I will do my best, just give a brief dot point presentation of my problems with the series

• Aesthetics, this also contributes to tone and atmosphere, I don't mind them trying something different and evolving (obviously they have to keep up with the times, after all TV as an art form is changing too) but subjectively it is too hectic for me. I've seen a whole season and if you ask me I still couldn't give you an accurate description of the bridge. I don't mind all the dutch angles and such but for me it is a bit too much. Also as a side not something about the CGI looks animated, like it is out of a video game, I mean seriously Enterprise had better CGI than DSC.

• Dialogue is very exposition heavy...and slow. Show don't tell.

• Character can be very inconsistent in some cases (for example I think some of Michael's actions are quite contradictory and she seems to devolve as the series progresses) and extremely underdeveloped in others. I think DSC also has trouble handling the ensemble cast, I feel like I only really know a handful of the characters. This is a problem I have not seen on any other series I watch, I generally know all the primary and secondary characters. Also, this is completely subjective however, I have no interest in Michael as a character, she is our lead, and in a character focused show that is important. She was introduced to us and immediately committed mutiny, and failed at it. She didn't have good reason to either she was just arrogant and didn't trust her crew or captain. Then throughout the series she didn't really show much growth. There were some decent characters on the show (Tully, Lorca, Saru, Georgiou) but she was not one of them. Not to say they were great characters either, to me they weren't, for the most part they seemed like caricatures.

• I feel the spirit of the show doesn't fit in with the rest of Star Trek. It is far too pessimistic. Also focuses too much on action and not inner conflict. We also see far to much interpersonal conflict between Federation characters. Here I am talking about overall mood not necessarily a rule for all the time for all series. I think this is not just me too as I hear this as a common criticism of the series. Feels more like a Space Opera than a sci-fi series exploring things like the human condition. I mean come on, we have had crews at odds with admirals before but never in Star Trek to my knowledge has Starfleet actively tried to commit genocide. Then when it is over it seems all forgotten that they were about to try and wipe out an entire culture. Also everyone is always moving and taking action rather than thinking about the situation and making the best decision, does that sound very Star Trek to you?

• Writing just isn't great, I mean think about it long and hard, for the most part the whole pilot episode isn't relevant and could be cut out completely or at least reduced dramatically in length. This can be seen throughout the show, while there are some segments and episodes of course that are decent but overall the show was a bit of a chore to watch, a lot of it seemed forced. Another good example of this is the Klingons, in this series they are a very complex culture. That isn't necessarily a good thing however, they seem to have confused complexity with depth and instead winded up with a very integral part of the series just being pointlessly convoluted. Also I am not sure if it just me but they had a whole war in one season and it all seemed a bit rushed, especially when they ended a war in two episodes? That's a bit extreme.

I mean overall I didn't mind the show and will likely watch season 2 in hopes of it improving, I definitely felt it had an overall positive trend as the season progressed. To me it just seemed like a very average contemporary sci fi that is just a Battlestar Galactica knock-off which is what most sci-fi shows these days have been since the reboot first came out. In the end I would say it wasn't bad, but it definitely wasn't good either. It has some potential, the three sets of show runners probably didn't help either though.

"Oh hay everyone. Here's a chance to discuss things but don't do this and don't do that because I don't like that."

Slyck73,

Just saw your comments, unfortunately I have been busy recently. I have some responses and invite you to consider them. I think most of what you object to is a result of the 'necessity' of today's marketplace. I will explain.

Aesthetics: Yes the "look" of this ST is quite different and I think is simply HAS to be. Remember this is 50 years hence. The producers are dealing with a much more discerning viewer than before. The familiarity you crave is comforting but it is exactly that 'comfort' that would cause viewers to cast away DSC after one season...there is no more mystery. Try re-watching any of the other series and you will discover that after a few episodes the shows become VERY formulaic...no mystery.

Slow Dialogue: Did not really see that but I imagine they needed to introduce and explain new 'concepts' etc.

Characterization: This follows with my first point. Yes, these Star Trek characters are different, I would say they are more realistic too. Why do the Klingons have to be so ONE dimensional. Doesn't giving them some depth, sophistication make them more REAL? I think so. I would rather understand why the Klingons are bent on destroying the Federation ( however corny the reason) than to simply assume they are ' a blood thirsty race' Similarly, unlike the Number ones, Chakotay, Spock, Bones, Deanna Troys of the past, these Star Fleet officers are also more realistic. They don't just start and stay perfect!

Overall Pessimism: I feel you the most on this point. This ST started as a far cry from the 'idealism' of TOS or TNG but I think that is a reflection of the times "terrorism" " mass gun killings" etc. Besides, the same has occurred with ALL popular cinema. James Bond amd Mission Impossible are now more bloody and gritty. Shows like Game of Thrones are very popular. Again the viewer is now more discerning and demanding. Finally to DSC's defense, they did return to the Optimism of the past at the end of season one when the Star Michael (the once mutineer) reminds the entire Federation of the ideals of the Federation.

Writing: I think this criticism is the most undeserved of all your points. I invite you to re-watch the Episode " Magic to Make the the sanest man go Mad" This episode employed the familiar recurring events formula I call the 'Groundhog Day' effect. This cinematic device has been used many times before in ST and other shows.However, this time it is done is such a clever way, that there is NOT the repetition; the episode showed the viewer many new aspects of the ship discovery and its crew; it introduced some new characters all the while ostensibly being about a madman trying to exact revenge; when REALLY is was a subtle exposition of LOVE. Love is the magic that makes the sanest man go mad and the entire episode was about a variety of ways "BEINGS" mate or experience love from the "space whale" who is too busy to procreate to Harry Mudd trying to escape his spouse to Michael and Ash's budding romance. This single episode shows and says so much I think it is the finest single ST episode ever. You might disagree but at least you'll will admit it far surpasses the formulaic episodes of TOS or TNG or Voyager.

Season Two: I hope they keep the same standard of ingenuity and creativity in season two. I don't want to watch a show in which I know exactly who will survive whatever epic threat they face at the start of EVERY episode. I will watch The Orville for that.

While I understand your counterpoints I don't agree with them. 'Times have changed' isn't an acceptable answer. While I understand (nor do I want it to be) that it can't be the same as prior ST series it still doesn't have to look like the average contemporary sci-fi (or coincidentally the current reboots, which I enjoy btw), not every sci-fi show/movie has this look.

Slow dialogue, while explaining concepts is great this is one thing Star Trek was never bad at but in DSC I feel it has dropped the ball and it becomes a struggle.

Characterisation, I guess we just view the characters different here, maybe I'll have to watch it again but my problem isn't with any of the characterisation but the lack of it. To respond to your example, the Klingons with all this screen time STILL feel one dimensional to me, more so than they did in the past even. It feels like they thought if we just give them screen time people will like them but they put no effort into making them likeable or identifiable. Although I do agree I may be unintentionally thinking this due to the corny justification that you did point out.

In terms of pessimism I get art changes and TV and movies have changed considerably and we live in a different age. But also to be fair if Star Trek could show optimism at the height fo the Cold War and in the middle of Vietnam surely they can manage it now. Especially with all the unfortunate political situations optimism is just what we need not pessimism, we already have enough pessimism. Your example of James Bond is something else I am not a fan of currently, i get times change but at it's core it is an Action/Adventure franchise not a political thriller, that is the Bourne Series and Mission Impossible. I feel the same with Star Trek, I am fine with them modernising it (they have to) but they seem to have lost the core of the show which was it's optimism. Your example of what is popular also I feel isn't justified. If they wanted to make a "what is popular sci-fi" series don't make it Star Trek, make an original IP.

In terms of writing while I understand your counterpoint I feel it doesn't properly address my point, I agree, that episode was good, as where some others. But only a couple of episodes out of fifteen where any decent. Just because a couple of episodes where good doesn't mean the whole series was. Look at season 10 of the X Files, had maybe one properly good episode and another two alright episodes. I find that an unacceptable season and those three episodes where half a season. DSC has just as many descent episodes but a season that is two and a half times as big.

In terms of season two I partially agree with your statement. While I don't necessarily want to go back to formulaic there are a few changes that need to made to the series, not just to make it good Star Trek but to make it good.

STD is the perfect name for this garbage lmao

Slyck73,

After ENT ended I got Hulu and was able to rewatch the entire DS9 series. I caught the later episodes of ENT more recently. I have also been able to rewatch somea of TOS and most of VOY. I did all of this before DSC season 1. Point is, I believe I have been able to give ALL the ST series, including NXT GEN a truly objective review.

While ALL of them eventually become repetitive and fairly predictable.... DS9 is hands down the best of the lot! It is because of the qualities that show shares with DSC that make me confident the new show will be a success. VOY was a close second ENT WAS 3rd and NXT GEN and TOS brought up the rear in that order.

DS9 had the most interesting characters and situations. What else is good drama made of? Picard and company were SO BORING, the episodes were predictable EVEN THOUGH they involved Q, some super enhanced "holodeck" characters or some incredibly stupid race more than half of the time. Kirk and Shock were the only ones worse. They were just dead FLAT as characters go....like Tom and Jerry!

Janeway's situation and crew compliment allowed for some REALISTICALLY human character development but the writers COULD NOT resist the urge to pervert the ending. ( They should have left the less than perfect ending ) Instead they had Janeway travel back into time to make everything just PEACHY!!!

I was pleasantly surprised by the realism of ENT and felt the end was a bit hurried, alas they seemed to have boxed themselves into a corner in that series took.

What DSC seemed to me is an opportunity for ST to take the kind of "Game of Thrones" like liberties with characters and plot development. To truly surprise us with the unexpected, so we will continue to watch.... On the edge of our seats. I was thrilled to see them kill off some key characters in the 1st season. Alas it seems enough people belly ached and they are finding ways to keep Capt Georgio and a few others!

Star Trek HAS always lead! It has certain moral themes and attempts to show a positive role for mankind in a future with other beings.The REALLY good ST series did not hide the TRUE nature of Man or present an OVER-IDEALIZED version of humanity's history but rather gave us the FULL PANOPLY of humans qualities good and bad. They did this mostly by exaggerating human greed in the Forengi or human aggression in the Klingon or human conceit in the Vulcan!

It seems to me only a return the FORMULAIC and RIGID nature of a TOS or NXT GEN will satisfy some people. When I read people saying " it does not feel like ST" I want to say "watch The Oriville" you'll be in space with familiar plots, enemies, ships and storylines and you can be sure NOTHING REAL will EVER happen to Captain Mercer and crew.....EACH WEEK!

The first two episodes of season 2 were pretty good and I like the Pike character ,episode 3 was a bit dull too much Klingon Ash(Voq) stuff.My advice to the producers kill off Burnham and focus on Pike he is a far more interesting and entertaining character.

I agree, the first two episodes of season two were great, the third a little less so. I think this might be because the third episode had less thematic action and because this it appears to set up the rather lengthy back stories of Spock, Lrell and Voq and Captain Georgio.

I have noticed less mass revulsion, horror, hysteria and full nuclear meltdown concerning season two's beginning compared to season one's. I suspect that the difference MAY be attributable to ANOTHER difference in the two seasons however. You see I don't really see ANY huge stylistic, thematic or content driven differences between the two seasons. Yes, the Klingons now have hair, there is slightly more humour, we get to see the old style uniforms described as the "new" uniforms. Anyone who is honest would admit that these are small cosmetic changes at best. The overall ESSENCE of DSC I is the same except for ONE thing.

This season starts with a markedly difference bridge dynamic. Whereas season one initially promised TWO minority females in command on the bridge, season two starts with the bridge heirachy apparently fully restored back to the familiarity of the 1960's TOS, Kirk age. This, I submit is what always been at the root of the negative reaction to the series. I think the producers' are trying pull a bait and switch so to speak. The show is supposed to be about the first officer remember?

Things would be so much clearer if people (the detractors) were more HONEST about their feelings!

The more likely explanation is that the people who hated it before, are no longer watching.

Well a lot of still irks me about it is the main characters who are bland,or too emotional act like assholes and are full of themselves.In al honesty the two characters I like least and should be written out of the series are Stamets and Burnham and both characters were put in the series because of this need to over emphasize all inclusiveness and LGBT.The writers obviously have no idea how to write such characters that was pretty obvious with the fact that Stamets and Burnham's mirror universe counterparts are interchangeable.

@Nexus71 said:

Well a lot of still irks me about it is the main characters who are bland,or too emotional act like assholes and are full of themselves.In al honesty the two characters I like least and should be written out of the series are Stamets and Burnham and both characters were put in the series because of this need to over emphasize all inclusiveness and LGBT.The writers obviously have no idea how to write such characters that was pretty obvious with the fact that Stamets and Burnham's mirror universe counterparts are interchangeable.

The irony - or something - there is that I suspect the people who were most demanding that it be "inclusive" were never going to - and didn't - watch the show. They were just eager to insist that it meet some "standard" they had.

While I do think season 2 is getting off to a bit of a better start it still isn't that good. To respond to several of the statements above "realism" was mentioned but you don't mean realism what you mean is how easy it is to identify with these characters because they act in a contemporary fashion, something Star Trek isn't about. Enterprise could kind of get away with it due to it's MUCH earlier setting.

Another mention is that the changes are cosmetic and the root of the problem lies in the sexism of its audience. This I also disagree with, The bridge make up is largely the same as it was last season, Lorca just replaced by Pike (both of which by the way are interesting characters, not because they are male, but because they are interesting). Someone mention killing of Michael and I don't disagree with him, she is a plain and inconsistent character. I also found in this weeks soapy melodramatic conversation of feelings that happens every episode now when discussing Spock and Vulcan upbringing that it didn't really follow the internal logic and facts of Star Trek in regards to Vulcans. And as I mentioned previously these people act like we would if we found ourselves in those situations which shouldn't be the case for Star Trek. These "cosmetic" changes are important as a lot of them are what people where partly complaining about. Disrespect of the established universe and not obeying the internal logic of the world.

A point in regards to the bridge crew happened in I think the first episode, when they were flying the balls. They had this wonderful little bit of camaraderie with Michael asking her "sister's" if they had it. While something like this is light and fun and you see it happening in action fiction often it felt very forced for several reasons. I didn't believe their friendship, their apparent relationship wasn't earned, even though they just went through a war I had no feelings towards the bridge crew, couldn't name them either. Nor can I really recall Michael interacting with them in any outstanding way. As I think (might not have) I mentioned in a previous post the show seems to be struggling with an ensemble cast. Especially with trying to focus on Michael. That is just further evidence of the poor quality of the show.

While I continue to watch the show in hopes of it improving (and it seems to be very slowly doing it) it is still at best a 6/10 (which is an improvement over last season). It really is painfully average and seems to be exactly what it is, some standard sci-fi series on network TV trying to imitate the higher quality series on cable.

If you guys recall, Lorca was only included in the bridge crew after the initial revolt began, shortly after the very first trailers of the new show came out. This apparent appetite to kill off Stamets and Burnham also seems to me to be a reaction based on the opposite of "inclusiveness". No doubt those who share this view will likely to point to some other aspect of the show or the actors' performances to justify this prejudice. This is what I mean about wishing people were more honest about their feelings.

Ever wondered why there wasn't this reaction after Picard followed Kirk? People gave TNG years to mature even though that series itself was flat and repetitive, perhaps with the exception of TOS qualitatively the worst tv of the ST series. Don't get me wrong TNG was ST, but as drama or imaginative tv...it was horrible.

You have Tom and Jerry, TOS, TNG, GOT and DSC imho.

Thankfully there are so many other options today that a person doesn't have to put up with something just because it is what the networks are showing. This forces the content producers to dig deeper. The result is both a wider varpiety and in some cases a much better quality of tv. Take a look at other genres of tv and you'll see it more clearly. Modern game shows are qualitatively far superior to the old favorites.

Compare DSC and The Orville. Put aside the fact that the O is merely copying and pasting well worn ST themes and storylines, anyone else see how the producers of that show are, instead of trying to depict space travel in the future, merely trying to transpose TODAY'S sensibilities to the future?

The universe is big enough for both to exist I guess but it is necessary to point out the difference.

That point about Lorca is not true, his casting being announced March 2017 and the first trailer being released May 2017, 2 months after the casting announcement. On top of that they would've been far to deep at that point to add such a major character to the series and then also cast the role.

Burnham being killed off is an over reaction I think due to her character being particularly uninteresting, just giving her less screen time would be adequate, but there is legitimate reason to think that. I think a lot of people also were quickly opposed to her due to her connection to Spock not fitting with canon (this doesn't bother me) In regards to Stamets I am unsure as I haven't given it much thought nor have I heard that about his character. His character isn't totally amazing but he is progressing and at least somewhat interesting regardless if some of his subplots are a bit soapy. This fits with what I have heard, I feel you may be projecting your preconceptions on people due to your personal bias in favour of the show.

I can see where you are coming from in your other points but I also believe that they can be applied to Discovery, compared to the rest of television it is not particularly good. Which is an opinion I mentioned earlier comparing it to contemporary television. Point being a friend of ming who has never seen Star Trek enjoys the Orville with me every week. I have showed him a couple episodes of Star Trek, mainly TOS but some TNG and he has enjoyed those as well (of course this isn't accurate as I am only showing him the better episodes) but he watched one episode of Discovery and did not like it at all. He has since scene small clips of other episodes as he would catch me finishing an episode and he has no desire to revisit based on that. Not exactly accurate and definitely subjective data based on bias information but still, if the show was good what he had scene SHOULD lead him to watch more if it was a good series.

On a side note, in my opinion I think the CGI has improved this season somewhat. Has anyone else noticed this? I always thought the CGI in season 1 was like a bad video game at best, even the CGI in Enterprise was better than it. I mean it still isn't amazing but I feel it is definitely a little better.

I don't think the powers that be - including writers, producers, etc - behind Discovery had any real hope or intention of attracting viewers who weren't already fans/followers/whatever of previous Trek material. And if they did, they were very mistaken. Meanwhile, what they've done with the actual show seems to have alienated a large portion of the Trek fan base, perhaps the majority of it. Which was also very foolish of them. As Rob Long says, these days especially on pay services you can get by with a much smaller audience making a show "a big hit," even a much smaller audience than what got TOS cancelled back in the day. But it's regrettable - at least to me - that they seem to have taken that direction on purpose.