Has anyone watched Star Trek: Discovery?

[user 139760]

Hi ALL,

As you may or may not know, I'm a big Star Trek fan. I started watching the original series when I was maybe 6 or 7 years old, with my dad, when my friends in 1st grade were still playing with Tonka trucks and Barbies, I was watching that show and actually engaging my dad, who watched it with me and explained what I didn't understand, we debated morality and implications we saw in those shows. Several years latter, we did the same with Star Trek: The Next Generation. (Yeah, I'm a geek, and proud of it). Kind of stopped with DS9 and Voyager, saw maybe a season or two of each, but I felt they shied away from that in favor of more action or politics of the universe they created and that wasn't really what I was trying to get from the show. I was maybe 17 or 18 at the time. Completely skipped Enterprise, I just didn't have the time at the time lol.

Now I heard about this new show, Star Trek Discovery. For starters, I'm not very big on the concept, which I heard was set in the past, around Kirk's time or even slightly before. I've read the casting attracted some controversy, but I've since heard that the show is gathering ravings and good reviews. Since I sadly cannot watch it for financial reasons, (no cable, sadly, one of the problems with paying hefty child support) but I'm considering buying the dvd seasons once they release them if they're not too pricey. For that, though, I need honest opinions, I need to know if it's worth actually spending that money.
So what kind of a show is it? Is it morality and ethical questions? Is it the most boring thing you've ever seen? Is it the best show you've ever seen? What are your thoughts on it? Would you like to discuss the controversy I've read about, is it a big story out of nothing or are there legitimate criticisms (that whole "not enough white people" thing I heard about where supposedly series are apologetic)?
To me, Star Trek has always been, first and foremost, a Humanist show hidden in science-fiction. Lots of people don't know that Gene didn't really know anything about sci-fi, he wanted to do a western, which is basically a morality play and tackle on the day's taboo subjects. Racism. Sexism. The Vietnam war. The cold war. So he did that on Star Trek and hid it in sci-fi so no one could shoot him down. That's what I'm looking for and I haven't seen it in Star Trek in a long time. I'm hoping I might in this one.
So thoughts

Thanks

 

[EveWasFramed]

I CAN watch it, but decided to binge watch at some point in the future.
I've enjoyed all the Star Trek TV shows and movies, except that one that I can't even recall the name of, lol. Scott Bakula played the captain. I watched about six episodes but just could NOT get into it.
I'll have to give Discovery a chance also. Though, I raised an eyebrow at Sasha, from The Walking dead, being cast as the captain.

 

[DarkSelene]

Star Trek is on Netflix, no one needs cable nowadays! Isn't Netflix cheaper than DVDs?
Apparently this is SJWs wet dreams, to ruin big franchises with virtue signaling... I haven't watched it but already complaining based on friends reviews. Hehe

 

[reynard_muldrake]

Star Trek is on Netflix, no one needs cable nowadays! Isn't Netflix cheaper than DVDs?
Apparently this is SJWs wet dreams, to ruin big franchises with virtue signaling... I haven't watched it but already complaining based on friends reviews. Hehe

...what do "SJWs" have to do with this franchise?

Anyway, Richard, I have to disagree: the only Star Trek show I liked was DS9. It still feels current, probably more so than the other Trek shows. It had the best cast/characters as well, in my opinion. I wanted Discovery  to pick up where DS9 left off, so I was disappointed to learn it was another prequel series. Now while I haven't seen the show yet, a Trekkie friend of mine said Discovery was a mess that didn't feel like classic Trek.

 

[user 139760]

Well, if we're talking about "SJW"s, you might as well know Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, would have been an SJW to the upteenth power; his views on many subjects made people in the 60's cringe or call him crazy. He welcomed gay people and women at a time where it was practically dangerous to defend them. Same with the blacks, the asians, all minorities. Same with several subjects. He had applauded and supported the entire birthing LGBTQ movement and trends, even wrote an episode of the old series about gender definition, among other things. The only reason they didn't put George Takei's Sulu gay in the third season was, in Gene's own words, that he was walking a very tight rope and if he pushed too far, the original series would get cancelled. Ironically they were cancelled that year, in 69.

So...Star Trek in essence is SUPPOSED to be an SJWs wet dream. It wasn't supposed to be a big mainstream franchise, that's what Paramount made of it, for financial reasons. So those who don't really get behind that, well...I don't know what they find in those shows, I'm happy they find something, but they're going way across current lol. It's a supposed to be a Humanist show. And it's all about inclusivity.

Kind of like if I said I followed Donald Trump for his politeness and his measured, tactful speeches. Bit of a nonsense.

Which is, ironically to answer mr. Muldrake, why I didn't follow DS9 past season 3 or 4, I forget and Voyager. When they built that "super battlestation" version of DS9. By that point, to me at least, it had become all technobabble and war. I didn't find the themes, or at least they didn't seem easy enough for me to read. Maybe it's just me. But my interest waned at that point. Plus...you know, I was 17 or 18 lol. Did other things ;-)
But it felt at that time that it went clear into sci-fi. Maybe even around the middle of Next Gen where it really started to turn, when they created a utopia for humanity. The original series was much less of a pleasant world lol. Starfleet was, in most episodes, comprised of pretty evil people, representing the authoritarian governement lol. A clear paralell with the US governement at the time, in the 60's. That aspect was gone by Next Gen, every problem faced by Humanity was gone. Suddenly I couldn't relate to the show as much because they felt, I don't know...too alien? Logical, perfect, benevolent. That's not how we are. We're flawed, imperfect, making mistakes, arrogant, etc. So to me the lessons were kind of gone by that point. I still watched the entire series, but it was never the same to me as the original series. Also I felt the imagery less striking. I often bring up the episode where a giant hand, the hand of Apollo, reaches out in space and grabs the ship. So ridiculous, in it's visuality, yet...so original! And they encase it in absolute logical interpretation of the series. I thought it was a masterful writing job. I realised latter on subsequent writers were trying their best, but...it wasn't the same, to me.

But that doesn't mean it was a bad show, not at all. Just that it didn't have as much impact to me. Neither did Voyager after the first 2 seasons I believe. Never tried Enterprise.
I was also disappointed to learn it was another prequel series; time moves forward, not backwards. So should the characters. BUT, that would make 25th century humans a lot harder to relate to us 21st century humans, is my guess.

 

[user 139760]

Star Trek is on Netflix, no one needs cable nowadays! Isn't Netflix cheaper than DVDs?
Apparently this is SJWs wet dreams, to ruin big franchises with virtue signaling... I haven't watched it but already complaining based on friends reviews. Hehe

Oh right, forgot lol.
I don't have the internet at home.

That's right, no need for those widened eyes lol.
People who don't live it don't fully appreciate how costly child support is to the single man; I cut off all uncessary expenses. I really mean ALL. I have electricity, basic phone and that's it. All the rest goes to paying bills and cost of life, food, transport to work and the like. Ironically, when I stop paying child support, I'll suddenly have 800 more a month to live with. So much money I won't even know what to do with it, my credit cards will be paid for in under 6 months, unlike being full and I'll be able to have luxuries I can only dream of right now.
But for the moment, I'm tight. Internet would cost me 60 a month, cheapest I could find, nextflix 10 more. Basic phone is 40. Buying it on dvd when the seasons get to be under 30 is my safest bet. Plus I own it, they can't decide to suddenly remove it from the servers in 20 years when if I feel like wathing it again ;-)

Which is why I want to know it's worth it or not. I honestly heard a lot more of the bad reviews than the good ones. It's the rather good ones I'm looking for, to see if it matches what I feel it might.

 

[reynard_muldrake]

Well, if we're talking about "SJW"s, you might as well know Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, would have been an SJW to the upteenth power; his views on many subjects made people in the 60's cringe or call him crazy. He welcomed gay people and women at a time where it was practically dangerous to defend them. Same with the blacks, the asians, all minorities. Same with several subjects. He had applauded and supported the entire birthing LGBTQ movement and trends, even wrote an episode of the old series about gender definition, among other things. The only reason they didn't put George Takei's Sulu gay in the third season was, in Gene's own words, that he was walking a very tight rope and if he pushed too far, the original series would get cancelled. Ironically they were cancelled that year, in 69.

Exactly. That's why the complaints about the Discovery casting make no sense. Star Trek has always showcased diversity. Why moan about something that's been a hallmark of the franchise since its origins? Sometimes I think fans miss the point of Star Trek altogether.

That being said, I hope you give Deep Space Nine another chance. Later seasons explore how the Federation maintains its utopian ideals, and it's not always as clear cut or as ethical as you'd expect. It does explore a lot of serious themes too, from religious fanaticism to racism. I was, personally speaking, very pleasantly surprised by the series.

 

[DarkSelene]

From what I've heard it's not at all about diversity but because they changed the virtue signaling to be part of the main story. That's probably why it doesn't feel like classic Star Trek. Talking about these subjects and accepting a diverse cast is not the same as what they've been doing nowadays with movies/shows.

Sorry about that, Richard. It's tough seeing someone losing every little thing that could bring them more comfort.

 

[user 139760]

From what I've heard it's not at all about diversity but because they changed the virtue signaling to be part of the main story. That's probably why it doesn't feel like classic Star Trek. Talking about these subjects and accepting a diverse cast is not the same as what they've been doing nowadays with movies/shows.

Sorry about that, Richard. It's tough seeing someone losing every little thing that could bring them more comfort.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that last sentence. You mean because I don't particularly like what's been presented so far in Star Trek? lol. It's a tv show. I'll live ;-)
Besides which, I own the old series on dvd, it doesn't take those away. Kind of like me not liking Star Wars Ep8 doesn't cancel out the original 3 ;-)

EDIT: Oh,and if you meant about the child support thing, I'll live too...just not as long and as healthy LOL. If I'm lucky I'll be abler to live 10 years from now. Of course I'll never retire. But, you know, my govermenent thanks me for paying welfare to a woman who's been lazy all her life, so hey, THERE'S THAT! lol.
I'm trying not to be bitter about it. No purpose. It's just not obvious sometimes and people don't necessarily realize. But I have to explain it to show that the fact I don't have the internet or things considered "normal" is not a personal choice, but an obligation to the life I chose. No biggy ;-)

I just think it's personally sad. I don't know what you mean by virtue signaling, I don't get the difference (never really did get, matter of fact) that whole SJW argument. I don't agree with systematically demonizing everything which was of the past, I've seen THAT happen more and more often these days, as well as abandoning ideas and concepts of morality in favor of cheap entertainment, fart jokes and "DID SOMEONE SAY....EXPLOSIONS??!?!?!?!" (hehe, Mr.Torgue reference, Borderlands 2...sorry lol), but I don't get the argument that social justice warriors is necessarily a bad thing. Or a thing in itself for that matter. My definition of it has always been someone who hides behind a computer screen and blasts someone for no reason other than his own opinions, wether or not those opinions are accepted, in favor of what is considered more "socially acceptable". Like, you know, don't talk about religion, all religions are nice, don't talk about X or Y races, all races and people are nice, etc. But the opposite is also true. Anyone who does call in essence something as being "SJW" b.s. start holding the same mantle. It's really two sides of the same coin, to me at least, it's preaching to your own choir. True answers to debates are usually found somewhere in the middle.

I think it's way too casually thrown around now by anyone who disagrees with a particular view. Ironically, that's what I like the most about Humanity; the dude or dudette he thinks the opposite of what I think. I won't necessarily park myself on his side of the decision process, but he'll make me think a lot more than any kind of yes men. Kind of why Kirk had Spock and McCoy; Spock had the profound intellect, cold, unbiased, machine-like and impersonal. McCoy had the good old country boy, warm yet sometimes frenetic, emotional approach to situations. Kirk always found something in between.
All of them were equally valued and praised on the show. That's what Star Trek is lol.
I read somewhere the Captain in Discovery is somewhat a functional psychopath. That I wouldn't enjoy.
Gene said in an interview once "All our characters are people you can look up to. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, parents could tell kids "be more like them!"". That was a great source of pride for him. That's Star Trek.
I disliked the James Bond reboots for the same reasons. Sure, they made it him more complex, but suddenly it wasn't the hero kids could look up to, who kissed the girl, saved the world and look stylish doing it. He wasn't always a good man. He was dark, prone to drink. Not the kind of guy I'd want my unconceived son to look up to.
Also saw a think where one of the crew members was actually another character. Not convinced about that either, that should have been an episode. Rule 1 of science-fiction; you're already asking the audience to believe in ONE incredible thing (beyond the premisce of the show, of course, flying spaceship in the future). Never do more than 1. Which I think they botched a bit in subsequent series, with it becoming interlocking political storylines instead of morality plays.

As a philosopher I've read once stated about Escapism; "Social philosopher Ernst Bloch wrote that utopias and images of fulfilment, however regressive they might be, also included an impetus for a radical social change. According to Bloch, social justice could not be realized without seeing things fundamentally differently. Something that is mere "daydreaming" or "escapism" from the viewpoint of a technological-rational society might be a seed for a new and more humane social order, as it can be seen as an "immature, but honest substitute for revolution"."
I believe humanity's focus and vision resides in Star Trek. But today's obtuse leaders refuse to move in that direction and allow us to stagnate.

 

[Enpatsu No Shakugan]

I am extremely disappointed in what Star Trek has recently become with the advent of those horrible new films.

If I wanted more Star Wars, I'd watch that instead. Star Trek has never, nor should ever be, a dark-rooted action series.

At its heart, it's always been morality plays cloaked as sci-fi.

 

[user 139760]

I am extremely disappointed in what Star Trek has recently become with the advent of those horrible new films.

If I wanted more Star Wars, I'd watch that instead. Star Trek has never, nor should ever be, a dark-rooted action series.

At its heart, it's always been morality plays cloaked as sci-fi.

Boom.
That's my issue with the films. I understand why they did it (who can resist milking something for more money), but they should have left well enough alone if they were to change the formula so many people enjoyed for so long.

 

[Enpatsu No Shakugan]

Do you think if Disney was releasing Star Wars films earlier (pre 2009), the new Trek reboots wouldn't exist? As the new action sci-fi craze would be an even more marketable series, or would they have happened regardless?

 

[user 139760]

Do you think if Disney was releasing Star Wars films earlier (pre 2009), the new Trek reboots wouldn't exist? As the new action sci-fi craze would be an even more marketable series, or would they have happened regardless?

I have to think it would have been a matter of time anyways before they launched the reboots. Paramount was intent on making revenue at the time and mid-90's, Star Trek was one of their more profitable franchises.
It's only a question of money. Accountants run Hollywood nowadays.
If it was only up to me though, know whom I would've picked to helm the entire thing? Spielberg. He knows how to make popcorn flicks and knows how to make morality plays. He sure knows how to do good sci-fi too. He would've found a good way to relaunch the series that was respectful of the source, as we're seeing now in Ready Player One.

 

[Siku]

I absolutely agree with the dark-rootedness. However, the rest of the major gripes most 'Trekkies' have (while understandable) are misunderstood and legal reasons are to blame. The look of everything including the Klingons are all thanks to the franchise split between CBS and Paramount. There's too many eggshells and neither wants the other to ruin their income by selfishly using nostalgia moreso than the other. Even a certain well known ship that appears in Discovery had to be tweaked to avoid this as well despite CBS actually owning the back catalog. There is no clear 100% indication what is actually owned between CBS and Paramount aside from what they clearly produced. It's also a very touchy subject as either wants to speak up about it.

Heck, I'm highly upset at how they've treated awesome fan films and Tim Russ' Renegades show. It's obvious they both care about the money and each other, more than the fans. The franchise just hasn't been the same since Viacom. They need a merger or sell off to the other already in order to salvage it in my opinion.

My opinion on Discovery.... I loved the first episode two-parter but began to fall off midway. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the last few episodes and finale. Whilst the nostalgia and Star Trek lover in me is upset about all the changes, canon contradictions, and it's essence being intertwined with modern Television; I'd be lying if I said I didn't thoroughly enjoy it overall.

Thankfully, we have The Orville to help with the good ol' Trek feels.