Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 Premiere (Netflix) TV Show Review & Comments

You guys are all making it incredibly difficult for me to decide whether to add Discovery to my Star Trek viewing list!

I've not watched any of it, and I can never decide whether it's gonna be worth my time or not.
 
In my opinion it's worth giving a go. I personally think it's a bit up and down with some good episodes and some not so good ones. The same with the characters too, some are great and others are less so.
I found I enjoyed the first and second series more on the second time of viewing when I binged them over a few days. Watching them one at a time once a week made it more difficult for me personally to get fully into it.
I'm not sure it's proper Star Trek as I haven't watched all of the previous Trek series, but it's not too bad as general Sci-fi.
 
You guys are all making it incredibly difficult for me to decide whether to add Discovery to my Star Trek viewing list!

I've not watched any of it, and I can never decide whether it's gonna be worth my time or not.
Worth watching, effects are pretty good and getting better. Try not to think of it like the previous Star Trek series though because is not as far as I am concerned and probably not meant to be as they have new audiences now after such a long break from Enterprise. Just becomes a sci fi show and so it is worth following. Season 3 episode 2 makes it look more promising to me
 
You guys are all making it incredibly difficult for me to decide whether to add Discovery to my Star Trek viewing list!

I've not watched any of it, and I can never decide whether it's gonna be worth my time or not.

In spite of my critique there is a lot going for it and many people love it. I'd say watch an episode or two just to dip your toe in. But as mentioned, dont expect it to be anything like Roddenberry or Berman era trek.
 
I completely understand that viewpoint.

I think personally for me a big part of it is that I've never really been able to engage with the Burnham character and as she's the main protagonist that means I haven't been sucked into the show as much as other series.
As I've never felt fully invested in it at times I suppose I'm only really watching on the surface if you get what I mean. I'm not sure I'm really paying enough attention to it to spot the issues with the science.
agree, Burnham leaves me cold, fav character and i dont remember her name is that rude obnoxious middle aged engineer. Hilarious , everything she says pure gold.
 
..
I don't dig to deep into the technicalities because as far as I'm concerned they're all make believe anyway; I just let the show take me wherever it's going. I just want to be entertained for an hour so I don't care whether it's unrealistic for a space ship to crash on any icy planet or they've used a shovel to clean up a mess.
That's how I watch most things and that's the difference between Star Trek and K-Trek. K-Trek is basically TV fast food and I can live with that.
Star Trek shows are also "entertainment". But they also have episodes exploring ideas in a way that invites reflection and analysis.
It's 15 years since Enterprise finished and decades since TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Picard and Discovery are for a different audience and maybe retaining folk like me who like all of them.
I think the complaint is that these shows just use name recognition to get eyes without actually being invested in the universe and the Star Trek core values. Call it something else and no one would care which I suppose it's the point.

A lot of modern shows do this and with the exception of new BSG, for the most part they are frauds
 
Last edited by a moderator:
agree, Burnham leaves me cold, fav character and i dont remember her name is that rude obnoxious middle aged engineer. Hilarious , everything she says pure gold.

Commander Reno? The one they rescued from the crashed Hiawatha. She's great and the relationship with Stamet's is hilarious at times.
 
Commander Reno? The one they rescued from the crashed Hiawatha. She's great and the relationship with Stamet's is hilarious at times.
Thats her superb character.
 
Cheers guys above for your thoughts. Picard is another one I haven't dived into yet, for fear of it tainting the Jean-Luc legacy.

I was in a bit of a sci-fi rut to be honest and then I got onto The Expanse. And the rest as they say is history.

Anyway won't bang on about that here, except to say that it is the benchmark for me now so everything else has got their work cut out to match it. The same thing Battlestar Galactica did back in the day.
 
Cheers guys above for your thoughts. Picard is another one I haven't dived into yet, for fear of it tainting the Jean-Luc legacy.

I was in a bit of a sci-fi rut to be honest and then I got onto The Expanse. And the rest as they say is history.

Anyway won't bang on about that here, except to say that it is the benchmark for me now so everything else has got their work cut out to match it. The same thing Battlestar Galactica did back in the day.

I'm with you on the Expanse; Watching the shows, makes me listen to the Books, makes me watch the shows.... :)

^ you can skip Picard. In fact I recommend you do.

I could deal with Picard on a "pop music" level - fluff but fun.
And, being a Star Trek nut, I really enjoyed the parts where some of the old STNG crew would be in an episode. When they were there, it was like sipping an aged whiskey!
 
TNG I hated until three years ago when I watched it all. Enjoyed it be it all a bit late. My fav Star Trek is Voyager. Good characters and excellent stories. Discovery is ok but too dark in series 1&2. Not sure what to make of it now. I’ve rewatched Voyager many times and TNG a few times as well but don’t get the same feeling about Discovery or even Picard

oh and loved Orville
 
You guys are all making it incredibly difficult for me to decide whether to add Discovery to my Star Trek viewing list!

I've not watched any of it, and I can never decide whether it's gonna be worth my time or not.
If you enjoy the Star Trek universe you will be watching this show, but the beginning of season 3 did have me fooled a bit, I guess I should have read a few more threads about season 3 beforehand, all I knew was that this new season of Star Trek Discovery is set 900 years into the future.
After a promising episode one the second episode was almost a parody of all the past Star Trek bridge scenes, the dialogue, pyrotechnics and styrene foam debris, the leaking steam vents, all classic Star Trek stuff, especially when the actors threw themselves around with commendable unison.
The rest of episode two then followed a familiar formulaic story arc, featuring a tense scene that has been used with a few variances in various American sci-fi shows since the 60's, I guess it was a good way to introduce their prospective evil nemesis and a hate interest for Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) an actress who really needs a far better part, her talents seem wasted in this show.
 
I thought it was great. Loved both episodes so far.
 
A lot of comments here I agree with.

I really, really enjoy Discovery, but I do feel it is despite the Michael Burnham character. If they hadn't told us that she was the main character, I don't think it would have felt like it a lot of the time.

Maybe she lacks "humanity" for a show lead. Spock and Data may have supposedly lacked emotions, but they had tons of "humanity" which allows viewers to get invested in their story.

I love Tig Notaro/Cmdr. Reno and her banter with Stamets.

The production values of Series 3 are top notch. I also loved the western vibe in ep. 2.

I disagree with the whole "It is not Star Trek" thing. I do think that optimism has been what has made Star Trek what it is, but not every episode has been optimistic. I think Discovery is being punished for the series 1 storyline.

I also don't see why people complain about it being woke, yes it is, but so was ToS and TNG. They were very "woke" for their time.

Funnily enough DS9 is my least favourite Star Trek because I always felt it was too serious.

Or it was until Picard came along. if you ask me, the cardinal sin in sci-fi is treating the viewers with contempt ( See: Ridley Scott Prometheus). A lot of Picard made little sense and it seemed like a two parter script stretched over 10 episodes created to appeal more to nostalgia than anything else.
 
Have to say that after watching the second show I'm beginning to warm to Discovery. More action and story based.
 
I also don't see why people complain about it being woke, yes it is, but so was ToS and TNG. They were very "woke" for their time.
...
Or it was until Picard came along. if you ask me, the cardinal sin in sci-fi is treating the viewers with contempt ( See: Ridley Scott Prometheus). A lot of Picard made little sense and it seemed like a two parter script stretched over 10 episodes created to appeal more to nostalgia than anything else.
TNG writers and producers were "progressive" but the difference is in talent. People are now being hired for their "progressive" leanings rather than their talent. It shows in the writing. New BSG gender swapped Starbuck, but for two seasons she was one of the best Sci-Fi characters on TV. Better writing, better characters, better stories.

The story should be primary, woke elements can work if they organically fit the story line. Disco like many newer shows prioritises the agenda then tries to fit the story around it.
Or it was until Picard came along. if you ask me, the cardinal sin in sci-fi is treating the viewers with contempt
This ^^^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The story should be primary, woke elements can work if they organically fit the story line. Disco like many newer shows prioritises the agenda then tries to fit the story around it.

That is a very good point, and I can see where it feels like Discovery falls foul of that, but I don't feel it is too heavy handed. No where near Dr. Who levels, but probably best not to get into that here.
 
That is a very good point, and I can see where it feels like Discovery falls foul of that, but I don't feel it is too heavy handed. No where near Dr. Who levels, but probably best not to get into that here.

The whole show is one big tick box exercise. But It's also a silly, goofy and usually fun sci-fi show that lucked out with Jason, Michelle and Doug as primary characters just about offsetting the lesser actors. As for the lead, I'm still not 100% sure if Soniqa is the whole problem. I think the writing and direction are contributing to the issues people have with her.

There are elements of proper Trek sprinkled in to keep the fans happy but that obviously failed.

I'm going to be a good forum member and not talk about Dr Who ,................ Except to say ;) They nailed it with Michelle Gómez and Alex Kingston. Brilliantly written intriguing female characters. Michelle in particular is probably my favorite Dr Who character.
As for the new series? Another obvious tick box exercise but I didn't hate the first few episodes I saw. I felt they handled the Rosa Parks episode much better than I thought they would. But I just found the series uninteresting so I stopped watching.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TNG writers and producers were "progressive" but the difference is in talent. People are now being hired for their "progressive" leanings rather than their talent. It shows in the writing. New BSG gender swapped Starbuck, but for two seasons she was one of the best Sci-Fi characters on TV. Better writing, better characters, better stories.

The story should be primary, woke elements can work if they organically fit the story line. Disco like many newer shows prioritises the agenda then tries to fit the story around it.

This ^^^
The recent revival of BSG was one of my favourite sci-fi shows, mostly because it borrowed a lot from modern air war genres in its depiction of battle weary personnel and tired looking equipment, no doubt someone with an interest in naval aviation developed the sets it helped a lot 'modernizing' what were retro 70's interceptor model designs (essentially Star Wars inspired) used in the series.
Unlike Star Trek BSG was locked into a story loop that needed a conclusion to get out of, so the BSG franchise limited itself with its prospects, even so I would have liked a series spin-off examining
how AI androids and humans colonized Earth, which the final episode suggested.
Considering that some of today's Top Gun pilots that fly sophisticated war machines are women, gender swapping doesn't apply nowadays, using high tech equipment is gender neutral, my only gripe is that TV (and movie) writers must include a sexually ambiguous main character role somewhere at some point in the storyline. The French provide good examples of how to feature ambiguous sexual activity as a natural part of role playing in their movies and shows, sex is written with various degrees of intensity into each actors character development in such a way that the plot would look incomplete without it. The U.S. and sometimes UK productions more often than not tend to make a characters sexual preference look like a story twist, which in my opinion occasionally effects the continuity of the show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The recent revival of BSG was one of my favourite sci-fi shows, mostly because it borrowed a lot from modern air war genres in its depiction of battle weary personnel and tired looking equipment, no doubt someone with an interest in naval aviation developed the sets it helped a lot 'modernizing' what were retro 70's interceptor model designs (essentially Star Wars inspired) used in the series.
Unlike Star Trek BSG was locked into a story loop that needed a conclusion to get out of, so the BSG franchise limited itself with its prospects, even so I would have liked a series spin-off examining how LA LALA LA final episode suggested.
Considering that some of today's Top Gun pilots that fly sophisticated war machines are women, gender swapping doesn't apply nowadays, using high tech equipment is gender neutral, my only gripe is that TV (and movie) writers must include a sexually ambiguous main character role somewhere at some point in the storyline. The French provide good examples of how to feature ambiguous sexual activity as a natural part of role playing in their movies and shows, sex is written with various degrees of intensity into each actors character development in such a way that the plot would look incomplete without it. The U.S. and sometimes UK productions more often than not tend to make a characters sexual preference look like a story twist, which in my opinion occasionally effects the continuity of the show.
Probably a good idea to include spoiler tags for the BSG conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Probably a good idea to include spoiler tags for the BSG conclusion.
Agreed, but you should also "spoiler" at least that part of the quote you included in your answer (I've done that myself, but just the once! ;))
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom