Discovery is very divisive among viewers. People seem to really like it or really hate it with not much in between. Both sides have valid arguments, but people forgot there is a middle ground.
I’m also in the middle, though more negative than positive. I love the inclusivity even though it’s a little heavy handed at times (more “let that be your last battlefield” than Uhura’s position on the bridge). I hate the stakes, internal conflict of the earlier seasons, and how far it feels from canon vs SNW or LD.
I agree the show is better post time jump, but to me it now feels like we know where the universe is going. Futures shown in one-off episodes are easy to wave away as alternate, but that seems harder for the franchise to manage when it’s multiple seasons.
It seems to me the powers that be have already decided to stick with the jump to the 32nd Century, what with Starfleet Academy in production. What’s annoying is that there’s now another lost era. I’d expect a lot of Beta canon material, but not a lot of official content to fill the gaps.
For me, it wasn’t so much the diversity, it was that everyone seemed to be struggling with their diverse identity. It’s the 23rd century, people should not be uncomfortable with their identities anymore, ESPECIALLY the crew of an advanced space ship. It just seems that rather than a professional crew that we see in every other Star Trek show, they decided to pack this one with a bunch of high schoolers struggling to figure out who they are. For fuck sakes, the ship itself starts having an identity crisis at one point.
. It’s the 23rd century, people should not be uncomfortable with their identities anymore
And people are totally comfortable. I am guessing that you’re referencing Adira and their reaction to announcing that they’re non-binary? That didn’t happen in the 23rd century. It happened in the 32nd in an area torn with strife and isolationist behavior that is also not a part of the Federation. Their reaction is appropriate for the setting. There’s a reason that Culber and Stamets are gay without addressing it. Because they are from the 23rd century where that isn’t an issue.
For fuck sakes, the ship itself starts having an identity crisis at one point.
… It’s a newly born AI that is being threatened with being severed from its physical housing. Yeah I feel like that’s kind of appropriate as well. I mean when they did that in TNG there was Measure of a Man… so…
There’s few different criticisms of DISCO. From different perspectives
People who are concerned with canon have issues with the first couple of seasons because it’s set before TOS but has had a big visual reboot. They’d also probably argue that some of the story elements don’t fit in with canon.
The first season (at least) doesn’t feel very star trek, it’s got this whole grim dark thing going on. That is thankfully dropped later and you do get the normal hopefully outlook.
Characters aren’t developed very well. Even by the end I don’t think we’ve got to know anyone other than maybe Stamets and Tilly.
Plots often rely on the mystery box format, which has been disappointing when they don’t stick the landing
Plots are over whole seasons, when they probably don’t need to be.
Because of 5 production often started before writing had finished, and it shows. So you end up with a good start, a bunch of meandering, and then suddenly bam you’re at the final crisis.
I often find it an OK show.
I also find it quite frustrating that after the time jump they didn’t take the opportunity to tell some different more interesting stories. Grappling with how society would have changed unimaginably for this crew compared to what they’re used too (like in the forever war when we hear how earth has changed), or grappling with genetic modification (in show the eugenics wars were over a millennium ago at this point - surely the federation would have gotten over one species bad experience with it) etc etc.
Watch it without reading any critic reviews first, is my opinion. (When I watched Enterprise, it just so happened my opinions aligned with other people’s complaints. I am glad I watched it first though.)
Things that people found divisive, I really didn’t. Some changes probably caught everyone off guard, hence the major controversy of season 1, but at least it was plausible that the change could align with the rest of the Star Trek universe in some way. Maybe.
Like most other new shows, it can be a bit rocky as the writers develop the story and underlying theme.
Care to elaborate? Didn’t watch it yet, this is an honest question.
Discovery is very divisive among viewers. People seem to really like it or really hate it with not much in between. Both sides have valid arguments, but people forgot there is a middle ground.
Yeah I’m in the middle. More positive than negative, but I’m not a fan, especially of the 2 first seasons, it became better after the time jump.
However, even the first seasons do not deserve the hate we see.
I’m also in the middle, though more negative than positive. I love the inclusivity even though it’s a little heavy handed at times (more “let that be your last battlefield” than Uhura’s position on the bridge). I hate the stakes, internal conflict of the earlier seasons, and how far it feels from canon vs SNW or LD.
I agree the show is better post time jump, but to me it now feels like we know where the universe is going. Futures shown in one-off episodes are easy to wave away as alternate, but that seems harder for the franchise to manage when it’s multiple seasons.
It seems to me the powers that be have already decided to stick with the jump to the 32nd Century, what with Starfleet Academy in production. What’s annoying is that there’s now another lost era. I’d expect a lot of Beta canon material, but not a lot of official content to fill the gaps.
Discovery, especially the last 2 seasons are very, very inclusive. Which pisses some people off.
Next to that everything is debated. Sometimes way too long. And if you cant look past that it’s sure to annoy you very much.
Lol at people getting uppity over diversity. Like, that’s Star Treks’ most defining characteristics.
For me, it wasn’t so much the diversity, it was that everyone seemed to be struggling with their diverse identity. It’s the 23rd century, people should not be uncomfortable with their identities anymore, ESPECIALLY the crew of an advanced space ship. It just seems that rather than a professional crew that we see in every other Star Trek show, they decided to pack this one with a bunch of high schoolers struggling to figure out who they are. For fuck sakes, the ship itself starts having an identity crisis at one point.
My push back would be that the crew is from pre utopia federation. I think your take is reasonable though
It’s only 10 years before TOS. Earth and the federation were already post capitalism utopias.
And people are totally comfortable. I am guessing that you’re referencing Adira and their reaction to announcing that they’re non-binary? That didn’t happen in the 23rd century. It happened in the 32nd in an area torn with strife and isolationist behavior that is also not a part of the Federation. Their reaction is appropriate for the setting. There’s a reason that Culber and Stamets are gay without addressing it. Because they are from the 23rd century where that isn’t an issue.
… It’s a newly born AI that is being threatened with being severed from its physical housing. Yeah I feel like that’s kind of appropriate as well. I mean when they did that in TNG there was Measure of a Man… so…
There’s few different criticisms of DISCO. From different perspectives
People who are concerned with canon have issues with the first couple of seasons because it’s set before TOS but has had a big visual reboot. They’d also probably argue that some of the story elements don’t fit in with canon.
The first season (at least) doesn’t feel very star trek, it’s got this whole grim dark thing going on. That is thankfully dropped later and you do get the normal hopefully outlook.
Characters aren’t developed very well. Even by the end I don’t think we’ve got to know anyone other than maybe Stamets and Tilly.
Plots often rely on the mystery box format, which has been disappointing when they don’t stick the landing
Plots are over whole seasons, when they probably don’t need to be.
Because of 5 production often started before writing had finished, and it shows. So you end up with a good start, a bunch of meandering, and then suddenly bam you’re at the final crisis.
I often find it an OK show.
I also find it quite frustrating that after the time jump they didn’t take the opportunity to tell some different more interesting stories. Grappling with how society would have changed unimaginably for this crew compared to what they’re used too (like in the forever war when we hear how earth has changed), or grappling with genetic modification (in show the eugenics wars were over a millennium ago at this point - surely the federation would have gotten over one species bad experience with it) etc etc.
Watch it without reading any critic reviews first, is my opinion. (When I watched Enterprise, it just so happened my opinions aligned with other people’s complaints. I am glad I watched it first though.)
Things that people found divisive, I really didn’t. Some changes probably caught everyone off guard, hence the major controversy of season 1, but at least it was plausible that the change could align with the rest of the Star Trek universe in some way. Maybe.
Like most other new shows, it can be a bit rocky as the writers develop the story and underlying theme.