Star Trek: Discovery (TV Series 2017– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2,094 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Half a century of cultural legacy flushed down the drain
ludzureklamas10 May 2018
If there's one single thing this show does well, it proves that just because you own the rights to something doesn't mean you have the capacity to make it - or even understand it for that matter.

Star Trek isn't just a name. Like every long running piece of fiction, it has its own set of defining characteristics. For some reason the creators of Discovery have chosen to disregard every single one of them. The question is - why?

Perhaps they wanted to move with the times and innovate. That in itself wouldn't be a problem. But this innovation feels entirely ego-driven. Why turn Klingons into Orks, especially in a prequel scenario? Only for innovation's sake. Narratively there's nothing new here at all. They've just made the next generic big budget space war fiction with a popular brand name on it. All right, perhaps they wanted to create an action packed space opera for the masses. But they could have done so in an original universe of their own, seeing how the defining characteristics of Star Trek don't really fit their purpose. Even a spin-off would have been better that this. So that leaves us with two logical explanations.

One - it's just naked profiteering. Star Trek is widely popular, therefore the big investment. Cynical, but likely true. And two - they just don't understand what Star Trek is about, nor do they care.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that these people have nothing to say. There's no message here, only the same regurgitated social agenda that you can read anywhere on the internet at any given time. No matter where you stand on current issues, there's no interesting perspective here for anybody. Gone are the original ideas, outlandish plots, smart dialogue and philosophical conundrums that made Star Trek what it was. Now it's just self-righteous people shouting at each other and things exploding in space.

As if to compensate, the show is massively overproduced. There are copious amounts of lens flare, bloom, dutch angles, shaky-swirly cameras and unnecessary editing. It looks like the frame never stays in the same place for a even second. Watching an episode of Discovery feels like stepping into a tumble dryer. Things keep swirling all over the place even when there's no action on screen. I strongly suspect that if this wasn't called Star Trek, it would have no hope to succeed.

Normally I don't give 1 and 10 star ratings. Those should be reserved for the most unlikely sitations. I gave it a good thought, but couldn't find any single redeemable quality that this show has. Don't touch this with a ten foot pole.
759 out of 1,223 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible and insulting at the same time.
Captain_Blue2 May 2018
Damage control has now set in. They are of the misimpression that changing uniform colors and bastardizing the TOS Enterprise is what the fan base want. Are they stupid?

How can they not realize or understand that the entire concept of a retconn reboot stabs at the very heart of every Trek fan? We tried to tell them so early on and they dismissed it entirely. They think they know better than their target audience.

Every Trek show which has dealt with prequels and time travel has been fully focused on ensuring painstakingly level of accuracy. STD dumps all over that by declaring that their way is the right way.

STD is without a doubt the darkest page in the history of the franchise. I find it offensive to my intelligence. I don't like the characters, I don't like the writing, and I sure as hell hope that humanity doesn't end up like those morons.

There is literally nothing to inspire me here. It doesn't want to make me a better person, it doesn't give me any incentive to hang on for the future just around the corner, and the cheesy telegraphed speeches.

Star Trek is all about tackling hard issues without needing to point out the issues in the first place. STD has nothing of that. It's just an action series made for sci-fi fans, there is nothing whatsoever cerebral or otherwise intellectual here for Star Trek fans.
556 out of 913 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Star Trek, not well-written, not interesting, not worth it.
Randomizer260023 March 2018
I've read a bunch of reviews for STD, and noticed that most of the reviewers who love STD, insult and denigrate people who don't. As you read the reviews, some people layout out their criticisms very clearly. I'm just going to give general impressions.

I love Sci-Fi. I started with the original Star Trek in 1968, and have watched all the Star Treks, Stargates, Babylon 5 and most of the rest. Usually there is some overall theme or plot direction for the season. STD seems to wander all over the place. Every episode, it looks like they are taking the series some other direction. Not like a plot twist, but like the show runner keeps changing.

I like a series, Sci-Fi or not, with some likeable characters. STD doesn't seem to have any. The characters run from sadistic to simple-minded, but none of them seem like people you know. They have no depth or sides to their personality. And the dominant demeanor is unbridled emotionalism, but never joy or wonder, always dark. And forget wit or humor.

If you like Star Trek, try Orville. That is a little campy, but Star Trek plots with people acting like humans.
554 out of 923 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
It's dead, Jim
chimera-215 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The Klingons do not look like Klingons, and when given a chance to throw us a bone of a real Klingon they failed. The Klingon ships don't look Klingon...or anything else. Absolutely shapeless. Discovery herself is a rejected McQuarrie redesign of the Enterprise from over 40 years ago. None of the sets make a bit of sense in continuity and the lighting is an abject fail.

Your main character is a bully, impatient, fails to plan ahead and happy to commit mutiny. The other characters we have no idea about because they did almost no character development of them. And, let me see...we have the First officer going to investigate an unknown object in a high radiation area in a space suit because...they ran out of probes? Ran out of shuttles? The ship was low on fuel? We don't know.

We ALSO have Obi Wan Sarek, who is now using the Vulcan mind meld to do instantaneous visits with Burnham across hundreds of light years. Yeah, THAT Sarek. The one who refused to speak to his son for 18 years because of his human half and his entry in Star Fleet...who adopted a human and has shared his Katra, and new Jedi powers, with her to be close when she needs him...because she joined Star Fleet...

*sigh* I'm out of energy. Everything about this show is wrong including the cast/advertising presuming to claim she is the first black and/or female in a leadership position. Have we forgotten Uhura, Chapel, Janeway, T'pol or Sulu and Sisco, etc, etc...

It's an SJW disaster and right now, an outright embarrassment.
478 out of 795 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Where no one has gone before ... and should never have
MadManMUC7 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
You know, there are lots of stories of people becoming — or wanting to become — scientists of every description, astronauts, engineers and so on because of Star Trek, especially TOS and TNG. People who saw this future, loved it, got inspired, and wanted to do their bit to make it a reality.

Will Discovery have that same positive impact on people a few years from now? Will people look on Star Trek Discovery and think, 'Wow. This really is a future I want to help realise', and aspire to become something that helps humanity get there? Judging on what we've seen so far, the answer is a loud outright, 'NO.' And this is the biggest shame of all with this series. It has taken something that actually had a real-life inspiring legacy, and warped it into this dark, bleak, violent, gruesome (do we *really* need all of that gore in Star Trek,like in this last episode (8)?), immoral, insipid, un-inspiring, and — ultimately — revolting thing that is nothing like what it should actually be.

If they dare to call this awful thing 'Star Trek', they'd better be prepared to live up to its legacy.
494 out of 826 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful - Just Awful
robmitchellesq25 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I had read the many poor reviews in advance of this series, yet I still wanted to like it. Even with diminished expectations, this was practically unwatchable.

Nothing clicked. This was Star Trek developed by a bunch of network suits who had money to blow on special effects but no passion for any of the series before it.

The uniforms are absurd - impractical, lacking any color references, and the gold lame? The use of holograms to communicate across space were a technology that wasn't present in any of the prior series. De-feminizing the female lead with a male name is an insult to women (you need to pretend to be a man in order to be significant). The Klingon scenes were unwatchable - done with subtitles and rambling on way too long. The Klingon "new look" is another break in continuity. The whole Sarek/Vulcan backstory felt contrived and unnecessary - there wasn't any logical reason for Vulcans to keep their "secret" to dealing with the Klingons from the Federation since the last thing Vulcans would want is to have an ally stumble into an intergalactic war. The whole think was just lame.

A lot of reviewers must be on CBS's payroll to give this any positive reviews.
843 out of 1,439 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I want to like discovery but they make it so hard
sout-6330615 March 2019
I really want to like Star Trek Discovery.

There are some promising characters, but they aren't shown off they way they could be. There are far too many emotional scenes and almost no discovery. It's all about fighting, overacting, emotional tension, and no "trekky" feeling to it at all.

After episodes in other Star Trek series I can sit back and say, I feel good, I really enjoyed that episode. They had some serious bits but they were mostly fun and wonder. This show doesn't leave me with that feeling. I miss it. Instead I feel as if I've been put through the mill, pointlessly, with no reward.

It's a real shame. There are all the ingredients but they are mixed together in a way that isn't what Star Trek should or could be. There is so much potential, wasted.

(Fortunately, The Orville is running at the same time.)
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Congrats on killing a 50 year franchise
prairiental28 January 2018
After watching the 1st episode of Discovery which was broadcast over the air, I'm not surprised to see all the negative reviews. As is often typical in "reboots", in an effort to make everything bigger and better, it's just change for change sake. From the Klingon redesign, to the various (sometimes laughable) uniforms, the aliens as well as the cast dialog and interactions, I had no desire to watch another episode - let alone pay for it. I've watched every Star Trek series from the original on and although some series were better than others, this one is a joke. Seems to be yet another instance of the bean counters overseeing the creative process. Congrats on killing a 50 year franchise.
515 out of 870 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Star Trek to date
joefatica24 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The casting is wrong. The camera work is terrible. The writing does not exist because the dialogue is horrible. The Klingons should feel like pirates who love life, battle and debauchery-in other words anything their senses tell them feels good-instead they make them into some hybrid Egyptian Hierarchy. If it's pre-Kirk why is the technology better? It looks better. The music is also nonexistent. How can you make Star Trek and have no music? There are two people who should have been at the top of the list to run this show J. Micheal Strazynski and/or John Byrne. I can't believe they have the nerve to ask me to pay for the second episode. Gene would not have approved and I certainly do not. Vulcan are logical not dullards. Study the original series. That's the feeling you want to achieve. I cannot say how much I loathe this reboot. This is not Star Trek.
970 out of 1,668 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Season Two to the rescue!
sykespj7 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Star Trek is supposed to be about small stories that say big things. This is why an ensemble cast full of real people has been so critical to the franchise's success. The first season of STD was truly is a disease that threatened to destroy the very fabric of what makes Trek so great. It was one malaise that needed to be eradicated from the face of the planet as soon as possible.

The second season (so far), however, screams "I am Trek... Hear me roar!". Christopher Pike somewhat convolutedly becomes captain. This is a great move... he is pure Starfleet, with all the human touches that made Kirk so perfectly imperfect. The soap operatic bullcrap is also gone. The first two have been stand-alone episodes, admittedly with a loose story-arc thread.

For an old Trekkie (not a Trekker) like me, this is pure joy. Not a prosthetic Klingon in sight, and a pretty nifty crew that acts like Starfleet personnel. The whole "organic propulsion" thing is still a bit wonky, but I can live with it until the series gets around to explaining why it didn't make it to the Kirk years.

Trek is back... a terrific captain, a cool crew, and lots of adventure.
516 out of 877 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How can this garbage get 7.5 rating?
logika-6484910 February 2018
I went through at least 150 reviews (sorted by "helpfulness" according to IMDB) and not one was above 6, and at the very minimum, 80% was below 4.

Thankfully, there are quite a few new SciFi shows that can provide me with a much needed fix: The Orville (surprisingly good), Altered Carbon, Black Mirror, heck, even the Expanse.

I hope STD (poor choice of acronym) does have some redeeming qualities, but I can't spare the patience to go look for them...
400 out of 675 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not Star Trek, it's terrible
dsjbouma7 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For a Star Trek series there's way too much improbability and inconsistency in the Star Trek lore. This series is set after Enterprise, but before TOS. The USS Discovery (and other federation vessels) are far too advanced for the time this series is set to take place in. A Spore drive, really? Why has there never been any reference to Spore drives in previous series? Okay, I get that visuals, etc. required an upgrade in this age of special effects and modern technologies, but then the series should've be set much further in the future. That at least would've been possible.

Then there are those "redesigned" Klingons... just plain horrifying. They look bad, really bad and they talk a weird type of Klingon. I tried to get used to the changes, for the past 8 episodes, but I just can't get used to it. It's not Star Trek, it's a spin off and a bad one.

This series is not what I had hoped for... especially since TNG and Voyager are my favorite Star Trek series and I'm automatically comparing Star Trek: Discovery to those series. It doesn't even come close to those two epic series.

I think The Orville is better than this series, which basically says everything.
345 out of 584 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
No inspiration, NOT Star Trek
pjgowtham13 March 2018
Star trek is about inter species politics, technological gap, boundaries, exploration and ethics. Star trek is more like a projected future which portrays the best version of humanity possible. There is no place for dark future here as the core of this series.

Discovery is based on the original timeline. This series is supposed to happen after star trek enterprise. The technologies were a bit advanced for the timeline. The show failed to focus on earth's people, about the federation, dialogues that explain the psychology of the characters. Clearly, the directors of the series don't know star trek.

The vulcan logic, The klingon strength ,are all ignored comfortably in this show. The humans are shown as depressed warmongers

Klingons live by their honour. They aren't bald shiny orcs. These were unlike any klingons in the previous series. They are so different ( In a bad way). This show is pure graphical entertainment, no story, not prequel - like at all. There was no life to the story. Fan made star trek is way better than discovery.

This show is a disgrace for the whole star trek franchise. The directors should back off if they don't understand Star Trek. I hope season 2 is not this grim.
377 out of 642 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The worst Star Trek franchise by a country light year.
neil-procter25 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Idiot TV comes in many guises. Ant & Dec's and James Cordon's shows are very different, but both are still juicy slices of idiot television. Star Trek Discovery is another in the long line of new wave shows that think they are clever but are so idiotic they can only be designed for people who just like to watch the fabulous images and the explosions. I watched season one to the end in hope of some redemption, but alas, there was none. First of all, it falls into the same trap that eventually killed off (the superior) Star Trek Enterprise, namely having one continuous theme. In Discovery it's the Klingon war. There are several episodes in a parallel universe where everyone's doppelgangers are evil (such a cliched idea it could be right out of the original Star Trek series). The characters are unlikable and dull and the things they do are illogical to say the least, and not just in the eyes of Mr. Spock. To put evil Georgiou in charge of the mission to end the war was just one of the many nonsense actions, sort of akin to capturing Hitler and putting him in charge of an allied invasion. Furthermore, despite not being set in a future beyond all previous Star Treks, they seem to have come up with some convoluted method of high speed space travel that had never arisen in previous franchises. Star Trek used to pride itself in using science that was plausible - this stuff is just garbage. I won't be around for season 2. I'll go back and watch Voyager again.
321 out of 546 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You should be ashamed of calling this Star Trek!
pepzar22 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
sOK . where do I even begin?

I have seen 5 episodes and here is what I struggle with in prioritized order:

1. Taking advantage of a sentient being to the brink of it's death, is so far from the Prime Directive, which is T_H_E E_S_S_E_N_C_E of ALL Star Trek shows EVER! This is so wrong in any possible ways and cannot be excused by any means!

2. Since when is Star Trek about 1 person only? They have always been dependent on the variety of crew members and their skills, in order to "survive" and crack the puzzles encountered. But this depends on a no ranked traitor? Really?? Is that the best you can come up with??

3. Since when has ANY captain been a dictator and a tyrant to the brink of the unbearable? Kirk, Picard, Janyway, Archer have all been decisive, but they have always listened to the crew's opinions and made decisions based on that.

4. In the light of no. 1 and 3, I am sorry to say, but I feel this like being Nazi in the space squashing all live no matter the cost.

5. Klingons have been designed to look and feel Egyptians and having hard to breathe when they talk. They do not feel as the warrior race they have been portrayed in any other show. They are just so out of place.

In all honesty, Andromeda feels more Star Trek than this will ever be.

I for one will not waste anymore of my time of this bs excuse of the Star Trek franchise.
339 out of 579 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Star Trek
gianlucalentini8 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'd like to add my voice to countless others: this is no Star Trek, by any stretch of imagination.

I could forgive the inexplicable new look of the Klingons (even though STD has basically changed the soul of their culture!), I could also forgive some minor or not so minor anachronisms (cloaking technology ahead of times, holographic technology ahead of times, ...) but I can't for a second forgive the complete lack of the true Star Trek core message in this series: Star Trek has always been about a future in which humanity is better than today, a future we could all aspire to, a future of harmony and maturity, and also a future of intelligence and curiosity.

This show is so 21st century in its focus on the pettiness of the characters, all of them are close-minded and unlikable, all caged in their own quirks and victimism; they don't work as a team, they don't respect the Federation's ethics, they don't respect the chain of command, they're just a bunch of spoiled kids that would have never been admitted to the Starfleet Academy, not to mention selected to work on a spaceship.

Michael Burnham is the least credible Vulcan-educated character they could create: illogical, emoting all the time, an insufferable Mary Sue who manages to be uninteresting and infuriating at the same time. Stamets is a petty temperamental insubordinate, Tilly is an embarrassing excuse of a shallow illiterate teenager; the only partially complex and passably interesting characters are Lorca and Saru, if one wants to be generous.

The plot holes and illogical turns of STD are often an insult to the intelligence of viewers (the final of Lethe, anyone? The start of the Klingon war? The events on the Klingon ship in Ep.08?), whereas Star Trek used to engage the viewers' intelligence, to challenge it with fresh and new ideas, and also with some scientific complexities (and no, the ridiculous tardigrade/mushroom drive doesn't count: that's not suspension of disbelief, that's just idiocy).

Not Star Trek, and also a sub-par sci-fi series, which I wouldn't recommend to anybody.
283 out of 484 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This show can be summed up by the words "hamfisted" and "forced". I expected better
bjstarosta23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The professional critics keep saying this is a "Star Trek for our time". If our time is about hopelessness, extreme belligerence, logic defying turns of events, hamfisted social agendas, and over- engineered glamour shots, then yes this show completely reflects our time. What follows is a rant about quality of the writing on this show, but if you want a quicker summary without spoilers, just scroll down to the last paragraph.

---SPOILERS---

One of the reasons why I loved the earliest Star Trek shows was that it wanted to inspire you to be a better person, and it did this through exploration of the characters' struggle to make choices that would ultimately be objectively good. In this show the first episode treats us to a drone operator's dilemma: short term morals and short term thinking as opposed to considering the wider implications of your actions, which is something that was a total staple of the show. We get a Vulcan character advocating conflict seemingly to avoid conflict, but nobody seems to question at all the logic or implications of pre-emptive strikes, instead it's an almost entirely emotional endeavour. Why? Why did the writers miss this opportunity? So we could get more lens flared CGI shots of the exterior? Or that pointless space suit drift that lasted 20 minutes just so it could be made into a pretext for the Klingon war? This review would be an essay if I was to pick apart the plot holes in the 1st and 2nd episode, so lets just sum it up by saying those episodes made the main character look stupidly impulsive, which already seems inconsistent with her backstory.

And don't get me started about the other characters: the redhead crewman is an obvious comic relief/nervous newbie trope with no nuance whatsoever, every single one of her lines is annoying so far. Even Ensign Crusher was miles better than this despite the flaws of that character. The main character is supposed to be Spock-lite under the idea that there will be a conflict between Vulcan logic and human morality. And yet the conflict is so forced and the writing of the character conversations so linear, that it breaks suspension of disbelief. The new captain looks set to be killed off by the end of the season judging from what happened so far, can't say I'll shed tears about that. Interaction with different races on the starship Discovery is limited to the "I just want to survive, please" first officer, as it seems like every other Federation member race has been replaced with human cyborgs and actual robots (I wish I was kidding). If Star Trek races correspond to certain sides of the human personality, then this guy corresponds to the fight or flight reflex. Except that's not a personality trait, and any kind of nuance that was had in having a coward as one of the main characters ended after the first two episodes really. All in all, the character writing on this show so far is terrible and getting worse with every episode.

And then you have the Klingons. Never mind the change in their appearance, the Trump supporter monologue was ridiculous. I'm sure there was a better way to include the nuances of our time than to change the Klingons from an honour based society into fundamentalist conservatives. Also, as a more minor quip: the other Star Trek shows went with a Universal Translator plot setup for a reason: it's annoying to have to read subtitles.

Or take this little gem: The main character has to introduce herself on the Discovery by getting into a fight with three inmates. A fight that was completely unnecessary and forced, did nothing for the plot other than showcase some people getting hurt. What? The closest we get to an actual exploration of morality is the tardigrade arc, which truly is the Trolley Problem re-hashed: do I want to kill one creature to save hundreds or not? Would've been on the right track, had there been an actual exploration of it instead of outright rejection of the main character's complaints followed by a clichéd exchange about chains of command. Not that we were able to empathise with any of the characters involved anyway, even if the writing wasn't so trope ridden. The end of Ep.5 where the mirror universe literally looks back at you through a mirror just sums it all up.

---END SPOILERS---

The writers had a chance to make something truly outstanding here: a show that would break out of the doom and gloom and indiscriminate killing of modern TV shows and bring the viewers something that would inspire them and make them think for a change. This show is available via streaming to unshackle it from its commitments to mainstream TV, but it instead becomes exactly that: mainstream TV - a combination of the winning traits of a bunch of modern TV shows, so that a sweet spot can be hit with the ratings I guess? What happened to boldness in creativity? What we get is a cynical Game of Thrones treatment of the Star Trek universe, the exact opposite of what Gene Roddenberry wanted it to be, and paradoxically completely unimaginative and uncreative since it's just a rehash of what has been done much better in other sci-fi/fantasy TV shows already out there. There are plenty of reviews that say this show would be fine if it wasn't a Star Trek show. I don't think it would be. I think there's a serious problem with the character writing, the constant clichés, the generic trope overload, and the forced direction the plot is taking. The fact that it is a Trek show only makes it worse, because I expected so much better. I hope this gets canceled in disgrace, so that the next Star Trek show learns from its mistakes, then maybe we can have some actually bold and interesting writing.
289 out of 497 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Roddenberry must be turning in his grave...
AntonEgoCritics19 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not particularly old and not even a hardened Trekkie, but I WAS a fan... And I felt it was my obligation to open an account just to participate in mitigating this show's senseless and overly enthusiastic public reception...

The values Star Trek promoted and illustrated even facing the worse adversity was exemplary and inspiring... To think we might actually be capable of such evolution was goose-bumpy! Now it's just a bunch of egotistical undisciplined brats led by warmongers focused on personal achievement, love affairs, drinking, clubbing and answer back wittingly even to the hierarchy...

But I have to admit it does suit the writing though: In-eloquent and brash, poor vocabulary... Nothing like the perfectly articulated yet concise and efficient arguments of the past. (It really helped in perfecting my English at the time)

Before, each adventures took its time to unravel, taking root in the mind first, then pace-fully building up to smoothly unfold into a positive and meaningful ending... It was so well done, many episodes got me thinking many days after watching them... Where as all Discovery's 45 minutes episodes (except the last 2, maybe...) left an empty/unsatisfied feeling behind, like nothing really happened... I often found asking myself afterwards: "What have I watched?"

On a somewhat more positive detail, I salute the continuities showcasing the qualities of an advanced society with women being Captains and the wide acceptance of same sex relationships... Although, contrary to quite few opinions it seems, nowhere as "groundbreaking" or even as "daring" as it were when TOS or Voyager successfully implemented these same twists... Discovery just likes to over abundantly remind us of its stands on the matters by, for example choosing a confusing first name for the main character, or profusely exposing the viewer to inelegant and unrestrained public displays of affection... Which I doubt to be as tolerated in any actual military organization, let alone The Federation supposed to represent the best in humanity...

So to bring an end to my rant of disappointment, I'll finish by qualifying this show as a disrespectful, poorly written, overly demagogic, unsatisfying human showcase piece of garbage... With nice CGI.

I miss Star Trek...
331 out of 574 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
When being PC is more important than actually being creative
grobo26 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
In this day and age, you can't simply sit down and decide to tell a story. First you have to make sure whatever you are creating will cater towards the feminists, after that comes race issues, politics, then last and somehow also least, the actual story. They're gonna end up getting great reviews from the critics because all of the above is actually fighting the good fight, right? so you have to like it. The problem is that the actual show/movie/whatever ends up being garbage just because the creators have to push their own agenda and the normal audience knows this.

First and foremost, the inconsistencies are out of this world (or universe rather). The show is set before TOS yet somehow their technology is far beyond anything we've ever seen in TOS, TNG etc. Everything seems dark and hopeless, mutiny and assaulting officers is somehow common on the enterprise now? What happened to logic and reasoning? one of the cornerstones of the Star Trek franchise.

The Mist remake suffered from the same thing, creators trying to shoehorn every single teenage tumblr issue into the show because again, fighting the supposed good fight makes you immune to criticism, Lo and behold, normal people see through the bullshit and can instantly tell when something is trash.

Sacrificing quality just to appease a couple of loudmouths on Twitter is not a very good idea.
366 out of 637 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Childish, badly written and poorly executed.
piotrlipert26 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, don't read journalist reviews for this. My guess is they are paid, either way really disconnected from reality (check the disparity between critic/fans reviews on rotten tomatoes).

Simply put the show is awful. The dialogues are sometimes disconnected from one another and feel very forced. You'll feel like watching the Room in some scenes, that's how bad it is.

The most important flaw however is that heroes are annoying. They make stupid decisions. It's hard to believe that Starfleet officers from the future with high IQ fail so hard. An average Joe would have the common sense not to make such mistakes.

There is another side to the annoyance. The characters annoy each other. They argue and insult one another (even if a superior officer is on the receiving end - inconceivable in the military, even in TNG, or TOS). I get the idea that writers wanted their relationships to grow, but it's way overdone. People in the real world who act this way are called ass holes.

I'm not even going to talk about the betrayal of the Star Trek spirit. Spend the time re watching TNG instead of this Star Trek: Avengers flop.
295 out of 510 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Star Trek on the surface, but nothing below
jelinek-7182621 April 2018
In the beginning of the first episode Burnham predicted (with Spock like attitude) to the second when a storm will arrive. Just minutes later she admitted, that the prediction was wrong. Well and this is the whole description of Discovery. Insert some well known Star Trek references and features, but then do nothing about it. Great visual effects, dialogues with the pace and quality of a middle school play, so far flat characters, chaotic stories with obvious Star Trek references or with reaction to some present social event. I am really sorry to see this show under Star Trek franchise. I dream about Jean Luc Picard appearing from parallel universe on the Orville and staple it as an official Star Trek sequel :)
268 out of 462 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Ain't Trek
charles-494464 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This show is simply not Trek, but a terrible derivative. The writing is awful with huge plot holes, the characters are bad and hateful, they ruined the Klingons, their culture and ships.

They use bad science to invent a spore drive from mushrooms (a magic pixie dust drive), they decide its time for the show to drop f-bombs and the crew as Star Fleet members are an embarrassment and unworthy to wear the uniform.

This isn't Star Trek.
278 out of 480 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I don't even know where to start...
dantonjames3 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I remember when people though Enterprise was a little on the slow side or that Captain Archer wasn't as compelling a character as he could have been. Man I wish we could get him back.

I don't like anyone in this show. They're all a bunch of reprehensible jerks with terrible morality and inconsistencies in character from moment to moment and Burnham is the worst. She's supposed to have been brought up with a Vulcan upbringing but in the first episode she accidentally kills a member of another race (musta had the silly thing in reverse!), assaults her captain, lies to her crewmates and starts an interstellar war.

All that after being told by her adopted Vulcan father that she should shoot at people, unprovoked, in order to show superiority. Then after that she's canned by a panel that is shrouded in darkness...for some reason.

Moving forwards we see her roomied with a girl who would have been ok back in the low res sixties but has no place on HDTV as she has a face like a cooking pancake with moles and craters spack filled to the brims. I go 'uhhhr' everytime she's given a closeup. And then she speaks.

Then they mention how the Wright brothers and Zephram Cochrane should be held in just as high regard as Elon Musk, a barely competent, noncompetitive auto maker running on government grants and hype. Please.

I'm four episodes in, waiting for it to get going, get better, show me something uplifting in some way, something to make me feel good about having watched it.

This is not Star Trek. The visuals are stunning, the set design is gorgeous, just amazing but that's where my praise ends. This is pew pew action show set in space with angry people doing angry things set in a time and place we know everything about and none of this is that place and time.
241 out of 415 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Betrayal of Roddenberry
matsvaneynde25 September 2017
Star trek is supposed to be about how we could be better as humans. This is just regurgitating current problems.

It's star trek for the dumb and the uninspired; star trek transformers.

This is the perfect example of what happens if you take a great intellectual property made by inspired people,

and think you can make it better with a room full of uninspired writers WHO NEVER LIKED STAR TREK.

Ghostbusters 2.0
574 out of 1,024 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not the Star Trek we have come to love in the past.
rcatvdvok24 September 2017
Could have been a lot better then it was. I'm a Trekkie since I was a kid so I was looking forward to this show for a long time. I know they wanted to go in different direction but they went to far this time from what I saw tonight. I don't care about who is playing what in the show, if your good at acting and the story is good then it will be good. In this case the acting was meh, not bad but not close to being great and the story was not wow considering how many delays and how long they had to write it. It is way too dark and doesn't jive with any other Star Trek series before it. If they really thought about it better they should have said it is taking place in the kelvin time line and set it after the events of the rebooted movies, but they didn't so they messed up there.

Having said that I will also say CBS messed up with a pay wall system. It should be free as that put a huge dent in me wanting to get invested into the show. I'm not being cheap but I'm not going to pay for another service for a show that doesn't grip me like TNG or DS9 or STV and TOS. In all honesty The Orville is closer to TNG in many respects than STD is. I know Orville can be a bit silly at moments but I felt better after the show, more up lifted and just happier then after tonight's Discovery.

I never thought I would say this but unless I hear it getting a lot better then it was tonight, this will be the first time I will pass on a Star Trek series, hell I even watched every Enterprise episodes faithfully when many thought that series was meh. Enterprise was still closer to the Star Trek we loved our whole lives than this was tonight.

I hope CBS listens to what people are saying and don't discount everyone's voice for no reason or say we hate it or dislike because of a women is playing the captain that is just dumb ( besides I liked Captain Janeway so you can't say I care about that) It's just not Star Trek the way it should be. It reminds me of a saying my grandfather always told me "Just because you can do something does not mean you should." Likewise just because you updated the feel and story flow of Star Trek, it didn't mean you should have. You could have kept every actor and character just stayed true to Star Trek and the fans who have been there for the decades would have been happy.
803 out of 1,445 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed