes and for the most part the story aside from the constant loops and crew switches. certain details bothered me a bit such as the klingon looks and the fact they didnt have hair and extremley different features had thrown me off but i can get past that since they still portrayed them well as klingon's in character. (comment made before watching)
Just discovered your video feed and have watched several of your videos. I appreciate your take on things. As with most folks, I agree with a lot of what your saying and disagree with other things. Anyway, I just subscribed! :-) As for Star Trek Discovery, I have to say yours is the most upbeat opinion on the series as a whole that I've heard to date. Most folks I've talked to that have bothered to keep up with it have been much more neutral in their opinions of what they've done with the show. I have only watched the premier for two main reasons. First, I wasn't impressed with what they did with it, especially the Klingons. I think I could have gotten by the different look, but I was totally turned off by the language. They-were talk-ing-in-a-ve-ry-sta-ca-to-syl-al-ble-by-syl-la-ble-fash-ion. It hurt to listen to it and didn't sound natural at all. The second reason I haven't watched it is, given how unimpressed I was with the pilot, I wasn't particularly motivated to subscribe to a pay per channel just to watch one show. I have discovered lately that through the years, I've subscribed, intentionally or not, it services that automatically renew themselves at a regular basis. They are not large charges and it's easy to overlook them but they add up. I've cleaned out a lot of those recently and am absolutely not interested in subscribing to another one. So as long as they insist on keeping the show on a per per channel, I won't be watching it and frankly, I'm ok with that.
This is a fair summary of what's good about the series and what needs improvement, I think. One flaw that I've seen in the series is that, unlike DS9, it doesn't have the comic relief episodes that could be sprinkled in the same way the more episodic format could. The series suffers a bit from that, as a few of the comic relief episodes were quite good in both TNG and DS9.
I agree with your point on the plot twists. The series was reliant upon twists to generate reactions in the audience, and unfortunately that's today's zeitgeist throughout media. I felt like there was so much potential for a series after Voyager, but for some reason producers feel the need to constantly backtrack.
This series so far has been absolutely phenomenal, and I'm not a new fan. I've been watching since I was a little kid when TNG began. Excellent first season that's already eclipsed the entire Voyager and ENT shows, as good as they were. Still don't like the Klingons though.
Can't say I like the show but I enjoy watching it. They should call it Star Trek: it's all about Burnham (& Season 2 proves it). Too bad they're gonna dump Anson Mount after season 2 (liked him as Pike)
I love the idea of the spore hub drive. Stamets is awesome. They killed off a lot of strong characters in this first season.. but i wouldn’t be surprised if we see some more of them return as alter-egos of themselves from the mirror dimension like philippa
I'm subscribed to your channel and watch all your videos (and am thoroughly entertained by the way) even though I've never had an interest in Star Trek. Witchcraft.
I can live with the difference of the visuals and I can understand the reasoning behind it. Now with the klingons a huge problem with. It's one thing they changed their apperance drasticly, now I could Probeably learn to live with that too, but it fails terribly when they also change their whole codecs and make them unrecogniseable in their core values. That is just butchering the lore. Now the writing is really bad. They stated they wanted to make it like game of thrones. They clearly failed that. They lack build up's before the big reveals so the whole drama just fizzle out disappointingly. I'm not sure if is due to bad writing or just really bad work in the cutting room. Maybe it was just rushed because of the backlash so they can start from more or less scratch in season 2. I try to rewatch season 1 again and I just can't. I think this is the first time that has happend with a star trek for me. I just can't follow Burnham's logic and I really don't find her character likeable either so it is really hard to enjoy the show. I would love to see more of Tilly and Saru. That robot/cyborg: Airiam (I think was her name) intrigues me and there must be good storylines with the shenzhou crew (especially the one with the implant over her eye) and Burnham, but that just was ignored.
I'd like to see a series on how humanity and the Vulcans first came into contact and how they got to know each other and interacted despite having different cultures and natures.
I found the reveal of the twin universe Emperor especially implausible, as twists go. Supposedly Burnham did such extensive research on this universe that she could act and train others to act exactly so as to evade suspicion. But she never thought to investigate the identity of the head of state? Or for that matter, looked for her parallel captain?
Why change the Klingon? Probably the most love race in ST, along side the Vulcans and Romulans. They are just sooooo boring in S1, generic antagonist race number 168. I don't hate discovery, but they are not making it easy to love.
About the re-design. It used to bug me, but I convinced myself of a reason for it. Instead of considering the pictures of the show as a real shooting of the events, as if some kind of journalist was filming the real action, I consider what we see as a theatrical representation of a story. It is as if a movie director was adapting a story from a book. Like doing a movie about ancient Rome, or ancient Egypt, the Bible, the King Louis the 14th in Versailles... The style that is visible on such adaptations can vary from movie to movie, even if they are depicting the same written story. So if you imagine that for Star Trek it's the same, you won't have trouble thinking why the computer screens are more like we (in 2019) think they should be than how they imagined it should look like when you are living in the 60's. Just pretend what we see on screen is the imagination of a film director, based on some "future history books", and not real footage of what happens in the stories.
Agree with the points about it being a prequel being a challenge for it. If I had one wish it would be just that it was a sequel. Then you can explain away anything you want really.
Lorca actually being from the mirror universe was disappointing. From the beginning the character was one of a war-obsessed man, partly broken by the realities of war. His character deserved a redemption; what we got instead was more like a comic-book style transformation into 'pure evil' mode at the moment the agonizer booth was opened.
I like Discovery and watch it in virtual reality which is kind of ironic on many levels. As Star Trek is about the future and has a hollow deck and its the first show I have watched in VR.
I just came across your videos and I'm really enjoying them so far. One point though. At about 15:30 you are discussing the timeline and saying that this takes place in the prime timeline as opposed to the Kelvin timeline. How do we know that? As we haven't met Kirk yet, we don't know if his father is dead or alive so we don't really know which timeline it takes place in, do we?
Firstly the producers have said it's in the main timeline and secondly we've seen characters who were in the Kelvin timeline and they're not their Kelvin timeline version
I can't get used to the new Klingons. Why the change? One thing I find annoying is the Klingons speaking in Klingon with subtitles. On my 32" TV I find it hard to read the subtitles. Plus they move so fast I don't have time to read the longer ones. Make them speak Klingon for a few phrases, then switch to English. I hate subtitles. But - I'm "hooked". Roll on Season 2.
You hit on my biggest grumble about season one, which was the never-ending onslaught of twists. To their credit, they were consistently well executed, but they lose some of their punch when you're sitting there waiting for the next BIG SHOCK to show up. I have mixed feelings about the finale. There was quite a lot of stuff I liked in there, but the conclusion of the Klingon war felt just a little too convenient or unearned. But, they did back themselves into a serious wall with the 9 month jump. After that, there was virtually no way for them to wrap the war up in two episodes that wouldn't have felt too easy or convenient. And at the end of the day, I'm REALLY glad they didn't go with the final twist I was expecting, which was to use the spore drive to do a time jump and avoid Starfleet losing the war or committing genocide.
One correction while there is an appreciable arc between Burnham's decisions early on and her decisions in the finale I have to point out that while many viewers and Burnham herself apparently thought she had, she did not start the war. Her Mutiny Justified or not was a failure and she did not fire on the Klingons nor instigate any action from them, what instigated the war was both t'kuvma the Starfleet leadership playing into his hands.
She switched her phaser to kill and murdered T'Kuvma out of rage over the death of Georgou. It's possible that the war would have ended after one battle if she had followed her own plan and captured him.
About the look of klingons question I would say that Relics aired a year after Gene death, Trials and In a Mirror even before. The only time we watched something from TOS outside TOS under the control of Gene Roddenberry was in the movies. So, my idea is that when Gene had the money to made something elaborated he choose to adapt it to the times it was going to be aired. Relics, Trials and In a Mirror were made by people without the money or/nor the means to update the classic look
The fact that this was almost entirely unrecognizable as “Star Trek” is why I gave up on it. Why someone would pitch a “prequel” whose whole purpose was to say “that was all wrong, none of it was like that”… I don’t understand. The level of infantile “this is not your father’s Star Trek” from these emotionally stunted edgelords was too much for me.
I agree with almost all of that, except for one detail: Her betrayal didn't actually start the war. Her crew STOPPED her betrayal before she could execute it. Everyone (including her) blamed her for the war, but what none of them knew (only we knew, because we saw his speech) was that T'Kuvma had almost persuaded the other Klingon houses that Starfleet's peaceful outreach was an existential threat to their culture. And then Giorgio reached out in peace, which to those Klingons' minds proved T'Kuvma right. THAT is what started the war. That war was inevitable.
The only thing that could've prevented it, ironically, would be if Burnham had *succeeded* in betraying Starfleet and fired on the Klingons. If she'd done that, the other houses may have destroyed the Shenzhou, but they would have also thought T'Kuvma was clearly wrong about Starfleet trying to rob them of their warrior culture, and they wouldn't have united in that jihad against it.
Also, some supposition here: I think they hinted at the reason why Klingons look different in DISC. It may not be that it's "just a show." They briefly mentioned an "augment district" in the finale. It's easy to imagine, from that alone, that years after the augment virus was spread throughout the empire, they could have tried using genetic engineering to restore themselves to their original nature. Could be they went a little too far back into their genetic history, causing them to become the sort of Klingon that existed thousands of years earlier, or longer. Since augments exist, I'm guessing there's going to be a power struggle, and the augments will prevail by the end of the series, explaining why the TOS Klingons looked as they did. Maybe in the years following TOS, Klingon science finally gets it right and restores Klingons to the way they were in "Broken Bow" just in time for The Motion Picture.
Starfleet at the time had no idea how to deal with Klingons. Which is odd, considering the Vulcans are a part of Starfleet and apparently knew how to deal with them. Perhaps its the human influence in Starfleet that decided to ignore history, and think everyone is capable of being as enlightened as they are and never really comprehending the concept that a culture can thrive on war. At this point Starfleet seems far too comfortable with itself, thinking itself safe and powerful enough to protect the Federation - and the Klingons see this as a weakness to be exploited.
There is no way the war wasn't happening at that point. Only a decisive action would have delayed it - destroying the Klingon invaders in Federation space and telling the other Klingons to remember what happens when Federation space is intruded upon by hostile forces. Alas that didn't happen, and it took planting a bomb on their home to halt hostilities - which is by far worse of a solution then simply firing at Klingons on sight as the Vulcans did.
It's Star Wars not Star Trek. It's good but it's not Star Trek.
The problem for me with the "Shoot them on sight" solution is that Sarek is the one who drops that bit of wisdom. Why it bothers me is remember the episode Journey to Babel? One of the plot threads through that episode was Sarek shitting all over Spock. Not because Spock had any particular failing. Or the Abrams Trek style "Because he's an inferior half human" or something. But because Spock was part of a military organization. That he loathed the militant nature of Star Fleet. That he saw their starships and weapons as a thuggish, backwards way that was an impediment to peace, prosperity, and advancement. A perversion of everything Vulcans stood for.
That's why that bit annoys me as a Trek fan. Because it takes what was well established and goes 180 from it. Both in the culture of Vulcans as we know it, and in Sarek in particular.
Not that STD is really terrible or anything. But there's stuff like that which is such an out of nowhere retcon that it comes off confusing more than clever. Of course the interview with the writers about WHY they did that made it worse... but that's a different kettle of fish.
Came here to type this. You wrote it better than I could have.
I know it is kinda off topic but does anybody know of a good place to stream new tv shows online?
I think it's an original idea, to say the least, that the main long-range propulsion system of Discovery is _a dude high on magic mushrooms in a shower cabin_ .
Actually, he does totally trip on actual magic mushrooms with Tig Notaro in season 2. I'm not lying.
Sooo much more insightful than other reviewers. A well balanced and intelligent perspective. Thank you!
Ever since the first time I compared any TOS episode to a TOS movie, I have just dismissed all changes in appearance as production value. I even applied that to Enterprise. The TNG Klingons are likely to always be my favorite, but I have no problem assuming that what Kirk saw on the viewscreen when he spoke to a Klingon is whatever the most recent onscreen version of a Klingon is. It really amazes me how many sci-fi fans seem to just lack imagination.
I just finished the first season.
I like it a lot...
But I hate the Lorca twist.
Not that it wasn’t done well, nor that the character wasn’t acted superbly, but that they invalidated and threw away *all* of the character development they put into Lorca.
I _liked_ there being a Starfleet captain with a dark side. We had a guy who went too far, had maybe been damaged, who genuinely did care even if it was twisted.
Instead, we get a generic heel turn. None of the character mattered at all.
Oh, he’s just a bad guy, it was all bullshit, none of the emotion or tension or arc were real. He made it all up somehow.
It might as well have been “all a dream”.
I did like it otherwise.
That my opinion as well, the first season of discovery is fine, it's no where near as bad as most people make it out to be
But they really messed up Lorca
With this series, my dad and I watched it each week. He raised me on TOS and when the Enterprise showed up, he got emotional in the best way.
Changing the Klingons after only a handful of original series episodes is in no way the same thing as changing them much more dramatically after they have remained constant for hundreds of episodes across four different shows.
leoploriodon & @barbaramcgee Alternate universes are a definite thing in Star Trek since the get-go. Stop holding on to, "canon" when the whole series itself can change on a whim by ANY entity from the future/ with control of probabilities and time, a la The Guardian of Forever (TOS) Lt. Daniels (Ent) & Q (TNG). I LOVE THIS SHOW BUT IT AIN'T REAL. Like ALL OTHER iterations of the show, let the first season find its footing and THEN cast judgement AFTER they finally explain all of the plot holes we're missing.
True. I remember the outcry at the look of the Klingons for The Motion Picture. Then the idea grew on fans and including Worf in TNG and DS9 cemented that. Even Worf's throwaway line in 'Trials and Tribbleations' about the look of the Klingons without their ridges was a nice nod and then Enterprise went further with that back story. I remember reading somewhere that ridged and non-ridged Klingons are from two distinct areas of Qo'Nos, Northern Klingons and Southern Klingons.
The Discovery Klingons is a move too far.
And for any one bleating on about parallel universes or alternate realities, I could forgive the new Klingons in a Kelvin timeline. I could forgive the level of technology in the Kelvin timeline.
But the producers did say it was set between Enterprise and TOS in the original timeline.
The Klingons are not that different from prior series of Star Trek. DIS has a greater budget than prior series of Trek, and honestly I am glad they have updated the Klingons (again). The Klingons from TMP onwards were able to be presented in a way that made them look alien which the Klingons from TOS was not able to realise because of budget constraints and because the Klingons were not fleshed out at that point. What Discovery has done with the Klingon is to build on the established ideas of the Klingons by adding layers of depth that are in continuity with the Klingons from TMP to ENT that could not be realised before, and it was done in two ways. First, the Klingons look like alien life form that evolved in a very different environment than we did, which is something the limited cosmetic budget could not always do from TMP to ENT. Whereas humans are essentially omnivorous scavengers, the Klingons are carnivorous apex predators. Second, the Klingons of DIS feel like a diverse people with each of the great houses having their own unique culture, whereas the Klingons from TMP to ENT were often presented rather homogeneously. There is great diversity among the seven billion people on our planet, so imagine the diversity that must exist for Klingons who have an interstellar empire. My favourite non-main cast Klingons, General Chang, Martok, and T'Kuvma are my favourites because they present Klingons as being something both familiar and alien, as aliens in Trek ought to do, rather than be the two dimensional caricatures that bad and lazy writing often reduce the Klingons to being space vikings, which was happening towards the end of ENT.
Barbara McGee, they didn't really change Klingon culture. T'Kuvma was the leader of a movement who, in the show's canon, was trying to break away from certain aspects of traditional Klingon systems, while still maintaining an honour system that suited him and his group, so obviously they're not going to act exactly like how other Klingons have in the TNG era. That's not a reflection of the entire Klingon race, since the rest pretty much act like Klingons regularly have. It's a reflection on how T'Kuvma is different than what we're used to given his faith--which is made pretty clear from the get-go.
Also, remember in TOS, none of those Klingons went on about honour, glory, it being a good day to die or anything that the movies and TNG-era Klingons went on about. Matter of fact, they were shown and referred to as being sneaky, untrustworthy liars and manipulators in the early days (more like how the Romulans would be later), many of whom couldn't fight, and were extremely dishonourable.
Also, sometimes in DS9 and many times on Enterprise, they went so far with everything, made them so stupid and brutish, that ya had to wonder how this group of morons ever got into space without annihilating themselves in the process. So dialing back on certain things was probably for the best.
Though I do think their new look is both hideous and completely wrong-headed. I really wish they'd kept things like the wild hair and beards to make them more recognisable.
My main problem with Discovery (except the Klingons) is something I think I see more and more in American shows, they want us to care more about the characters than we (I) do. Burnham and Tyler, yeah, that's crap but they just got together like a couple of episodes ago. Lorca being from the Mirror Universe. Yeah, sorry, not a Darth Vader is Luke's father chocker. And it's weird because we cared a whole lot more for Luke after just two movies. In Discovery they've had 15 episodes and I still don't really care if they make the jump into the cave on Kronos or not.
Personally, I prefer "The Orville", as a show that covers more varied issues and is less militaristic. But innovation is good.
The Orville is great. Can't wait for season 2.
straight TOS/TNG clone. nothing new/original/innovative
One thought:
Klingons were always an aggressive race BUT there where also laughing and having fun (in their way). I can not imagine this discovery-klingons to do the same from the way they were presented in the show. So they did not only change the look and made them like reptiles (like the cardassians?) They also changed their aura.
I can not image general martok joking with sisqo in ds9 with this klingons🤦🏻♂️😂
Remember: most of the Klingons you see in Season 1 are religious zealots, not your average Klingon. When we see the home world, you see Klingons laughing and play fighting a lot. In Season 2, we see more traditional behaviour with the politics and backstabbing and laughing off injuries.
It would be like comparing ISIS to the Vikings in terms of what humans be can. Klingons are varied too, which is part of their rich culture. Saying they all have to act like Martok, a Klingon from 100 years later after a stabilised Empire and long term peace with the Federation is... not good? If you met an American from 100 years ago they'd be shocked at your behaviour, and that's our own species and supposedly the same culture!
Star Trek truly changed during the 4th season of Star Trek: Enterprise. The franchise became mired in what I call, "nostalgia mining" and it's carried over into Discovery. "Look! We're at war with the Klingons! Look! A tribble! Look! Harry Mudd! Look! We're in the Mirror Universe!" And that's what this show leans on heavily. Star Trek has been looking backwards since 2001 and it's no longer about the future and forging a new universe but playing safely in its own backyard.
And more that that it's ACTION, ACTION, ACTION. Star Trek wasn't non-stop action as a series. We had quiet, thoughtful episodes like "The Measure of a Man" or "The Inner Light". Will we see any of this during the run of this series? Probably not.
and the science? that spore drive become a slap in the face of may biologist, botanist, and astro phycist. star trek tradition is to inspire...not downright using bollocks term in science and uses it....in hillariously stupid usage
Patrick Dodds This comment is perfection.
Nurlinda F Sihotang People said the same of the warp drive in ToS back in the 60's - 70's.
Welcome to Star Trek's 50th anniversary.
Vestat
I honestly doubt that, warp drive was a vague enough concept that it doesn't seem completely unreasonable. It doesn't run on fungus lol.
Please, season 4-7 of DS9 was pretty much one war after the other. Klingon War, Dominion war, federation luring in the romulans. And if they didn't have that soft reboot of DS9 with Way of the Warrior, no way it would've made it to 7 seasons. There's only so much of the Bajorn political/religious intrigue people can take before switching off entirely (seriously, Seasons 1 and 2 were like the Phantom Menace if they stretched out the political scenes across 52 episodes). And pretty much all Voyager's important episodes were fighting the Borg in later seasons, and the one where they sent the doctor across the galaxy? It's final big moment, battle with the Romulans. The TNG episode widely considered the best, Best of Both Worlds? About battle and war. Loootta nostalgia goggles people wearing when it comes to 90's trek. And playing the nostalgia card? TNG having Mccoy in it's first episode, bringing back Spock and Scotty. DS9 literally having an episode set on the Enterprise and gushing over it the whole time.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but I miss episodic television.
josh I think there needs to be a happy medium. I don't want it to be as episodic as TOS, but maybe have subplots that kinda contribute to the larger plot, like the Pahvo away mission. I saw an interview with the showrunner of DIS, and he said that they want to do more of that in season 2.
Just bring back Sisko 😂
I like this format. But yeah, It hinders re-watching episodes on their own. Perhaps they should take a lesson from Season 4 of Enterprise 2-3 episode arcs that stand together while moving the larger arc forward.
Idk. I'm a huge Trek fan... loved TNG's episodic format but... as a teen watching DS9, its more serialized story in season 4 and beyond was fantastic. Amazing storytelling during the Dominion War. Discovery is even more serialized but, I don't think it's terrible, it's actually really engaging. Ok so, full disclosure, I binged the whole season after every episode was available on CBS all access, so I binged over 3 nights. Discovery lends itself very well to binge sessions. It's 2018 and it's refreshing to watch a sci-fi show not reset at the end of an episode. But, that's kinda how TV has been the last few years... Which is fine. Shit evolves to suit the current audience. Honestly, that didn't sit well with me at first. The first few episodes left me frustrated as a Trek fan. But then shit got real and the plot took off... I was hooked and HAD to watch the next episode... of course that's a huge departure from the Trek I grew up with... and it's probably the best thing to happen to Trek in the last few years. I got so attached to the characters that every little twist left me wanting to watch more to see how everyone reacted. Is it 100% in line with Roddenberry's original vision of Trek? No. But growing up watching his vision and learning to live in the real world, I grew to understand the world is more complex than the utopian vision of the Federation. Learning for myself the complexities of the real world, I've come to understand the Federation would also be equally complex. So Discovery succeeds on that front and, also gets bonus points for the hope the final episodes provide in reaching that perfect utopia that the Federation promises. All in all, I've enjoyed this 21st century take on Roddenberry's vision of a perfect 23rd century.
Am I rambling? Probably. I'm intoxicated and watching Trek videos on YT... bite me, this post is my opinion...
Quack Addict LMFAO. With that acting?? *cringe mode* active.
I agree with you 100% I have caught living hell from other Trek fans when I say don't mind retcons in Star Trek...Discovery included! Some fans are Continuity and Canon zealots! I never bought into the explanation to why Klingons didn't have ridges in TOS. For over 30 years we didn't need an explanation for the retcon of the Klingons and I pretty much ignore the explanation and use my imagination and believe Klingons have always had ridges. People seem to forget the Klingons were retconned twice. In the motion picture the Klingons had one singular spine ridge on top of their heads and wouldn't get the more traditional turtle head look until Search for Spock and then TNG. So I'm used to retcons and I also love the effects in Discovery , I'm a special effects junkie, and will now imagine this is how everything always looked.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. This show more or less created that level of complaining among fans, and it will probably always foster it. A small group of fans will grow out of it, but most won't. But it's no big deal, really.
I actually liked Worf's throwaway line "we don't discuss it with outsiders". Star Trek recognizes that Klingons in that period looked different, but states that we don't need any explanation. Until that point I always just assumed it was the budget of TOS and that they always looked that. The ENT story that showed how they became smoothheaded was basically fanservice of highest quality. Not a story we needed, but one that put together multiple points of Trek.
And about different klingon ridges I always assumed it's maybe a family trait just how there are different looking humans. Some are darker some are lighter, some are longer some are shorter, some have big noses and some have small noses etc. Why can't it be the same with Klingons, some might have one ridge, some might have more, some are spiky and some more bulbuous, etc. Maybe the ones we see in DIS are just from a certain region or clan that look like that, just like the ones we see in TMP are from a different clan etc. Power shifts cause different houses to be representative at different times.
Same for the federation asthetics. If I assume it's not the actual things we see but a recording, basically a documentary from a point later in time, they might have unreliable sources.
In my opinion, the Klingons had so much culture, so much personality, and such an iconic look, that tossing it all away for redesign was like taking 15 steps back for the series. In the original show, the Klingons only had 3 episodes. But over the course of TNG, VOY, DS9 and even ENT, countless hours were spent fleshing out the Klingons. At that point, a "rebooting" them would just do far more harm then good. It's hard to watch a old Klingon episode now because of the stark differences. Can you even imagine Star Trek VI with the Klingons in the new makeup? It's like Discovery is trying to make the old movies obsolete, when they are in fact classics.
Agreed they should just have exspanded on rhe original look
In retrospect after watching DS9, I can’t see the comedic Klingons of DS9 and TNG going to war against the Federation.
"the Klingons had so much culture, so much personality, and such an iconic look, that tossing it all away for redesign was like taking 15 steps back for the series" Thank you! Exactly my take of it. Couldn't 'convert' my thought to these new, revised Klingons. Can there ever be a Worf, Martok, even Garon and the despicable but wonderful Duras sisters.
I'd like to point out that they really, REALLY changed the Vulcans by inventing a Vulcan terrorist faction and Sarek's acceptance and advocacy of the genocide plan. That would have been virtually unthinkable before this show and adds a layer of ruthless amorality to the Vulcans that hasn't been seen previously. Even the premise of the first episode, the Vulcan Hello, points to this ethos.
Have you never watched Enterprise?
The Gambit episodes in the last season established the presence of Vulcan extremists.
Wasn’t the rogue faction of Vulcans the Romulans ?
Logic quite often is not moral.
Burnham's supposed redemption bothered me a lot. She handed a planetary scale weapon of mass destruction over to a religious extremist for the express purpose of holding an entire world full of people hostage. That is a reprehensible act. It's like if aliens came to Earth and gave a doomsday device to ISIS. In addition she released Emperor Georgiou, a mass murderer and torturer on a scale that rivals or surpasses even the most hideous atrocities in our history, who enjoys selecting which of her servants she wants to eat on special occasions, and who has huge amounts of sensitive and classified knowledge, some of which supposedly has the potential to destroy the entire multiverse...
I find this peace especially funny because If they didn't have torturer on board (moved to another ship or space station) then they probably would be left with no other plan and decided to sacrifice Federation to feel better.
Burnham mutined against a Starfleet Officer following protocol and kicked off a war that almost brought about the destruction of the federation. After ending the war she started that cost the lives of countless fleet personnel and civilians, she gets her rank back and record wiped clean.
Kirk after saving the earth and the federation repeatedly got busted down to captain.
The ending makes no GD sense.
They also horribly misused the Discovery all season. They seemed to use it mostly for defense and reinforcement missions. If you have a ship that can instantly travel anywhere behind enemy lines, you should strike at their shipyards, infrastructure, and supply lines. Pop in and destroy a torpedo factory, then a dilithium mine, then a supply ship. Attack in ten places each day widely spaced across the empire, leave commando squads behind to sabotage key facilities on twenty worlds then pop in the next day to extract them. Also give the gene therapy to more people than just Stamets, and start pumping out Crossfield-class starships, as fast as possible while mass producing spores. The choice is not do nothing, or commit genocide.
But it's the writer's darling that was doing it, so none of that matters a bit.
Hell, she and Georgiou mined the bodies of enemy dead in the second episode. That alone would have both of them in jail in any decent military - it's an expressly defined war crime. But it's people the writers like doing it, so they can do no wrong no matter what they do.
You made up the idea that this was a war of extermination. There's no definitive figure, but based on the numbers given it seems like the Klingons killed at most a few hundred thousand federation citizens, mostly on Starfleet ships or stations. Are we supposed to think that fleet of five or so ships was unstoppable, and was going to destroy all of Earth? The fact that there were humans freely living on the Klingon homeworld seems to indicate that they wanted to conquer the Federation as a political entity, not exterminate them. Ultimately how does giving the bomb to L'rell even stop the war? Either her threat will be effective and she will unify the Klingon people making them more powerful than ever while removing the traditional outlet for their aggression, or she will be killed, things will return to the way they were, and the war can continue.
About the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it wasn't "thousands of innocent lives", it was hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Estimates range from 129,000-226,000. It is debatable whether the bombing was justifiable, but in any case it was not this countries finest moment. Star Trek has always been about a better future in which humanity has learned to hold itself to a higher standard than we do today. This new Star Trek series settles for stopping just short of genocide on a scale that dwarfs world war 2, then pats itself on the back and congratulates itself for being so moral.
I think what made DS9 is that when the show started to get 'plot heavy' it stopped and the characters played baseball. When the story got muddled with plots again, they stopped and headed to 1960s Vegas. They gave the audience a reprieve. With Discovery it didn't happen.
Finally finally getting into this show and I am really enjoying it!
I completely agree to most of your points. I dislike some things: 1) the drift of the world to being less sci-fi than all other star trek shows before and getting more in a fantasy direction. I mean StarTrek invented the Heisenberg compensator, when fans wrote letters that beaming someone on a planet would be impossible because of heisenberg's uncertainty principle. How does the spore drive fit in there?! How does the mind melt long range communication with sarek fit in? This is inconsistent with the other shows in this universe. You discussed the different look of the klingons. I don't care about how things look, but I do care about how things are. 2) You say that there was too much of plot. I want to add: I would like much more detail on the characters, on an emotional level. The two characters which really grew emotions in me were stamets and his mate! They were awesome! Second is Tilly. She is the one joining Ash Tyler, when he is sitting and eating alone. This is Star Trek! 3) Most of this season was about the mirror universe. And I do not like the mirror universe. The Star Trek universe is great, so why switch into another one? If I want to see a show, which does not take place in the star trek universe, I can watch Star Wars or StarGate or Andromeda.
I feel they're in such a no win situation by putting this show in the timeline between Enterprise and TOS. Why not just make this after Voyager. Everything would make sense and they wouldn't even have to explain why the Klingons look different, why they have future tek etc.
Muhammad Velji if they had put it 40years after ENT and 40years before TOS they would have lots of room to play in. And it would have helped not to make the Klingons look like the love child of worf and a promethian
I agree with you. The tech is the bugbear for me. If we consider Apollo to Shuttles to ISS to Enterprise to TOS to TNG to DS9 & VOY... You can see the progression of technology to the next logical stage.
Adding Discovery after Enterprise is plausible.
But when you realise that its supposed to be set BEFORE TOS, suddenly TOS looks like cardboard sets and blinky lights. That has a knock on effect because Discovery still looks more advanced than TNG, DS9, VOY et al.
However, put Discovery in the Kelvin timeline and it's all restored. Except the Spore Drive. When they come to stop using what is effectively 'Warp 10' (existing at all points in space and time simultaneously), they had better have a good explanation for it.
Discovery cannot realistically exist in the original timeline between Enterprise and TOS. I can accept the progression of technology between NX-01 and NCC-1701. I can accept the incremental changes between NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A. I can accept the -B and -C changes and -D and change to -E.
However, to move from a ship as industrial as NX-01 to something over engineered as Discovery and then back to 1710 is beyond the pale.
If Discovery had been set in the Kelvin timeline, it would be acceptable but the producers decided against that, didn't they?
As I've always believed, it's best to set a story after everything else, rather than between two shows. Way more potential and way less risk.
@@kjamison5951 thank you... i thought i was just not appreciating something that everyone else saw because the same stuff irks me. i can suffer it and casually watch. but it honestly sticks in my craw to the point of ruining the whole fantasy of the cannon for me.
i dont think its the case that we hate the look of the new Klingons because its different but because its not good.
Nailed it. I just binged both seasons of the show, and I really liked every bit of the entire show, save for the Blingons. The makeup was horrible, and the actors couldn't act in that getup.
The problem I had was that the actors can’t act in them, no facial expressions etc and they all look massively uncomfortable whereas Michael Dorn’s makeup was perfect
Excellent assessment of Discovery's first season. The people who created this show were willing to make something that was definitely Star Trek but also willing to takes some risks and do some things differently. The problems you mentioned - one plot twist after another, the lack of development of the "new" Klingons, how we didn't see much of the actual war - probably could have been solved with a somewhat longer season. Still, I think it stands quite well as it is. Even given the problems, this could be the best first season of any Star Trek series yet. I enjoyed it very much.
Discovery season one bothered my ADD. A lot of it was dark and blurry and I couldn't tell what was going on. A lot of Klingon subtitles with complex Klingon drama going on within that. Then just plot after plot without sitting with the characters or settings. I couldn't recognize which ship was which half the time or remember any ones name except for Michael. Maybe if I re-watch it I'll be able to get it. The second season solved a lot of those problems and I really enjoyed it.
If the producers of discovery wanted alien antagonists that didn't look or act like Klingons, why not just give their creation a new name? And if they wanted better technology than TNG, why not set it after TNG instead of before TOS?
I hate prequels. So many problems could be avoided by not doing a prequel.
I’m am Old Man who was alive and totally enjoyed Star Trek TOS ..... I have loved them all and guess what? I really love this Star Trek as well!
It was Federation ideals that started the war, not Burnham's actions because she couldn't carry them through and nothing she did (apart from killing the first Klingon in self defense) started the war!!
Oh, and I "love" the producer's and writer's way of thinking... "let's make the first openly gay couple in Star Trek history out of 2 very lovable characters, and then kill one of them off!!"¬¬
Also, one thing I'm probably going to groan about in season 2 if they decide to do it, it's been hinted that we will see a younger Kirk appear, supposedly serving on the Enterprise. Discovery is set 10 years before the famous 5 year mission, and the 5 year mission was from 2265 till 2270, which means Discovery is in 2255, second season being 2256. Kirk didn't graduate from Starfleet Academy until 2257, and his first posting after this was on the USS Farragut, which is where he had his first encounter with the dikironium cloud creature, and before that he was on the USS Republic... so... what will he be doing on the Enterprise apart from trying to cater to old-school trekkies saying "look, look, it's Kirk!!"?
I liked the Enterprise's new look a lot. It is MUCH better than the J.J. Abrams version. In fact, it is the best Enterprise look of all the Enterprise versions I have seen.
Concerning how the war with the Klingons ended, it felt to me like the show's creators just wanted to get rid of it because they had come up with a better direction to take the show into and it had become inconvenient. Maybe it's just me.
I have several thoughts on Discovery . The visuals were awesome . The acting itself was pretty good . The premise for the show was interesting . That being said I couldn’t watch it past the middle of the season as I just couldn’t stand the writing and the story lines . And this pisses me off because I really wanted to like this show . I really like Star Trek as a whole .
I fully agree Steve that the plot twist were excessive and to me felt cheap. I feel like we really didn't get much character development. I think it was an amazing piece of sci-fi tv but the story lines lacked the star trek elements that make the show amazing. I'm so happy that season 2 is taking it slower and we're spending more time with the characters in purposeful ways.
The doods on Reddit figured out the Lorca twist after episode 3 or 4. It wasn't very shocking. None of the twists were. It was all pretty obvious. We all knew the Emperor had to be Georgiou ever since they said they didn't know who it was. Ash/Voq was the most obvious twist ever. It was painfully obvious.
almost like an insult to sci fi fans...nevermind star trek...
hope they wont tries to writr a show in the crime-fiction genres icon...if they think sci-fi fans are rabid...wait untill they make enemy of fan bases that actually knows how to getaway with murder (allegedly). LMAOO.
I couldn't get past the "new look" of the Klingons at first, and after the first 3 episodes I kinda forgot about DISCOVERY...finally came back to it after so many of my friends said that I should stick with it, and...
Ended up being a major fan!
A lot of it has to do with, as you said, Steve, the actors, who were absolutely phenonemal! I liked the twisty plotting, it was different, and I appreciated the "risk-taking."
I also liked Suru, he was my favourite character , I did think that the makeup looked a bit like Mr Arex the Edosian (Triexian) in the animated series and thought it would have been neat if they had him as an Edosian to connect the series and have an animated character transpose into live action, however I still loved the character
A year later, I remember thinking it was a sort of enjoyable action series, with a lot of irritations I could put up with. I remember being angry that it was not like TNG, but not enough to not enjoy the episodes for what they were. But I think the main criticism I have now, a year on, is I don't remember any of the plot points you mentioned here - the series just left no lasting impression at all. Contrast that with TNG's ability to do excellent sci-fi - Measure of a Man, Yesterdays Enterprise, and one of my person favourites, The Offspring, which came back to me years after I saw them and made me want to see them again. Discovery just said nothing about life, didnt really touch on anything important, beyond the immediate concerns of the characters. TNG covered deep sci-fi topics that had relevance outside the show, and which stayed with you for some time after.
I have three problems with the Klingons' cosmetic difference;
1: It looks hideous. For a species we spend almost half the first two episodes, and a tonne of later scenes, having to look at and follow for long periods of time is really annoying. Their heads are weirdly bulbous in the back, they have ugly giant lips, four nostrils for some reason, all of which makes them really unappealing, and it's difficult to tell who the hell is who. I seriously thought Vok was L'rell in one of the mirror universe episodes, because they have the same damn face and practically the same outfit.
2: They've made a big deal on several occasions about Klingons' hair and beards before in various shows. Worf even said that for males, having a beard is a symbol of courage multiple times. Guess that means that none of these Klingons want people to think they have any courage? I'm not saying every Klingon has to be hairy, General Chang was bald, but every single one of them having no hair anywhere is distracting and the most inconsistent thing about the Klingons visually. Almost every important Klingon, even in TOS, had at least a goatee.
3: Without some of the aspects that'd finally become definitive visual markers to distinguish them by the time Star Trek III had come out (especially the hair), they are basically indistinguishable from any other alien race in Star Trek history who had bumpy heads. Whenever I look at shows like Voyager or Enterprise especially, I'll see an alien and genuinely think to myself "This could be the next Klingon makeup and I wouldn't bloody know."
They took an alien race that, by now, has become distinctive, defined and recognisable look and made it generic.
And yeah, I think that's a bit of a problem.
Completely agree with your take. It was flawed for sure but I don’t get the frothing hatred. The positives outweigh the negatives, and I didn’t think of it until you said it but Saru is my favorite character too.
I wouldn't describe my dislike of it as "frothing hatred" but rather frustration that the writers themselves don't seem to understand what they're writing. The Story starts with the federation encroaching on Klingon territory, which predictably starts a war. The Klingons fear that the Federation wants to erase their individuality is justified from the start, and completely validated in the finale in multiple ways - but that's not how it's presented.
+jarvy251
....what do you expected from 90210 drama trying to write a sci fi?
....seriously...those rosswell writers...
I for one got right to watching it after I finished DS9
Content With Jeremiah amen. What sets me off with people is that they finally are starting to dump money into trek. And you get ppl bashing it. Itll get to a point when we have no trek at all. I think its refreshing yo see the dark side of starfleet and that it is not all enlightened. Then to top it off and see the ncc1701 at the end. Nerdgasm!
yep! absolutely right
Hey Steve, you are making really good videos. I like how chill you are about inconsistencies in Star Trek. It's just a show made by people. Keep it up!
I would have no problem in redesigning the Klingons in principle. The problem is that they look like beasts. They look ugly. Some people say this may be intentional to show that people who look monstrous actually aren't...except they are. The Klingons eat Georgiou. My biggest problem with them aside from that is that 1. It's just dumb to me that virtually all Klingons are bald now. 2. The prosthetics make it look very difficult to talk and, therefore, hinder the acting. 3. We now know it was just for the purpose of throwing us off the Voq twist. Imo, if you have to change the setting to make a twist work don't do the twist. Most of my friends who watched this show saw it coming, me included.
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I watch Trekyards and other Star Trek and Star Wars UA-camr's regularly but you are the first one who seems to have a viewpoint very similar to mine. I really appreciate your perspective and how you articulate your views. Keep up the good work man!
Season 1 sucked balls. I struggled through half a dozen episodes and gave up.
Unlikeable characters, idiot plots, bad acting throughout, and most importantly, a show that took an approach to Trek canon that was physically painful to watch.
Graham Kennedy the first half was unnecessary. The second half was actually pretty damn good.
Wow, this comment can literally be applied to ANY Star Trek show, barring perhaps TOS.
better 1st season than pretty much any of the treks 1st seasons
@@derekscanlan4641 Nonsense. It was higher-budget than TNG, but the story-telling was horrible in STD season 1.
Just found your channel and slowly working through the videos... I just wanted to say THANK YOU for this. I really enjoyed season 1 also, but I spend a lot of time on Reddit (LOTS of haters over there), and I felt the same way that you feel. I'm not so wild about the Klingon redesign, and I'm a little hesitant about this "magical" technology that can instantly transport you to anywhere you want that is never mentioned in "later" series... And then it dawned on me that if the tech gets banned (like it's looking like it will after what's happening to Stamets), then characters would have no REASON to mention it in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY. But anyway, thanks for this!
Funny story: I liked season 1 about as much as you liked 300. But even I have to admit season 2 is a big improvement over the first. :)
Take the visuals and crappy effects of TOS out of the mix, and Discovery fits perfectly into the Star Trek timeline, both esthetically and historically. We have to remember, TOS is not the beginning any more, Enterprise is. So, Discovery fits perfectly after Enterprise. Then you'd have the stories of TOS, without the visuals. Then you have the movies, then TNG. The more we see TV shows and potential movies, the more TOS is the one that's out of place. And they can't continually work around TOS. It just makes no sense.
I’m grabbing random episodes at this point, but I’m enjoying Not Actually Trek Actually. Keep it up Steve. You’re awesome.
I agree, the positives easily outweigh the negatives in DIS. I wasn't a fan of the klingon redesign, really seemed to make it hard for the actors to speak (though I assume it'll change as we approach TOS era, maybe augment virus shenanigans) and I thought their ships were a bit overdesigned. As for the 'this looks too advanced for a prequel', didn't feel that, just thought that was the style of the show. early TNG was very late 80's, DS9 and Voyager were very 90's and TOS was very 60's. The swearing was unnecessary (yes, I know they did it a lot in the films but still, that F bomb?) people crying how the 'SJW's are in control!' are talking a load of BS and are likely just very insecure in themselves. I like how the darker tone cleared up by the end of the series and had a far more 'trek-ish' tone by the close of the last episode. As far as Season 1's of Trek go, definitely one of the best
I really enjoyed watching the first season of Star Trek Discovery and I'm definitely looking forward to watching the second season !
Funny, I was so ready to hate this show, but once I actually gave in and watched it, I had the same reaction as you. It's a solid B+, not perfect, but definitely good and intriguing, and I want more.
I liked Discovery a lot more than I thought I would and I can’t wait for more. However, I’m really tired of producers/writers wanting to keep coming back to this era of Trek. I think a stronger choice would have been to create a show that takes place many years after the TNG era. They really write themselves in a corner because there really isn’t a lot of wiggle room with a prequel. Why do they continue to make it hard for themselves? Instead of a prequel series, again, how about we see the fallout from the Dominion War. How did the war shape the Alpha and Gamma quadrant!?!? Maybe have an alien race from the Andromeda galaxy. There is just so much more room to breathe as a Star Trek writer when you create brand new canon and you also avoid continuity issues. We need to move forward and create brand spanking new stories, stories that really parallel what’s happening here in our world today. What if there is a civil war within the Federation!? How cool would that be!? But maybe I’m just crazy, idk 😐
I like it quit a bit more than I expected to also. The second season is even better than the first. I'm actually enjoying it a little bit more than the Orville now. Orville is definitely still a great show, but it is a lot more like TNG, whereas Discovery is going for more realism. They're totally different styles. Orville is a lot more willing to do allegories to modern day issues, where Discovery is its own story in its universe without any real modern day allegories.
Indeed "how about we see the fallout from the Dominion War" and, possibly, the continuation of what happens to Sisko as a sub-theme? at the least an episode? as well as the 'fallout' that you mentioned.
Great review and great opinion piece to the redesigns! I feel the exact same way. My issue with the Klingon design is, that I just don't like it. The ships look clunky, the egg heads look ridiculous, the armor looks bulky, the Bat'leth looks flimsy. I only liked Kol and T'Kuvma's designs and the daggers were also great. Similarly, the mirror universe I.S.S. Charon just looked bad imo. And I also did not care for the bad-guys-eat-people thrope, even though on principle, I liked the idea that they aligned the Terran Empire with the Klingon Empire (which is something TOS also did).
As for starfeelt designs: I noticed that many aspects of the ship's interior had ice callbacks to TOS, like the colorful data-cards, the hallway beams on top, the mess hall and the replicators, and the emphasis on Gold, Silver and Bronce in clothing, which TOS also dis quite a bit. And, of course, the new incarnation of a certain famous starship in the end was just perfect. As you said, keeping the cheap 1960s TOS designs in other Trek productions worked before, because there was always a humorous tongue-in-cheek element in it. "Relics" was a nice but breif callback and both "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" were very humorous and in the latter case over-the-top ridiculous episodes.
As for the writing: very inconsistent, very gimmicky at times. But the show has a lot of potential and let's hope they'll improve in Season 2.
Nice round up of the season! I loved season one, and it's nice to see a positive and optimistic retrospective!
When people say all Trek series take a season or two to find their legs, I think that really only applies to TNG.
Voyager's first season was more consistent with its characters in the first season than any other, DS9 and Enterprise started strong out of the gate and TOS' first season was probably it's best.
So yeah, I'm throwing a tiny bit of shade at Next Gen 😊🖖
I wanted to like Discovery. I really really did. But there are just so many problems in this show.
The way the show goes out of it's way to be set in this era and then to go and retcon stuff, just because it's trying to be new and "edgey", reeks of a poor writing team desperately trying to justify it's existence for some other reason than "well TOS was popular so there."
The finale especially was the biggest load of trite I have ever witnessed. The whole resolution to the Klingon War was just so unbelievably contrived. And then there's Burnham. Look I get being pardoned. That I can buy. BUT A FULL REINSTATEMENT OF HER RANK??? RECORD EXPUNGED??? FOR FUCKING MUTINY!?!?!?!?
i was thinking "that's must be a whole spider-web, not a string, her adopted father must've been yanking..."
But also the original sentence was absurd too. Life imprisonment? That doesn't sound super Federation-y.
@@nurlindafsihotang49 Probably, but could you imagine OT/TNG Sarek doing the same?
That's what I don't get about these self claimed "true fans" of star trek who point out a flaw with the show and say it should be cancelled. I'm sorry, no "true fan" would be hoping for it to be cancelled, a "true fan" would be hoping that it gets a chance to fix these problems, to become a great show, and it cannot if it's cancelled
This is a classic example of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy and isn’t a productive argument to make...
@@Walter_Melon_Melon Haters and trolls want the show canceled period. I blow them out the airlock every day! :-)
Redesigning things is not the problem as such, redesigning things so they look and feel nothing like the ST universe is the problem. The show is miserable to look at (sfx are good quality) but the tone is unremittingly dark, dreary, depressing. The characters are worse, either simple and annoying, like Tilly, or unlikable and evil like Lorka. Most of the crew we don't even have names for, they are just background no better than the props. Klingons dont just not look like Klingons they dont act like Klingons, they are just illformed alien barbarians (and like the term Barbarians it smacks of a simplification of culture and a racial slur by an Empirical power, in this case that being the Federation (that would make sense, propaganda and slurs against an enemy combatant) sadly they actually portray Klingons as being this way in actuality so its just the writers displaying that level of ignorance and lazy writing).
The main character we are supposed to follow is dull, unlikable and one note. Nowhere near strong enough to carry a show as a central character and simply piling on ST connections, oh she is Spocks secret human step-sister, she is the first officer to be court-martialed in Starfleet, does not make her interesting it just smacks of them desperately trying to find something to cover up for the fact her core character is about as much fun to watch as watching paint dry.
And who exactly sat down and watched previous ST and thought, 'I know what this needs, Klingon tits and plenty of gore and violence.' I got into ST because my Dad was a huge fan so we watched it together when I was a kid of about 8- I would not let a child of mine watch Discovery at that age, and as a large appeal of ST is a mix of nostalgia and a feeling of optimism and hope for the future, its why it inspired so many people, who is going to remember watching Discovery as a kid and being inspired by its dark depressing future of violence, unlikable people and self interests?
Discovery is fundamentally the exact opposite of Rodenberry's vision.
and the insults to logic ability to any sci fi fans...nevermind star trek fans, are so blantant and without regards...at all!
Your last 2 paragraphs really hit home.
My son is 7 and me and his Mom have been talking about watching 90's Trek as a family. We think he could find some real inspiration and great morals in them. I'd say Star Trek has made me a better person because I look up to Picard and strive to be someone he'd deem worthy of serving on his ship, I try to be as strong as Jadzia, as ruthlessly compassionate as Bashir, as curious as Trip, to learn from Spock's journey of logic and emotion, etc.
Having R rated Trek is kinda cool but... yeah it's not really right is it? And it really does lack the inspirational moments. I had some fun watching Discovery (and a lot of wtf are you doing guys moments too) but you're right so far it's totally uninspirational. We'll see if that changes when season 2 airs this week. If it can't bring back the Trek, the wonder, the optimism, the inspiration, etc. then I think I'm going to have to call it quits on modern Star Trek. To be honest I don't think I could even bare to watch the new Picard series because I will become a stereotypical angry nerd when they ruin Picard.
What a refreshing review. Yes the first season wasn’t perfect but I thought it had a lot more bite to it than the other Star Trek series. We hardly got to know most of the crew in the show which leaves plenty of room for character development along with plot developments. My personal take on the look of the Klingons is I love it. They actually look and behave like a warrior race to be feared. Can’t wait for season 2.
Great review! I enjoyed this first season, and I was willing to accept the changes they made to the aesthetics and to some parts of the canon in order to be entertained by the show. I listen to a podcast that has reviewed each episode, and sometimes they would get very negative and butthurt over some issues the show certainly has had. But for me, being entertained has been the main goal, and it seems to me some people need to relax and focus on that goal, too.
My personal favorite is Stamets. He's really great with Tilly, and for some reason, the chief engineers are my favorite characters in nearly every Trek show.
I wasn't surprised by any of those twists. Mirror Georgiou being the Emperor was the obvious cliche and STD went straight for it. AshVoq ´was so heavily foreshadowed that it was just a relief that the show finally admitted this.
Lorca was also quite foreshadowed. I think he would have been an interesting character if he had been a (by the standards of the Terran Empire) liberal rebel. Instead he was complaining that Emperor Georgiou wasn't evil enough. Emperor Georgiou who eats people.
I thought it was horrible, Saru was the only cool character, Lorca was a decent character. Hated Jar Jar TIlly, HATED Ash Tyler and his droopy face. "Michael" seemed decent at first but I quickly got bored & annoyed with her.
Another thing I hated was how half of the bridge crew got NO attention or background story whatsoever, every time you saw that robot dude turn his head an go "vrum" or that redhead with the thing in her eye turn her head and look like "what the hell am I doing on this show" etc. it reminded me of how not -Star Trek this show was.
The Michael-Ash romance was... 2 unlikable annoying characters in a forced romance I couldn't care about. The gay dudes were not interesting at all. The whole spore-drive plot was nonsensical. Oh, and do we really need to start the first season with "this could destroy the entire multiverse!"??? REALLY?
It's not unusual to not learn much about the whole crew in the first season. I do agree with a few things you're saying though.
+90mrhoward...know it all? how about "you're raised as a vulcan. explains your action instead just insisted like a brat!"
Yeah, my biggest complaint with the show I think is that it went the route of having a main character(s), whereas all previous shows were an ensemble cast.
The new series wasnt bad but... am I the only person that hoped for a more episodic series? Like, all the episodes were part of the same arc. With all other episodes in the other series you could just watch an episode. Discovery, you cant do that without missing stuff.
You aren't alone. I don't necessarily want _completely_ episodic like the original series, but I think TNG/DS9/VOY got a great balance between episodic and serial, and I just wish we could've had more of that.
Totally agree, best first season of Star Trek ever. The characters are great, the visual feel of the show, whilst updated is a good evolution of the old style. Plus Tilly just rocks.
Entertaining video Steve. Thanks. I agree with your take. Personally, I accept a lot of creative freedom for people using 2017/18 movie making technology to tell a prequel to a story that was told using 1966 movie making technology. Same as for star wars episode 4 done in 1977 and episode 1 done in 1999. As for the look of the klingons, they really should have stuck with the TNG, DS9, etc look.
My observation of the latter half of Discovery Season 1 is that there was an effort to contain the first season storylines because of the level of criticism, which would allow the opening of season 2 to act as a "second pilot". This means that, to close out the storyline, a lot of twists that would have made good "season finales" needed to be rushed into a storyline that concluded at the end of the season.
I wouldn't be surprised if their future was in question after season 1, because the reveal of the Enterprise makes a good "visual hand-off" between Discovery and TOS. The show could have ended there, or it could have continued from that point.
I think a lot of the issues you mention in this video about Discovery Season 1 can be put into this bucket, and the rest will hopefully be resolved in season 2.
You're right about the war with the Klingons. It sure wasn't in the same league as the Dominion War, which the writers should have taken more influence from in terms of how Ron Moore played that.
We're only one season in though. This first season is better, in my opinion, than DS9s first season.
MithraMusic Ds9’s first season wasn’t great, but it had some brilliant episodes and serious themes. Duet, The Emissary, In the Hands of the Prophets, Whispers and a few others are all grade A Trek in my opinion.
icarusfx Sisko's acting was so horrid though. It remained throughout the iteration's entirety.
I felt like there just wasn't enough episodes in the season to tell the story of a war.
I agree the Dominion War was much more interesting, but... we already saw that. I don't really need another war series. I was fine watching a crew that was on the periphery of the war but still played a pivotal role in its end. If I want to watch multiple seasons of a well-played war, I'll just Netflix DS9 or watch B5 on Amazon again (which I think I'll start doing, now that I mention it).
I too love Discovery for what it's done, how it looks and where it's trying to go. In point-of-fact, it's actually my second favorite Trek behind DS9. However, I'm also a timeline zealot. And the show's aesthetic is a hard sticking point for me. I HAVE to divorce Discovery from the rest of Trek in my head in order for me to accept it as its own thing. And the sad thing about it is that it didn't have to be a problem. If the show runners had simply accepted the fact that they wanted to make a J.J. styled show and just admitted that the show was Kelvin not Prime (as the show's visuals CLEARLY showcase), then literally everything that they've done would have been accepted by the masses. Hell, that's what I tell myself when I watch it anyway. "It's the Kelvin timeline; not the Prime."
season 1 was awful. didnt feel one bit like Star Trek. season 2 was far better,much more of a Star Trek show. Hoping season 3 continues the upward swing in quality.
ps...Steve....have you watched the Star Trek Continues series? If you can get past the fact that its not Shatner and co., it's a fun watch and made by people with an obvious love for the original show.
After watching the first episode of Discovery, I wasn't a fan and didn't give it another shot until months later. After 2 seasons I can now say that I AM a fan, but there are a few things I still don't like. First...you guessed it...the Klingons. Not simply because they look different (at least they got their hair back in season 2), but because almost everything about them is different. Their culture is different (though still a "warrior culture"); their ships look drastically different; their overall demeanor seems quite different; their weapons are different; and even their politics seem different. They might as well be an entirely new alien race. Second...since when does Spock have a sister? I mean, I like that whole storyline, it just doesn't fit AT ALL with what I know about Spock's family and personal history. I realize they sort-of explained why no one knew about Spock having a sister...but still...it felt like too drastic a departure from canon. I'm not obsessed with canon...I would just prefer more subtle departures from it. The last thing I'll mention here, is the spore drive. I like it...I just don't think it makes sense in a Federation ship from that time period. I mean, there's no mention of anything like it in any other show or film, despite that it was centuries ahead of its' time technologically...and why isn't Star Fleet trying to upgrade other ships with this superior tech? Maybe they addressed that at some point and I just missed it? Or perhaps they'll address it later? Anyway...season 2 was a drastic improvement over season 1 (in my opinion), and my hope is that the show will continue to improve.
This video perfectly sums up my feelings about Discovery at the moment.
You know why the new aesthetic of Discovery bothers me. Because they told us the series takes place in prime universe. PRIME UNIVERSE. If they wanted to change the universe to the extent they did, they should have placed it in the Kelvin universe. So much about this show is ridiculous. They could have made Michael Burnham be the daughter of a diplomat stationed on Vulcan, making her Spock’s sister makes no sense at all. Discovery and it’s abilities are ridiculous. The fact the Vulcans can have a fucking telepathic phone call with each other is ridiculous . The hologram capabilities are ridiculous. The medical advances the Klingons have is ridiculous. I enjoyed the show for what it was, but placing it in the prime universe was a spit in the face, and the main reason for my dislike.
I gave up about the same place halfway through the season.
But eventually I went back out of boredom.
I think they woke up and realized they were sucks, because they basically abandoned the whole first half and started writing a new season with a new storyline. Which actually did okay by the end of it all.
THAT being said, the ORVILLE did a much better job of keeping up the whole Star-Trek feeling of social commentary. Discovery was more of an action adventure show, so I felt it lost the whole goal of the franchise.
I think it's more obvious than ever now that the show was written and filmed with binge-watching in mind. Which makes sense as the whole season had been filmed before the pilot even aired. Sadly, CBS made the bad decision (by which I mean a desperate attempt to make their streaming service relevant instead of just putting the damn thing on NetFlix, which is still my biggest complaint about the show and the only one I share with the Haters(TM)) to release it one episode at a time, and the show truly suffers for it. If CBS plans to continue this release schedule, then I hope that Season 2 is planned out more episodically. Not saying they can't have arcs, weekly TV shows have arcs all the time now. Even shows that probably would do just fine without them. Just that they film it one in such a way that if something early in Season 2 doesn't go over well, they have time to make a course correction and do their best to fix it for future episodes.
One of the things that could have helped with the first season is if the first half and second half season were either two separate seasons, or if the season had been longer. That would have given more space for the plot reveals to have an effect of shaking up the status quo and letting the audience get used to things before the next one came. This would also give time to build flavour for the setting because it would mean having more bottle show which were what gave life to TNG, DS9, and VOY. We could have seen more of the effect of the Klingon War on the Federation, life on the Discovery both during the war and in the Mirror Universe as the crew copes with it, and a chance to build up the ensemble more so that we can get to know our secondary characters. One of my favourite Star Trek episodes is ironically a first season bottle show from DS9, Duet, because the constraints of the episode forced the writers to be creative. The DIS episode "Magic to Make the Sanest Man go Mad" is probably the only bottle show of the season, and my favourite episode because it gave us great character moments from Burnham, Tyler, and Stamets. More episodes like that would have made a very good first season into an even better one.
Overall, DIS season 1 is in my mind the strongest first season of Star Trek thus far, and I look forward to season 2.
Hi Steve,
as often I tend to agree with you on most parts, so this video was fun to watch (people like having their opinions reassured by any form of authority, don’t they?). But there’s one major issue I have with the first season you didn’t address (probably in another video, I haven’t seen them all, yet), and that’s the mirror universe itself. I’ve enjoyed mirror universe episodes, but in previous series there weren’t any long term consequences for anything but the occasional next mirror universe episode. They were fun because they gave the actors an opportunity to break with their usual routine. I think "bad Kira" was outstanding.
So I ignored that it is at least highly improbable, that the same genetic mixture that led to all our beloved characters, also happened in a completely different scenario with tyrannical regimes having killed millions if not billions AND they still are all connected to one another despite their obvious fundamental changes in personality. I could NOT ignore that in a show where this was the basis for half the season and had so much influence on the plot in general.
Since you are mentioning “lazy writing” quite often in your videos, I was wandering if this is something you just not categorize as such and if so, for what reasons.
I tried checking the comments if someone brought that up before but there were a lot of them, so I'm sorry if I repeated something which was already said here. Also please don’t give me shit for my language skills since I am not a native speaker. I encourage anyone though to give me shit contentwise.
I was never able to over come the canon contradictions and i thought Green's acting was not very good. This was the first Star Trek show where i found disliking the main characters. I do agree with all your other points.
Getting to this video a bit late. I really dig your content, but there's something you said in this video that really hit home for me and it feels really good to hear someone else say. Your bit about how everything in Discovery looks different and you don't care? We have advanced decades in special effects tech, of course the show is going to look different. There doesn't need to be a canon reason for things to look different. It all looks like scifi and it's really not a big deal that Klingon's look different, because they clearly look like Klingons still. Federation ships are still easily identifiable as Federation ships.
Yeah I don't get people complaining that they updated the look - would you REALLY want to watch them try and make 60s technology fit in the far future?
Also everyone seems to skip over the fact that Trek used to update the look of the aliens all the time when the bugget got better.
Though giving them hair again was nice
i enjoyed it but the pacing of each episode was different, plus what you said. Hopefully season 2 will rectify this.
the fact that the klingons speak mostly klingon is awesome. Accepting the new visuals wasnt hard.
am still crying for axanar.... T_T would have been a better show
i generally liked the effects,characters, battle scenes and for the most part the story aside from the constant loops and crew switches. certain details bothered me a bit such as the klingon looks and the fact they didnt have hair and extremley different features had thrown me off but i can get past that since they still portrayed them well as klingon's in character. (comment made before watching)
Just discovered your video feed and have watched several of your videos. I appreciate your take on things. As with most folks, I agree with a lot of what your saying and disagree with other things. Anyway, I just subscribed! :-)
As for Star Trek Discovery, I have to say yours is the most upbeat opinion on the series as a whole that I've heard to date. Most folks I've talked to that have bothered to keep up with it have been much more neutral in their opinions of what they've done with the show. I have only watched the premier for two main reasons. First, I wasn't impressed with what they did with it, especially the Klingons. I think I could have gotten by the different look, but I was totally turned off by the language. They-were talk-ing-in-a-ve-ry-sta-ca-to-syl-al-ble-by-syl-la-ble-fash-ion. It hurt to listen to it and didn't sound natural at all. The second reason I haven't watched it is, given how unimpressed I was with the pilot, I wasn't particularly motivated to subscribe to a pay per channel just to watch one show. I have discovered lately that through the years, I've subscribed, intentionally or not, it services that automatically renew themselves at a regular basis. They are not large charges and it's easy to overlook them but they add up. I've cleaned out a lot of those recently and am absolutely not interested in subscribing to another one. So as long as they insist on keeping the show on a per per channel, I won't be watching it and frankly, I'm ok with that.
This is a fair summary of what's good about the series and what needs improvement, I think.
One flaw that I've seen in the series is that, unlike DS9, it doesn't have the comic relief episodes that could be sprinkled in the same way the more episodic format could. The series suffers a bit from that, as a few of the comic relief episodes were quite good in both TNG and DS9.
I agree with your point on the plot twists. The series was reliant upon twists to generate reactions in the audience, and unfortunately that's today's zeitgeist throughout media. I felt like there was so much potential for a series after Voyager, but for some reason producers feel the need to constantly backtrack.
This series so far has been absolutely phenomenal, and I'm not a new fan. I've been watching since I was a little kid when TNG began. Excellent first season that's already eclipsed the entire Voyager and ENT shows, as good as they were.
Still don't like the Klingons though.
Can't say I like the show but I enjoy watching it. They should call it Star Trek: it's all about Burnham (& Season 2 proves it). Too bad they're gonna dump Anson Mount after season 2 (liked him as Pike)
I love the idea of the spore hub drive. Stamets is awesome. They killed off a lot of strong characters in this first season.. but i wouldn’t be surprised if we see some more of them return as alter-egos of themselves from the mirror dimension like philippa
I'm subscribed to your channel and watch all your videos (and am thoroughly entertained by the way) even though I've never had an interest in Star Trek. Witchcraft.
Loved saru! Compared too other star trek series, it was decent.
I just wonder if that android thing in Discovery is going to be considered now the first sentient android before Data.
I can live with the difference of the visuals and I can understand the reasoning behind it. Now with the klingons a huge problem with. It's one thing they changed their apperance drasticly, now I could Probeably learn to live with that too, but it fails terribly when they also change their whole codecs and make them unrecogniseable in their core values. That is just butchering the lore.
Now the writing is really bad. They stated they wanted to make it like game of thrones. They clearly failed that. They lack build up's before the big reveals so the whole drama just fizzle out disappointingly. I'm not sure if is due to bad writing or just really bad work in the cutting room. Maybe it was just rushed because of the backlash so they can start from more or less scratch in season 2. I try to rewatch season 1 again and I just can't. I think this is the first time that has happend with a star trek for me. I just can't follow Burnham's logic and I really don't find her character likeable either so it is really hard to enjoy the show. I would love to see more of Tilly and Saru. That robot/cyborg: Airiam (I think was her name) intrigues me and there must be good storylines with the shenzhou crew (especially the one with the implant over her eye) and Burnham, but that just was ignored.
I'd like to see a series on how humanity and the Vulcans first came into contact and how they got to know each other and interacted despite having different cultures and natures.
That was basically the original pitch for Enterprise! The first season was just going to be on Earth. I think it would have been great
I found the reveal of the twin universe Emperor especially implausible, as twists go. Supposedly Burnham did such extensive research on this universe that she could act and train others to act exactly so as to evade suspicion. But she never thought to investigate the identity of the head of state? Or for that matter, looked for her parallel captain?
Why change the Klingon? Probably the most love race in ST, along side the Vulcans and Romulans. They are just sooooo boring in S1, generic antagonist race number 168. I don't hate discovery, but they are not making it easy to love.
About the re-design. It used to bug me, but I convinced myself of a reason for it. Instead of considering the pictures of the show as a real shooting of the events, as if some kind of journalist was filming the real action, I consider what we see as a theatrical representation of a story. It is as if a movie director was adapting a story from a book. Like doing a movie about ancient Rome, or ancient Egypt, the Bible, the King Louis the 14th in Versailles... The style that is visible on such adaptations can vary from movie to movie, even if they are depicting the same written story. So if you imagine that for Star Trek it's the same, you won't have trouble thinking why the computer screens are more like we (in 2019) think they should be than how they imagined it should look like when you are living in the 60's. Just pretend what we see on screen is the imagination of a film director, based on some "future history books", and not real footage of what happens in the stories.
Agree with the points about it being a prequel being a challenge for it. If I had one wish it would be just that it was a sequel. Then you can explain away anything you want really.
Lorca actually being from the mirror universe was disappointing. From the beginning the character was one of a war-obsessed man, partly broken by the realities of war. His character deserved a redemption; what we got instead was more like a comic-book style transformation into 'pure evil' mode at the moment the agonizer booth was opened.
i agree, i liked his war arch..
I like Discovery and watch it in virtual reality which is kind of ironic on many levels. As Star Trek is about the future and has a hollow deck and its the first show I have watched in VR.
I just came across your videos and I'm really enjoying them so far. One point though. At about 15:30 you are discussing the timeline and saying that this takes place in the prime timeline as opposed to the Kelvin timeline. How do we know that? As we haven't met Kirk yet, we don't know if his father is dead or alive so we don't really know which timeline it takes place in, do we?
Firstly the producers have said it's in the main timeline and secondly we've seen characters who were in the Kelvin timeline and they're not their Kelvin timeline version
I can't get used to the new Klingons. Why the change? One thing I find annoying is the Klingons speaking in Klingon with subtitles. On my 32" TV I find it hard to read the subtitles. Plus they move so fast I don't have time to read the longer ones. Make them speak Klingon for a few phrases, then switch to English. I hate subtitles. But - I'm "hooked". Roll on Season 2.
It’s nice to see someone on UA-cam not just bashing on discovery because it’s different
You hit on my biggest grumble about season one, which was the never-ending onslaught of twists. To their credit, they were consistently well executed, but they lose some of their punch when you're sitting there waiting for the next BIG SHOCK to show up.
I have mixed feelings about the finale. There was quite a lot of stuff I liked in there, but the conclusion of the Klingon war felt just a little too convenient or unearned. But, they did back themselves into a serious wall with the 9 month jump. After that, there was virtually no way for them to wrap the war up in two episodes that wouldn't have felt too easy or convenient. And at the end of the day, I'm REALLY glad they didn't go with the final twist I was expecting, which was to use the spore drive to do a time jump and avoid Starfleet losing the war or committing genocide.
One correction while there is an appreciable arc between Burnham's decisions early on and her decisions in the finale I have to point out that while many viewers and Burnham herself apparently thought she had, she did not start the war. Her Mutiny Justified or not was a failure and she did not fire on the Klingons nor instigate any action from them, what instigated the war was both t'kuvma the Starfleet leadership playing into his hands.
She switched her phaser to kill and murdered T'Kuvma out of rage over the death of Georgou. It's possible that the war would have ended after one battle if she had followed her own plan and captured him.
About the look of klingons question I would say that Relics aired a year after Gene death, Trials and In a Mirror even before. The only time we watched something from TOS outside TOS under the control of Gene Roddenberry was in the movies. So, my idea is that when Gene had the money to made something elaborated he choose to adapt it to the times it was going to be aired. Relics, Trials and In a Mirror were made by people without the money or/nor the means to update the classic look
The fact that this was almost entirely unrecognizable as “Star Trek” is why I gave up on it. Why someone would pitch a “prequel” whose whole purpose was to say “that was all wrong, none of it was like that”… I don’t understand. The level of infantile “this is not your father’s Star Trek” from these emotionally stunted edgelords was too much for me.
That 'writing towards a twist' style of writing is how Kurtzman crafts a story. He admitted as much in the episode of After Trek of the last episode.