Interview: Alex Kurtzman On The Influence Of Fan Feedback And The Legacy Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’


TrekMovie had a chance to speak briefly with executive producer and co-showrunner Alex Kurtzman at the Star Trek: Discovery season 5 world premiere event at SXSW in Austin on Monday. The man in charge of the Star Trek Universe talked about the show’s legacy, AR Wall tech, and the importance of fan feedback.

With it all coming to an end, what do you think or hope will be the enduring legacy of Discovery for the franchise?

I think there are two things. First, there would be no modern age of Star Trek without Discovery. Whether you loved it or you hated it, it kicked open the door for more Star Trek. The idea was never to make one show that pleased everybody. It was to make a lot of shows that please individual segments of the fandom. Because as everyone knows, there is no one-size-fits-all all with Star Trek fans. So I think the key for us was—I didn’t set out to build the Star Trek Universe when we did Discovery, but that is, in fact, what happened. And I’m really, really proud of that. And I think fans will see that there wouldn’t be what exists now without it. The other thing is, obviously [Gene] Roddenberry had an extraordinary track record for representation on screen and TOS set the bar. And I think we quadrupled down on it with this show. I believe we’re living very much in his shadow. Hopefully, he’d be proud of it.

Season 5 poster

Discovery seems to go through change every season. How much is fan feedback a driving factor?

Oh, it’s always a factor. We listen to the fans a lot. We see what people are saying online. And we talk about what of it feels resonant, what do we feel is truthful. You always know when someone makes a point, you kind of feel in your gut. “Oh, that’s, that’s a very fair point.” So we’re always open to feedback. I think it’s actually a really important part of making Trek, Trek.

Embed from Getty Images

How much has the way you use the AR Wall changed the way you make Star Trek?

It’s changed a lot. It changes like every six months. And we’re even having conversations now about how to integrate it in Starfleet Academy slightly differently than what we’ve done on Strange New Worlds, Discovery, and Section 31. So it’s a huge tool. But like any digital tool, it needs to be used very thoughtfully. I think that what I like more than anything is to create a world that feels grounded. And sometimes it can sort of make you feel like you’re inside a video game. So we’re really trying hard to make sure that’s not the feeling.

LED volume being used by Discovery for season 4 (American Cinematographer)

More to come from SXSW

TrekMovie has more interviews and coverage from the SXSW 2024 premiere and panel discussion, so check back later for more exclusives. See our previous interviews:

The fifth and final season of Discovery debuts with two episodes on Thursday, April 4 exclusively on Paramount+ in the U.S., the UK, Switzerland, South Korea, Latin America, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, and Austria. Discovery will also premiere on April 4 on Paramount+ in Canada and is also expected to be broadcast on Bell Media’s CTV Sci-Fi Channel in Canada. The rest of the 10-episode final season will be available to stream weekly on Thursdays. Season 5 debuts on SkyShowtime in select European countries on April 5.

Keep up with news about the Star Trek Universe at

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“The idea was never to make one show that pleased everybody.”

I’m sorry, but exactly WHY is that??

In other words, “we set out to divide the fan base.”

That’s a very forced interpretation of a very reasonable quote.

Not if you think that narrowcasting has become so narrow that these shows appeal to no-one.

It’s kinda both in a way. To be fair, they have a point that you can not please everyone. But conversely I would say that they take this to the next level and use it as an excuse to not even try sometimes. It’s not just black and white. I am a canon fan and I HATE it when canon gets broken. Honestly, I don’t care what anyone says, canon is not hard to follow.

Yet, Star Trek ROUTINELY broke canon. Vulcans would be Vulcanians, and Vulcan would still have no moon. Khan would not have recognized Chekov in TWOK. I’m sure there are many other instances. I don’t mind when canon gets “bent.” We all here assume that all the viewers have seen all the different episodes, series, and movies. I remember the droughts with ZERO Star Trek or a movie every few years. Respect canon? Yes. Be chained by it? No.

You and I feel similarly regarding this. Canon to me is a vague skeletal shape around which to grow a body, but it isn’t the body itself. I realize that metaphor doesn’t really make any sense, but I guess it’s just how my brain visualizes it.

I agree with you about the canon.

Because pleasing everybody is impossible?

Not sure where you are going with this?

Because prior shows appealed to a much larger % of the audience. It’s very obvious where they were going with that.

Being cognizant of the reality that you’re not going to please everyone is not the same as deliberately “dividing the fan base.”

I don’t think they were trying to intentionally divide the fanbase, I think it’s a matter that they were hoping to challenge the notions, thoughts, and views of the fanbase with some of their choices. Fortunately or unfortunately, a lot of fans didn’t go along with some of the stuff DISCO was selling for various reasons.


I just don’t believe him. I think they threw what was left of the original concept against the wall, and what stuck is what they went with. If they weren’t trying to please everyone, they wouldn’t be changing things around every season, trying to scratch the itch they just got criticized for.

Yeah I agree fully. I don’t think they would be doing so many changes if they weren’t trying to please people.

And I think season 5 is going to make that even more clear. I found some spoilers for the new season and it’s been made clear there is a heavy TNG component to it. We knew that it will have a connection but it sounds much closer to a direct tie in. Again won’t spoil anything but if true it sounds like it’s being done to get more TNG fans to like the show more.

So we’ll see. I just hope they just tell a good story in the end.

Again won’t spoil anything but if true it sounds like it’s being done to get more TNG fans to like the show more.

Even if successful, it’s come too late in the series run.

Since it’s now cancelled yeah lol.

Let me guess, Riker will pop up ind the finale and save the day ;)… on a holodeck of course.

Yes, same here.

I’d imagine that anyone who have ever engaged in a creative endeavor understands that they are never ever going to please everyone. There are folks out there who believe to their core that Mozart, Orson Wells, Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra were nothing but talentless hacks.

Your conclusion they deliberately set out to divide the fanbase is without merit. Most illogical.

My initial reaction was to wonder, Why set out to make a show you already know some people won’t like? I mean, for example, when Vince Gilligan wrote Breaking Bad, despite the content, he clearly hoped it was good enough for millions of people to love? And they did, because the writing was just so good. I hope you’ve seen the show. Anyway, Kurtzman’s comments here rang hollow to me.

More to the point, they didn’t seem to feel everyone had to like it. Some people find Breaking Bad too violent, or are aghast at the “Team Walt” ethos. Some people in Albuquerque still, inexplicably, hate it because it “casts the city in a bad light.” (God knows what they say about IN BRUGES.)

Great film, In Bruges. Brilliant.

With SNW and Picard S3 satisfying legacy fans like myself, IMHO it is good to see that Discovery morphed into a show that is not trying to please everyone. This was especially so after Picard and SNW were greenlit.
The franchise needs to broaden its fanbase as greybeard fans like me won’t be around forever – so it is good they are trying to target other audiences. With any luck, the franchise will be around for another 60 years.
As for Discovery, for me the show (both the good and the very bad) will always be remembered as the one that helped spawn Short Treks, Picard, SNW, Section 31, Prodigy, LDs and eventually SFA. And IMHO that is a good legacy.

I agree with all of this DeanH. You know I have applauded Kurtzman for trying to expand the fanbase and give something different for everyone. I don’t know how much that has worked out in terms of attracting new audiences but for older fans I do think it’s been more a success than a failure.

I love the shows are in different time periods. I love each have different tones and formats. It is crazy both DIS and LDS exist at the same time lol. No matter how you feel about those shows personally they are each giving something different for everyone.

And I think LDS was easily the biggest risk since we never had a comedic Star Trek show before and the only previous animated show just lasted two seasons (and not a full two seasons either). So it was a risk they took a gamble on and it actually paid off in the end.

Shows like Picard and SNW were no brainers but LDS proved that fans can expand their pallettes when you make a quality show no matter what it is.

So I give Kurtzman lots of credit. I know many still treat him like the devil but he has taken chances and tried to shake things up a little. I never thought we would have a Star Trek show in the 30th century but here we are. And I’m hoping SFA shakes things up more and looking forward to Section 31.

You know, for me those first 6 episodes of Discovery were abominable BUT I have to hand it to Fuller for at least trying to shake things up by taking massive changes. The problem was Discovery S1 and S2 were really targeted to legacy fans like me so those changes never had a chance.
Kurtzman took over from the showrunners and although they kept much of the story, episodes 7-20 were something older fans could try to appreciate or at least stomach. By the end of the 2nd season, Picard was on its way and SNW was on the table waiting to be greenlit.
I for one agree with you and appreciate them trying something new by taking the show to the 32nd century. Maybe that didn’t save the show and ultimately the stories were… well meh at best, (although I liked some of the backstories like Adira’s and Georgiou’s), but at least we continue to have a host of other shows to look forward to.

Exactly. They were really trying to do something different with Discovery which I applauded them for but it didn’t really work. I know going to the 32nd century probably came from both fans yelling they wanted to go forward again but frankly because they made a prequel show that didn’t remotely feel like a prequel lol. I state this all the time because if they went in the direction SNW did the show would probably be in a different situation today.

Obviously the shows that came later including SNW came with a lot of hindsight Discovery simply didn’t have. But they clearly learned from it because the shows have gotten stronger with more praise.

As for Discovery yes it clearly still has it’s problems and that falls to the show runner making it. But it’s over now. Hopefully season 5 will be a big turnaround and surprise some of its bigger critics. Either way the show did forge a new era of Trek shows, most fans seem to like even if they are not in love with all of them. That’s the best you can ask for, especially with this fandom lol.

..and while I do appreciate Kurtzman reading say, “our” comments and taking them into consideration, I do kind of agree with those who say just let the showrunners go with their vision, and who cares what people say. That’s a muddy road to travel. Kind of on the fence there.

You know the sad thing is Rick Berman was berated for his efforts the same as Alex is now. I don’t think anyone could ever completely satisfy some Star Trek fans. Unfortunately if some people don’t like a show, we are expected to accept trolling by them on a regular basis. Alex Kurtzman and Star Trek Discovery bought Star Trek back to our TV’s. He has done a great job in my opinion.

I’m also glad Alex listens. We wouldn’t have Strange New Worlds without him listening to fan calls after Disco season 3 and PICARD season 3 wouldn’t have changed direction with Terry Matalas if Alex hadden listened to us.

It may not be a perfect Star Trek world for some but I have been happy to go along for the ride. Live action, animation, TOS era, TNG era and Disco era Star Trek and soon a Section 31 movie all happened thanks to Alex Kurtzman. Bravo!

This does tend to happen with bigger franchises, I mean just remember all those flak George Lucas used to receive when he made the Special Editions or the prequels for Star Wars. In hindsight, those same fans now kind of want Lucas back at making Star Wars but they couldn’t really appreciate the story he was telling which was ultimately his story.

Some good came out of fan discontent, 4k77, 4k80, and 4k83. Since Lucas wants to deny us the originals, fans filled the void.

People treated both Lucas and Berman so bad at the time. Lucas especially since he created the damn thing. Yeah the prequels weren’t great but the man should still be respected and not treated like a pariah with his old creation.

And just like Star Trek people treated Abrams as if he was going to be the savior of the franchise. Well we saw what happened with both his time on Star Trek and Star Wars. Now Lucas is the golden boy again and I doubt he wants to touch Star Wars ever again and I wouldn’t blame him.

I’ll always defend George’s right to tell his story, his way.. but let’s be honest, George was kind of standoffish with fans, and dismissive of anything they’d say. So he made that situation worse with his reaction. So I don’t feel sorry for him in that regard. Hubris got the best of him, and that led to a more intensive backlash. As for JJ, he just didn’t get it. I don’t think the backlash has been anywhere near as severe on him than it was on George, and he certainly handled it differently, and better. Remember though… He got a lot of positive feedback after Trek 09, too. Looking back, a lot of fans have revised those feelings with context of the next two movies. But I don’t feel sorry for him either, really. He’s certainly been compensated well, and criticism goes with the territory. I’m not going to say anyone is above criticism, here, but I agree it should never get personal. JJ did some great things with Trek, to be fair.. but all of the things I liked are mostly superficial. He never really got the property, and that’s a shame. The best I can say about JJ’s efforts with both, is I think he put his heart into them. I just don’t think he’s a very creative thinker when it comes to story. His fallback is always awash in nostalgia and the element of surprise.. which he seems to value the reveal more than figuring out what makes a quality story.

Oh yeah I agree. And I loved what Rick Berman did. That will forever be the best era of Star Trek for me..I defended him constantly even though I was unhappy with the last two movies and gave up on Enterprise at the time. But he did way more good than bad for the franchise and yes the irony today is more people appreciate him now (although Nemesis is still a huge stinker IMO). But that’s how fandom seems to work I guess.

But I had no problem criticizing what I disagreed with just like I have no problem criticizing Kurtzman. I just don’t treat them like the devil either because I don’t like something.

I have been very critical of the Kelvin movies and never held back my issues with those either and yet always had gracious conversations with Bob Orci here. I respected him and he knew that, I just had some issues with the films but I never doubted his passion and love of the franchise and was always happy when he discussed them.

As said I have my issues with Discovery and I really do fault the showrunner but I know they are trying to make a good show. I think everyone who has worked on Trek wants to do right by it.

You make a good point. I really grew to resent Berman because I think he didn’t care about or understand what was great about the original ST, his rules hurt the writers, and he generally failed as a movie producer with the TNG movies. The guy just wasn’t that good. He did hire great folks like Pilller and Beher, and Manny Coto from what I hear.

Kurtzmann, on the other hand, I think he gets ST. He’s a fan (maybe not to the degree of any of us here), and he’s a writer so he knows what works.

Yeah, I didn’t care for all the aspects of DISCO, but, on the whole, I really enjoyed it. Mostly due to its production, action, stories, and, yeah, really talented actors.

I think it came up short in terms of characters, some continuity flubs (nothing major though), and some other aspects that just became irritating.

In general, though, I thought DISCO was great. It was a breath of fresh air after the last Berman series I watched which was Voyager, or, as I call it, TNG v2 (ENT was TNG v3 and I just could not get into that show).

I enjoyed your term ‘greybeard fans.’ Of which I am a member..😄. And for all those who say that without DSC we wouldn’t have all the shows that came later, I think we still would have received them. Maybe they would have been different, maybe better, probably not worse. Who knows – but I think new Trek was coming regardless. LLAP.

Yes. Trek will always have a place in filmed entertainment… and it would have been mined at some point. Disco paved the way for more Trek during the rise of streaming.. an opportunistic time that gave us a lot of new Trek. That has waned, obviously, so we’ll see where we go from here, but even if this iteration gets shut down completely, Trek will be back down the road, for sure.

Picard S3 was not good. Fan service don’t make something good.

LOL. Come on, that is not even remotely what he said, and even you realize it. What a silly and ridiculous misinterpretation.

No, I’m going to stand by this one and as you know, I’m not terribly vocal or divisive here. I read it for what it is. Anyway, I do like how Kurtzman reads and takes into consideration fan response (which I know is a side-issue with some). I enjoy and appreciate your comments across these boards, Lorna.

First, Discovery is an example of them throwing ideas up on the wall to see which one sticks. There was never a clear vision for Discovery. In fact only the animated shows in modern trek seems to know what they are and what direction to go.

Second, I don’t believe they understand what Star Trek is. Yes, they get the diversity part right, but fail to get the allegorical science fiction part or the compelling characters part right. When they try to do allegorical sci fi, it is poorly written and executed.

Finally, a new audience will come if your stories are great. Sadly, they are not. You don’t have to please everyone, just make great science fiction and people will come.

Just my opinion…..

Agreed! 👍

Discovery never had an identity and that was always part of its problem. Then they made it a prequel which felt more jarring because it looked and felt too advanced. Then it felt closer to GOT or BSG tone than it did Star Trek.

And finally the writing sucked and it never improved. That’s it in a nutshell.

…right. And the whole prequel part was just insulting, imo, in the look and feel, and making Burnham a half-sister to Spock was ridiculous and a clear legacy-fan grab. Which did the opposite for me.

Yep.. and that’s why SNW has supplanted it as the main show to carry the Trek brand forward

Finally, a new audience will come if your stories are great.

In fact, a large new audience who did like DSC and it’s stories did emerge, and it has expanded the franchise. What your post primarily refers to is a subset of an older existing Star Trek audience in which DSC and it’s stories did not appeal to.

Apparently it wasn’t enough though, or DSC wouldn’t have gotten cancelled, Prodicgy would not have been carted off to another streamer, and any potential new show s that aren’t greenlit / too far down the pipeline effectively halted.

Lol, five seasons is longer than most streaming shows get — five seasons is a major streaming success!

Also, by applying that dumbass logic, the real reason Ted Lasso S4 must not be happening is because not enough people were watching S3? Riiiiiighhhht! :-))

Season 5 was not written as a final season, though. The show was cancelled prematurely. Secret Hideout was planning for more. They had to come back to film a Coda for the final episode, so it could be given a proper series ending. The reality is that these shows have been propped up to build a streaming service around. Now that the streaming wars are over, it’s time to shed some dead weight. You have to remember, these shows on streamers are not profit centers. They’re hoping to drive new subscriptions, so they are a budget line item. That budget was propped up by investment that was intended to be recouped by an influx of new subs. P+ has not reached its goal. If this series had been on Netflix, it would not have made it as far. I think it’s fair to say that DSC was successful enough, but it was not a huge hit, or they would have figure out how to keep it. If I had to characterize it, I’d call it a moderate success. I think if it were on Network TV, it would have gotten cancelled long ago.

By that logic, I could say that Legacy is such an obvious follow on to Picard — with the necessary actors, the show runner, the writers, the sets and the production team all set up and ready to go — such that not continuing with Legacy as the easy plug-in follow on show represents a cancellation. So bye-bye Matalas, bye-bye Jeri Ryan, bye-bye Picardwalker, bye-bye the logical other cast members —we are shedding you’re dead weight as well.

It’s funny but between these two shows it’s DSC That was able to spin off a new series, Strange New Worlds. With Picard, Legacy is dead.

Say what you want about DSC, but it spun off the top series in Star Trek today, and the second spin off series is on the way, as well as a movie spin-off, while your vaunted Picard can’t seem to spin off Jack Shit.

It can.. there is no financial will to do more shows… doesn’t matter if it’s a sound idea or not. I’d argue it has just as much fan desire as SNW did. New shows came out as they were building a streamer, and Redstone was dumping cash into CBS AllAccess/Paramount+. Under those conditions, it’s evident that Legacy would most likely have been the same kind of no brainer SNW was. The call for Legacy at the end of Picard S3 comes at a time of contraction for P+. DSC did well enough to justify continuing to throw money at Trek. That is not he case anymore, and it;s not the fault or praise of any particular show at this point.

Agreed with all of this. And Discovery may have gotten another season if they kept it on Netflix instead of moving it to Paramount+ abroad.

Yes I do think Discovery was a success overall but I never believed it reached the original expectations they had for the show. And it never really caught on in the mainstream either. Sure I believe new people certainly watched it but I still think that was a smaller minority and there are still people out there whose never even heard of this show before.

And I also think being on a smaller streaming site kept it around much longer. I don’t think the show would’ve made it past 3 seasons if it was a network show. But to be fair I feel the same way about Picard and SNW.

I don’t think ANY of these new shows has really caught on to new audiences beyond the already true believers.

Having the show on Netflix is probably why it lasted as long as it did which is so bizarre they wanted to take it from that service?

And I agree I don’t think NuTrek has captured an audience beyond mostly old fans. My Trekkie friends watches some of it but my non Trek friends knows nothing about them

It’s very different from the old days when people at least heard of TOS, TNG or VOY even if they never watched them. But that was a time the franchise was much bigger and it was a bigger part of popular culture in general.

Take this with a grain of salt but I read that Netflix refused to continue paying for the show after third season so it just went back to Paramount.

If true then obviously Paramount was just in a bind and probably depended on that money to keep it going.

But it also could’ve just been they wanted Star Trek to feel more exclusive to Paramount+ as they were expanding it. But then it doesn’t seem like the same deal was made with Amazon to buy them out to have Picard or Lower Decks internationally. Or maybe Amazon just didn’t want to break the deal because those shows are doing well enough there.

So it could just be Netflix just wanted out of the deal if they felt they were paying too much and the show was performing well enough.

Again don’t know either way but leaving Netflix probably did seal it’s fate faster once things at Paramount started going south and the show was just too costly.

I was on record a year ago saying Discovery was probably the first show to get cancelled due to being the oldest and therefore the most expensive. Funny how so many others are now repeating this today.

Could certainly be true. I also think If you look at teh Sheridan shows, they are all coming to Paramount+. The thought process (that has not changed) is to keep everything in house to drive new subscribers. Streamers are no longer chasing those.. equilibrium has been reached.

I’m truly amazed Discovery made it five seasons considering most people didn’t seem to like it but I guess old Star Trek fans will watch anything.

I think Discovery had a lot of potential but it dropped the ball every season. The show doesn’t feel like it’s popular at all. And it probably would’ve been cancelled after the first season if it was on a network.

So true. I kind of have to. What I don’t do is go back and watch more. But I did buy the Blu of Picard S3 and it’s the only one I’ve rewatched.

Funny I remember people saying they expected Discovery go several more seasons. Now 5 seasons is apparently a major accomplishment lol.

It’s always comical. But to be fair I assumed it would be cancelled by season 3 lol.

I do too lol.

…and I totally agree with you, on all points you said. And I’ll ask, why the heck did they write a show with no clear vision for it, which was clearly the case? Kurtzman basically says that. I just find DSC a missed opportunity. And I’ve said before – here, years ago – how excited I was when this show was announced.

This. the vision modified and changed with the constant shuffling of show runners which didn’t stabilize to midway through S2 I think? The pilot episodes were mishmash of ideas that started and were modified by different creatives as the braintrust shifted in pre production all the way up to the premiere.

Yeah, I kind of get what you are saying, that maybe they concentrated a tad too much on the diversity and emotional parts of the franchise and not enough on serious, allegorical science-fiction part of Trek. In fact at the beginning I even thought they made this show as a kind of opposition to the vulcans and vulcan ideology of logic to maybe prove emotions can solve more things than logic. While ideally it should be the fact both go hand in hand.

Nobody likes every Star Trek show.

Every show has divided the fanbase to one extent or other.

…true. But I don’t recall a showrunner actually saying the intent was to create a show not all fans would like. Please correct me if I’m wrong. His comments came across to me simply as elaborate excuses for the criticisms the show has received. Which he would do, of course, It’s his baby. I get it, it just stung me (clearly :)

I dig the responses my reaction had. It still seems to me his comments were shaped to put a positive spin on a show that literally – from what we’ve been kicking around for years here – has divided the fan base and is arguably the worst-received of the franchise. All respect for everyone’s opinion, of course. I enjoy the discourse, the conversation it’s produced. And I respect the fans of DSC. Cheers.

Totally agree as usual man! Discovery is the most divisive Trek show in history because it was very jarring out the gate and did a lot of headscratching things, things that just wasn’t needed.

It’s been kicked around for four seasons now for a reason, it’s just a bad show. The show has a 35% audience score rating on RT. Even Nemesis has a higher rating lol.

Stop making excuses for a crappy show. People can certainly like it or disagree with it but stop pretending the people who hate it are in the minority when everywhere you go you just see complaints about it and it’s actually gotten worse lol.

Because you can never please everybody. It’s impossible to do. It’s a very straightforward and accurate statement with everything.

I am not a Fan od Discovery at all but this what he said here is perfectly fine.
They are creativey after all and free to try and have their own vision.
You as a fan really don’t have to like everything, there is no duty to serve you and honestly, if the goal would be to just please the fan base, it would get very boring, very fast…

I love season two more, to be honest. However, I love all the other current Star Trek shows more than Discovery and the first two seasons of Picard combined.

That’s actually a good thing. You try to make something that pleases everybody you end up with something like Joss Whedon’s Justice League, That feels flat and cheap. I think the key is to make something that’s genuine and that the filmmakers know the material or the kind of material it is well. Nicholas Meyer knew Hornblower – a major inspiration for Star Trek – well and was able to draw from that and make a movie that felt fresh and different, but still true to Star Trek. I enjoy “NuTrek” actually quite a bit, however, I can’t deny that it’s sadly obvious that the writers for the most part don’t seem to know Star Trek, its inspirations, or the genre very well. (In some cases evennbasic facts of Pysocs seem to escape them). They are drama writers that have researched Star Trek, and the shows they make while having a lot of references to old trek material, often seem a little fake and phony to me.

It’s literally impossible to make a Star Trek show that pleases everyone. Every Trek show out there has those that like it and those that hate it. So I guess you feel that every iteration of Trek set out to “divide the fan base.”

Well they succeeded.

I agree that you can’t please everybody, but, yeah, shouldn’t you try to please as many as you can?

Which show has done the best out of this current crop of ST shows? DISCO, SNW, Picard, or Lower Decks? I think that’s a relevant question. And, knowing that, why is that show the best one.

I’ve seen a lot of criticism about Discovery, probably as much as ENT had, but I don’t see as much with regard to Picard or SNW. And a lot of people seem to enjoy Lower Decks too.

Am I right about these observations?

Oh, it’s always a factor. We listen to the fans a lot. We see what people are saying online.


And that’s why a series that was fantastic in S1 and S2 got watered down — because they made the mistake of listening to a “very loud” small, subset of fans back then who were uber-negative on the series and SMG/Michael…when at the same time a very solid fan base was developing, with a lot of new and diverse fans who loved the series as it was presented to them in S1 and S2.

Alex, Akiva and Michelle: I so wish you had had the confidence to stay the course after S2 and not listened to that piss-poor fan advice from that small, but very loud group — because DSC has been been as good as your awesome first two season. Take a page from Mike McMahan — he ignored critics with negativity like me and many others early on and doubled down on his juvenile cartoon sitcom approach — and the core fans have got the series they wanted through four seasons, with LDS still going strong.

Have to agree with this. The first couple of seasons weren’t perfect but they had an edge, they had guts and balls, quite frankly. I know a fair few new viewers who came to Trek via Discovery. Some criticism was legitimate (ie, the Klingon redesign) but a lot of it was simply hatred and bile from ageing nerds who wanted Berman Trek back (and those weirdos who were pissed we got that instead of that Axanar scam).

I wish Discovery had kept more of its guts and gusto. I know DS9 was re-tooled quite a bit in the first few seasons, but I’m so glad its creators didn’t kowtow to all the hatred online at the time it aired (it truly was despised by a lot of fans because it dared to be different and do its own thing). I still enjoy Discovery but it lost its edge and became too timid.

DS9 was a good show with great characters and stories. Discovery was bad from the start and still bad. That’s its biggest problem.

But I know others are fans of it and likes it of course. Even I have really liked it at times, but it constantly let me down every season. Maybe this one will be different but I’m pretty skeptical on that lol.

The first couple of seasons weren’t perfect but they had an edge, they had guts and balls, quite frankly. I know a fair few new viewers who came to Trek via Discovery. Some criticism was legitimate (ie, the Klingon redesign) but a lot of it was simply hatred and bile from ageing nerds who wanted Berman Trek back (and those weirdos who were pissed we got that instead of that Axanar scam).

Well said! And it’s unfortunate the Kurtzman and company felt that they had to respond to some of those fans who obviously were neve going to like DSC, regardless of what they tried to change. And those fans can pretend this all away all that want, but they do bear some responsibility for the devastating changes to the series that were made after S2 — all the “Crying Michael” and “Space Hitler” whining fans are partly to blame for the series quality diminishing after the first two very solid seasons.

I wish Discovery had kept more of its guts and gusto. I know DS9 was re-tooled quite a bit in the first few seasons, but I’m so glad its creators didn’t kowtow to all the hatred online at the time it aired (it truly was despised by a lot of fans because it dared to be different and do its own thing). I still enjoy Discovery but it lost its edge and became too timid.

Agreed. The producers/showrunners on both DS9 and LDS (which I don’t personally like) did not let the whiners force them to make wholesale changes — they had confidence and fortitude in what they are doing — so the similar type of fan whining negative BS did not sway them — and those series continued with their core fans staying pleased.

But Kurtzman/Goldsman/Paradise don’t have that kind of confidence and backbone, unfortunately. So, for example, those dudes here that have been constantly belittling DSC with their “Crying Michael” and “Space Hitler” juvenile BS effectively gave Kurtzman and Company the input that caused derailment of the series, and because of that DSC has never been as good as those first two seasons.

Discovery’s first two seasons weren’t perfect — far, far from it, with the obsession with the Mirror Universe, the Klingon makeup, Lorca’s backstory, the forced sibling rivalry plot, and so on. The “middle decks” approach never worked.

But at least I felt they were *trying* to tell some worthwhile stories and to introduce some fresh characters, like Burnham. Saru, Lorca, and Reno. I thought that with time, the series would improve. Then they did the idiotic time jump to a dystopian future — Somalia write large, basically — and it cascaded downhill from there.

I was fine with ditching the rated R violence, that added nothing of value IMO, but the time jump wasn’t something they should have done if they couldn’t make it compelling, and the show’s lack of edge is not necessarily a product of responding to criticism.

It’s a leap when anyone blames the fans for writers making these decisions like they have no agency. When does a “Look what you made me do!” argument every really hold water? No one forced them to do anything – it felt like the time travel was a decision made to make room for SNW more than to placate the fans who disliked the show being a prequel. The tone and focus of the show changed, and that’s also not on fandom because what they’ve been doing isn’t really what I’ve seen explicitly requested beyond getting away from prequels. If they bit off more than they could chew in depicting the 32nd century, that’s on the producers. Clearly it interested them as something to explore, and it’s engaged a sizable number of fans, so no one should be made to feel guilty.

and those weirdos who were pissed we got that instead of that Axanar scam

Scam or not, I really enjoyed PRELUDE TO AXANAR, and its docu-drama style in particular. I regret they never got to make the full-blown follow-up to it. It showed they could really do a different take on Star Trek that still honored what came before.

I suspect that Paramount took a hawkish approach to fan films after that because the subject matter of AXANAR — a pre-TOS Klingon war — was too close to DISCOVERY’s plot.

Fan feedback ruined Discovery. The series sacrificed its identity and uniqueness to pander to fanaticism. By the third season, the series was no longer what it started out as, not just because of the change in setting, but mainly because of the overall change in tone.

Based on what little I could tolerate, s3 was exactly the same, just minus the saving grace of mount. Bad creative calls in both traditional dramatic terms and in terms of trek, so a double-barreled loser.

Anson was easily the best thing in the entire series. I liked season 2, but it’s a mixed bag as well. I didn’t mind that we got to deal with Pike (I wish they continued to write for that character the way they did on that season), and I did geek out on seeing the Talosians. But the story stuff of Spock stuff was a mess. I never bought into that Burnham and he had a bond.

“New Eden” is the only DSC episode I may go back and watch. It was a real Trek episode, and a very good one, imo. Reason: Mount. And Frakes directed.

 (I wish they continued to write for that character the way they did on that season)

No kidding. I loved him in DISCO season 2; I can barely watch him in SNW season 2.

Yeah, and I don’t buy it’s because of his trauma from confronting his future. He’s still held up by the franchise as an effective commander. I will say.. I quite liked seeing him struggle with all of that at teh beginning of season 1, I just think that the way he was portrayed in S2 of DSC, he has the will to compartmentalize, and he wouldn’t be hindered by it while performing his duty. I actually love the idea that he has to do that, and I wish his character had showed that dichotomy more.

You are always so harsh Kmart! I’m pretty sure when the Discovery producers look at your posts they want to have a good cry! 😂

I didn’t mind the change in setting, I am perfectly okay with them being sent to the future. What bothers me is the change in tone, which was on one level in the first season and turned into something else in the third. And not necessarily for the better.

I didn’t mind the change in setting, I am perfectly okay with them being sent to the future. What bothers me is the change in tone, which was on one level in the first season and turned into something else in the third. And not necessarily for the better.


Sorry I just don’t buy this. Fan feedback didn’t ruin Discovery. Bad writing did (per usual).

SNW amd Picard season 3 were also based on fan feedback and they are overwhelmingly positive. Because the people running those at least understand the shows they are working on more (and I know both still have their flaws).

I think Discovery just have a bad showrunner whose heart is in the right place but turned the show into a sappy melodrama with bad plotting and slow pacing.

Again I don’t remember fans begging they turn the show into a cry fest every season with the crew sharing their feelings like they are in a therapy session. In fact I remember fans saying they DON’T want that lol.

And yet we keep getting it. So this idea that fans are getting everything they want is a big misnomer, including the tone. Fans never wanted Lifetime movie channel in space which Discovery has turned into and railed against it for multiple seasons now. That’s solely on the creatives among other things.

Every single bad thing that happened after season one was because the producers stopped caring about making Discovery what they intended it to be to turn it into something they believed the people that hated the first season would prefer to see.

The first season is completely different from what followed it in many ways, from world building to characterization. It’s two different shows.

Caprica tried to do the same kind of fan pandering halfway through its only season, and it killed it.

Every single bad thing that happened after season one was because the producers stopped caring about making Discovery what they intended it to be to turn it into something they believed the people that hated the first season would prefer to see.

Exactly. And this article confirms it. How could anyone objectively read this article, where the creators admit fan input was hugh in DSC, try to pretend that the huge changes we saw after S3 were not directly attributable to trying to respond to those fan critiques — which doomed the series into never being as good as those first two seasons, which core DSC fans loved.

Fan feedback ruined DSC, and those fans, some of who are here, need to suck it up and take some responsibility for this. But again, most of the responsibility is with Kurtzman and Company for listening to all of that whining BS about Michael/SMG and Georgiou and other topics of hate on the first two seasons.


Even if that’s true you can still make it good lol.

Shows get retooled ALL the time and Star Trek has become infamous for it. FYI Deep Space 9 turned into a completely different show as well in its third season that wasn’t close to the original concept. The entire Dominion War was a response from fans saying the show was too boring and that they wanted them off the station more. Rick Berman was completely against any long form stories. He only wanted the Dominian storyline to be a two part episode and then just continue on with more crisis of the week stories. The showrunner pushed for it anyway and in the end got what he wanted even though that’s not what the show was meant to be.

And we got a much better show out of it because you not only had talented writers who could turn things on a dime you had people that really understood the show they were working on and the potential it had. DS9 took a LOT of crazy risks and ultimately it really paid off. But that only happened because you had fans not really happy with the initial show and writers who could change things up in a positive way.

As for Discovery it DOESN’T have the talented writers that DS9 did and it shows over and over again. They keep retooling because it’s obvious they don’t really know what to do with the show nor have a clear vision where to take it.

This was literally made clear back in season one when they basically rushed through the Klingon war after one season. Was that because fans complained? Actually no because they had obviously decided on that before the show even aired. They already knew the show wasn’t working and decided season 2 would be something else before any of us could whine about it.

Look Discovery was a train wreck from the start. Everyone obviously knows that. There were probably just as many people arguing where to take the show who were working on it as the fanbase itself. Discovery is the first show that didn’t even have a real premise. It started as a war show and once that ended it was all a big question mark because they fired the guy who came up with the whole thing before they started filming it.

Trying to put the blame on fans while dismissing all the problem the show had from the start is a bit ridiculous. Discovery is a bad show because it’s being written badly. That’s it. And for many that’s been the case from the start.

It comes down to the people making the freaking show and they are simply bad at their jobs if you think it sucks.

Nothing could save this show. It was always bad and all the changes couldn’t take away from the reality they had a turkey on day one.

But it wasn’t the first Trek show people thought started out bad and changed it around. TNG did it. So did DS9 as I said. So did Enterprise. No matter how you personally feel about them they were all perceived more popular by the end of their run than their beginning.

With Discovery so far that hasn’t really changed. The perception was it was bad when it started and it’s still considered bad today. Whose fault is that?

But again maybe that will ultimately change with time. I have no clue but Discovery’s problems have been there since day one. That’s just the reality and nothing done so far hasn’t changed that perception much.

You cannot compare the changes made to TNG in its third season with the ones made to DIS after its first, though.

In TNG’s case, they were made to improve the series. In DIS’ case, they were made to pander to people that hated the show because it wasn’t a rehash of The Original Series.

There is a difference between what people perceived as bad about DIS in its first season and what they perceive as being bad about it in its third.

In the first, they whined about the technology being too advanced compared to TOS because they refused to comprehend that production values have advanced since 1966.

Notice how no one makes that complain about Strange New Worlds. No one whines about Pike’s quarters being a veritable mansion compared to the ones he had in The Cage. And where is the ancient TV?!? What happened to it?!?

Indeed, notice how NONE of the complains people made about DIS in regard to how it compared to TOS are made against SNW, even though they are equally applicable.

And lest not forget the Klingon redesign.

People whined about that because they refused to accept that TNG-era Klingons went against canon during TOS. The actor that played Tyler looked just like a TOS era Klingon without needed to put on any makeup.

Had they adhered to how Klingons are supposed to look like in the post-ENT era/TOS era, the VoQ stuff would have made no sense. Tyler would have looked the same as a human and as a Klingon.

Actual fans of DIS were robbed of any sort of explanation for why Klingons looked the way they did (I’ll go my grave arguing that it had to do with continuing attempts to undo the effect of the cure to the Augment virus that resulted in Klingons restoring their ENT appearance in The Motion Picture. But, because the series chose to pander to hatred instead of focus on storytelling, we’ll never find out what was going to happen.

People thought DIS was bad not because it did anything bad, but because it contradicted their preconceptions of what a prequel to TOS should look like, a series of complaints they don’t make about SNW.

Everything they said about Klingons in DIS would be equally applicable to the Gorn in SNW, yet no one whines about that, mainly because SNW has more fan service than DIS did.

But do notice how SNW is, generally speaking, a more infantile version of Star Trek. It is outright simplistic in its narrative, much like TOS. It’s like they’re afraid to rock the boat like DIS did.

People thought DIS was bad not because it did anything bad, but because it contradicted their preconceptions of what a prequel to TOS should look like, a series of complaints they don’t make about SNW.

Well said!

And I have noticed that so many of the fans who whine about this on DSC here are Enterprise fans — OMG, talk about a prequel that looked nothing like one would expect a series that led into TOS should look like…lol, the irony!


I am of the belief that both Enterprise and Discovery don’t look like one might expect a prequel to TOS to look like because history changed during First Contact.

Particularly, Troi telling Cochrane about the future changed history.

When Decker shows Ilia the pictures of all ships called Enterprise in TMP the NX-01 was not there, but when the same pictures appeared in Archer’s quarters it was.

This, I argue, is because the NX-01 didn’t exist in the original timeline. I’d further argue that the new timeline began when Cochrane hired Henry Archer to work at the Warp 5 facility.

Archer and the crew of the NX-01 are a tame change to the timeline, akin to the Andorian that replaced Spock in TAS’ Yesteryear, as opposed to a severe change in the timeline like when McCoy saved Edith Keller and undid the Federation.

In ENT Daniels told Archer that changes to the timeline happen in waves. I’d argue that Strange New Worlds represents the tip of the wave washing over history changing how things played out, how they look (i.e., technology, aliens, etc.) compared to TOS and even the TNG era.

When TOS was on, there were no female captains in Starfleet, but as ENT and DIS both showed with Captains Hernandez and Georgiou that is no longer the case, which brings up the question of how that might change Turnabout Intruder. Maybe in this new continuity Kirk’s ex was insane all along instead of having been driven insane by Starfleet’s inherent misogyny.

When Decker shows Ilia the pictures of all ships called Enterprise in TMP the NX-01 was not there, but when the same pictures appeared in Archer’s quarters it was. This, I argue, is because the NX-01 didn’t exist in the original timeline.

100% The NX-01 was a canon-destroying retcon that Berman forced in. Drexler and Okuda wanted to correctly base the design on the XCV-330, which was shown in TMP as you pointed out. But Berman wanted incrementalist garbage instead, so he shitcanned Rodenberry canon just because he could.

100% The NX-01 was a canon-destroying retcon that Berman forced in. Drexler and Okuda wanted to correctly base the design on the XCV-330, which was shown in TMP as you pointed out. But Berman wanted incrementalist garbage instead, so he shitcanned Rodenberry canon just because he could.


I don’t see that a 30-second scene from TMP should dictate the stylistic choices for an entire series. Moreover, there were starships before NX-01; they just didn’t reach Warp 5. XCV-330 was likely one of those, and based on Vulcan designs that we saw onscreen.

Nah, it was GR himself in TMP who set the XCV-330 as the on-screen canon as the ship that should have been the basis for Enterprise, and Drexler and Okuda knew that and tried to consistent with the established canon. Berman arbitrarily changed the ship — and violated the on-screen canon. There is really nothing to to debate here. And I will add that there was nothing on-screen which would have prevented writers from giving that ship any top speed they wanted to assign it, since that was never solidified on-screen as canon — they could have developed any kind of story they wanted for that ship.

And so what that in the latter Berman-era shows they codified their canon retcon and added the Vulcan ring ship stuff and the XCV-330 background — that’s just doubling down on the unnecessary canon rewrite to try to prove that a wrong is a right. That’s rewriting history to try to cover up a falsehood.

This has never been an issue with anyone lol. The ship from TMP was also beyond ugly and its canon is included on Enterprise.

It’s just comical how people will defend all the ridiculous canon issues with Discovery but this is such a big deal oddly.

No believe it or not people complained about Discovery first season because they thought it was bad too. I should know since I was one of those people lol.

Yes on top of EVERYTHING ELSE people thought the stories were just generally bad. Obviously people will have different views on it but DIS BIGGEST problem was that the show simply wasn’t perceived as being good.

In FACT this is what I have always said if people just liked the show MORE then the canon issues wouldn’t be a big issue. Most people would get over it faster if they simply liked the show more.

Ironically you just made my point for me with SNW. FYI I can tell you for a fact I have BITTERLY complained about the Gorn on that show. I have spent countless posts discussing my issues over Spock and Chapels eye rolling romance, how much I hate having a Khan descendant on the Enterprise because it’s literally only there for fan service, the fact they are squeezing in way too many TOS characters too fast and yes Kirks presence being the central problem of all these issues.

Trust me I have given that show just as much of a hard time as I gave Discovery as has MANY people here.

Do you know why for the overwhelming majority they don’t care? Because they like the show. In the end that’s what it comes down to. If you like something enough you’re willing to overlook things. If you don’t then those other problems are emphasized more

This entire topic is making that clear lol. Unfortunately most people DIDN’T like Discovery or at least had more problems with it. It’s disingenuous to say it was just canon issues when people cited how unlikable the characters were, especially Burnham. People moaned how boring the Klingon war was but then how rushed they ended it. People thought the show was too dark and overly cynical and it was closer to GOT than Star Trek. People hated how there was ZERO exploring on a show that’s supposed to be about exploring lol. Also, the complete lack of new aliens minus Saru. People thought the plot twists were hamfisted and something you find in nightly soap operas and not Star Trek. People hated the spore drive not just for being out of canon but that it completely goes against the idea of a ship sailing through the frontier.

There were many many many reasons people had issues with the show besides Burnham being Spock sister. There are thousands of posts going into large essays over the things I just laid out
I made quite a few of them myself.

But here is the irony Michael. Take EVERYTHING I just laid out regardless if you agree with those are not. Now tell me how much are those am issue with SNW? How many of those issues are on that show?

Do you see what I’m getting at it here? I agree with you 100% with the canon issues ad it’s just as bad as Discovery IMO. But EVERYTHING ELSE they went a complete 180. That’s why you don’t hear as much complaining about that show because (and stay with me now) they didn’t just LISTEN to the fans over their complaints but actually made a BETTER show on top of it.

That’s simply isn’t the case with Discovery. At least consensus wise and that’s the problem.

Again stop blaming the people who watches it and blame the people who makes it.

LOL just more proof people can’t look past their own biases.

Discovery didn’t just suck because the Klingons looked weird, the show did a lot of headscratching things people thought were stupid. It’s like the show came out in 30 years ago lol. No it came in 2017 and plenty of people had problems with this show beyond canon. You just laid out the biggest ones.

For me is Discovery just felt like a Star Trek show in name only. It didn’t explore, there was zero discoveries on a show CALLED Discovery lol. The characters were beyond unlikable. There was no optimism, no positivity. They ended their lame Klingon war arc by trying to blow up the planet. And finally brought Adolf back from the MU. Sigh

The show was such a mess but it’s hilarious people were begging for more of this. 🙄

More power to them I guess but then you have to wonder why SNW is so popular and it’s literally nothing like Discovery. That’s a good hint.

The one positive is that Discovery feels like a Star Trek show today. So obviously some of the changes were good…it just still sucks unfortunately.

Exactly. This idea that Discovery has a large contingent of fans who loved season one is more white washing. I respect Michael but c’mon.. People complained about the show everywhere. It was a divisive show from the start. It had a ton of problems. On top of that it was the first Star Trek show in history where it’s creator was fired before it started.

So yes it had a lot of problems lol. They recognized that and like every show simply made changes. And the changes were so big because the problems were so big.

If the argument is that they took a bad show and just made it a worse show, yeah not great lol, we all agree on that; but if it didn’t suck in the first place they wouldn’t have changed it at all.

That’s just the reality.

According to Memory Alpha, “On 24 September 2017, when AT: “O Discovery, Where Art Thou?” was produced, and the series premiere two-parter “The Vulcan Hello” and “Battle at the Binary Stars” was released, Aaron Harberts was working on the writing of this first season finale. (AT: “O Discovery, Where Art Thou?”)”

Further: “This episode was scheduled to start filming on 25 September 2017. (AT: “O Discovery, Where Art Thou?”)”

So, it started filming a day after the series premiered.

Lastly, “This episode was still being shot on 7 October 2017, though production on the episode (as well as the first season in general) wrapped five days later, on 12 October.”

So, how could it have been rushed due to fan complaints when by the time it wrapped filming fans had only seen four episodes? You think that negative feedback to four episodes caused them to change the rest of the season?

Dude I LITERALLY said (and several times now) I think people behind the scenes were not happy with the show just as much as the fans weren’t. Hence why they wrapped up the Klingon war so quickly because they probably wanted to start with a new idea.

Again I don’t KNOW that but this isn’t rocket science either. The first season was based on what Fuller wanted. When he was kicked to the curb and his producers stepped up they were left with an outline of the first season and the pilot episode written, that’s it. There was nothing beyond that. And since they were already months behind schedule and millions already in the hole they stuck to the game plan as best they could. But they probably wanted to go a different way the next season.

And once the first season reviews started rolling in and they were mixed at best that probably convinced them to go another direction altogether.

Again only speculation but considering HOW FAR all the shows have gone away from the tone, vibe and look of early Discovery it’s probably not that far off base.

To me it’s very simple, if there were many people out there that truly liked what Discovery did early on we would have more of that today and less things like SNW and LDS.

The fanbase seem to have spoken especially when those are much more popular today as well.

I get it you really liked what Discovery did but clearly not enough people did. There was just so many issues the show had and being first out the gate probably didn’t help either.

I’m sure you heard me say this a million times but if they simply said Discovery was a REBOOT then maybe people would’ve accepted it a little more.

Again when you tell people your new show is not just in the prime timeline but a prequel to the most iconic show in the franchise but yet looks, acts or feels NOTHING like said show what did they think was going to happen??

I predicted it was going to be a disaster the second the trailer aired. I don’t understand how people who gets paid MILLIONS that can be so clueless to a fanbase that has been around for 50 years? I don’t get it?

Let me say this one more time, if they wanted Discovery, fine put it in it’s OWN universe and do what you want. But it was basically akin to saying the Nolan Batman films were Canon to the Tim Burton films and expecting people to buy it. 🙄

A Trek series made in 2017 is not going to have the production values of one made in 1966. That was not true of Discovery or Strange New Worlds.

The main production problem with Star Wars is that no matter what they do they will always be beholden to the production values of a low-budget movie made in 1977. Trek doesn’t have that problem.

Dude this has been discussed a thousand times now. If DIS did just a little more of what SNW did, most would’ve been fine with it. DIS didn’t even bother using similar TOS uniforms. The show basically ignored every major element of TOS. That was another problem of sooooo many.

SNW didn’t. Another reason that show is more popular because once again they listened to those complaints and course corrected.

The uniforms in DIS looked like they were derived from the ones in Enterprise. Discovery is as much a prequel to TOS as it is a sequel to ENT. The uniforms, tech, etc., was all derived from the latter.

DIS in its first season embodied what Star Trek is supposed to be, about looking forward. SNW is a fan-service series that does the opposite, it looks backwards.

People forgive SNW for doing the same thing DIS did in its first season because it does it with the added element of fan service and nostalgia for TOS.

DIS was far more connected to ENT, which is what made it work.

When the admiral name-dropped Archer, that was fantastic.

In DIS, we got that sort of thing, a name-drop, and people hated it. In SNW, we get Spock, Chapel, Uhura, Scotty, and Kirk, and people love it.

..I, for one, am not loving all the TOS characters showing up again 50 years later, with writing that degrades them. No offense to the actors. Just imo.

Yeah but c’mon, we knew the TOS uniforms were being used in this period so why not USE them?

Why is that just not the obvious thing to do if you’re telling people your show is a decade from TOS?

I just don’t get it?

And obviously you’re not the biggest SNW fan and I get it. I’m not defending SNW so much as I’m saying they got the pulse of the fanbase right away. But that’s also all in hindsight. In fact I’m pretty sure of Fuller decided to do a Pike show it would just be Discovery on the Enterprise with a much more edgier Pike from the Cage etc.

You’re clearly a DIS and ENT fan. I’m not knocking either of those shows and I’m a big fan of Enterprise today. But if I’m being honest I wish they had stayed away from prequels altogether and we wouldn’t still have these fights, especially since most fans don’t even want them lol.

The Archer name drop was fabulous. Everything else no comment.

But I’m happy you like both Discovery and Enterprise..

Agreed. Love anytime Archer is mentioned.

However, part of what made me love The Mandalorian so much is the fact that it DID look like the Star Wars we grew up with, it was recognizable, and in the same universe we were accustomed to. With Nu-Trek, DSC blew all of that out of the water. I, for one, hated it for that alone from the get-go. I had no idea the writing would be even worse.

Well, Discovery looked like what it was, a sequel to Enterprise. It just didn’t look like a prequel to a TV series from the ’60s.

But it should have or why put it so close to TOS then? Just put it ten or twenty years after Enterprise.

Exactly! Whatever your feelings about new Star Wars today no one has complained about the look and style. It always feels connected to what was presented in the OT.

And yes I get Star Trek is a little trickier but it’s also why I wish they just ignored the TOS era or prequels completely. Just keep going forward and return to the TOS as a nostalgia trip every once in awhile like we got in ENT and DS9.

But now with all these prequels and they ALL made a mess of canon it created a problem that was never there until 2001 and it only gotten worse since.

Star Wars’ 1977 production values still hold up well, as indeed do those of 2001. TOS’ do not, partly because FX made great strides in the 1970s, and partly because those movies had bigger budgets than a TV series. There is just no way modern audiences will accept styrofoam rocks.

Then stay away from making prequels then! Most fans want to go forward instead of reliving the past. I been watching Star Trek since 1968. I seen TOS I don’t need to see it anymore. And trying to duplicate it is a fool’s errand as the reboot movies proved. Just move on.

I agree that Star Trek would be very well served by ditching its obsession with prequels.

However, on the narrow question of set design, I think ENT showed that it was possible to modernize set design while still paying homage to TOS.

Also agree. The weird obsession with prequels is odd because no one is begging for them. Most want to keep going forward and want to see more 25th century Star Trek. It doesn’t have to be about Legacy, just something new and going forward.

Enterprise ironically probably is the best show that at least tried to reasonably fit in the TOS era. Discovery felt like it was in the post Nemesis era. SNW does a much better job but the Enterprise itself feels like a completely different ship in terms of its interiors but I don’t mind it. I actually never mineded JJprize interiors except the ridiculous bud light engineering room.

Again, well said.

“Again when you tell people your new show is not just in the prime timeline but a prequel to the most iconic show in the franchise but yet looks, acts or feels NOTHING like said show what did they think was going to happen??”

This is why many people can’t take that show seriously because it just ignored TOS. SNW isn’t much better but it’s not as shameful as Discovery was.

Secret Hideout is just clueless. If you put a show in the prime universe take the care to make it consistent with the other shows and movies. They lost so many fans with that bizarre looking ship and ignoring canon. It should’ve never been anywhere TOS or in the prime universe for that matter.

Nice, well said. And I would just add, “canon” does not exist anymore. IMO, of course.

Yes people complained mightily about how bad of a show Discovery is. The Klingon war was so bad and anti climatic. The show was nothing but war and violence. And there was a scene of Klingons talking about a human.

The Voq thing was ridiculous and don’t get me started on Mirror Lorca.

None of it felt like Star Trek, just a really bad edgy soap opera.

…great post.


No one whines about Pike’s quarters being a veritable mansion compared to the ones he had in The Cage.

All the officers’ quarters in SNW are ridiculously oversized, but in fairness, Pike’s quarters in “The Cage” were palatial compared to what we saw with Kirk in TOS.

Actually, I complained very extensively and repeatedly about Pike’s seemingly shuttlebay-sized quarters, plus the stove he has that makes me wish I did computer animation, because I’d put a little kettle-looking steam vent on the exterior of the ship to serve as a vent for the fire and fumes.

The thing somebody, I think tig, said, that I agree with is that if you like a show, one tends to make excuses for it. It doesn’t mean the bad stuff is any less acceptable, but it doesn’t usually make you turn round and hate the thing.

Best example for me is probably LICENCE TO KILL. Lots of people, even some Bond purists, found it way too violent. I did not, and think it is perhaps the only film in the whole series — and I’m including the early Connery films, some of which I’ve seen over 50x — that really seems to fully inhabit the rough and ruthless world Fleming often wrote about in his novels. The fact it took decades for this view of mine to gain some traction doesn’t really surprise me, but to put this on its head … LTK also has one of the alltime worst WTF moments in the franchise’s history, when the flashcube on a Q camera-laser results in a polaroid pic that not only shows an x-ray skeleton view of Bond, but also of the people in a picture on the wall next to him! That’s down there with the double-taking pigeon in MOONRAKER for moronic, and doubly inappropriate given that LTK is, for me anyway, the last Bond movie that I pretty much loved (excepting Dalton’s bizarre hairstyling and some flat cinematography.)

That x-ray thing in another movie would have been my main takeaway, but I love LTK so much that for me it comes off like a regrettable aberration rather than a full-on derailer (sort of like Kirk’s s1 reference to dunking little girl’s pigtails in inkwells.)

Unfortunately, I haven’t enjoyed any Trek enough this century to be willing to cut it that slack, so when something outrageously awful happens and I see it (like the ridiculous roulette wheel hull on dsc and the even more idiotic-looking mushroom jump effect), I’m probably going to be ruthless about it.

On the subject of trek’s current look, I just saw something on indiewire from one of the show’s DPs for DSC talking about the look they go for and how they achieve it. I’ll paste it in below, mainly as an example of how wrongheaded their approach is, not just in theory but in execution, though as one of my betters here likes to say, YMMV. (the Venice system cited in the following quote basically can be a shoot-in-the-dark approach where the camera ‘sees’ much more than the naked eye, and while it expands a cinematographer’s ability to adapt to extreme conditions without carrying five trucks worth of equipment, it can also cut heavily into the genuine cinematic feel of past shoots by embracing what is essentially a ‘movies without movie lights’ methodology that is anticinematic to say the very for the glimmer glass mention, you can look that up for yourselves, because it makes me throw up a little in my mouth to even think about that, to me it is down there with the unmotivated and distracting lens flares of Abrams and the way a little kid might play with a zoom lens.)

The Panavision look has a rich history in “Star Trek.” That nostalgic “Trek” feeling was something we wanted to lean into, but we also wanted to create something that was uniquely “Discovery.” We really loved the complexity of the flares that have multiple shades and shapes with that classic anamorphic streak that we got in the G series. Something we could play to taste through stoping down and lighting control. We build our sets with anamorphic framing in mind. We worked very hard with Dan Sasaki at Panavision to tune the lenses to our specific needs, altering the coverage, focus falloff and flare attributes in each individual lens. We use a lot of practical light to do complex shots that look in multiple directions, this means we use a lot of sources and highlights in frame. The lenses provided a base amount of glow around highlights that we enhanced with glimmer glass. We used the Sony Venice system. It has great sensitivity and latitude as well as rendering reds in red alert correctly.

Discovery is still bad because the people making it don’t understand real Star Trek and they are just tossing out ideas without any real insight.

Discovery doesn’t even know what it is and why it changes every year. So much of NuTrek just pales in comparison. Picard season 3 was good because Matalas started on the old shows and continued that direction.

Shows like Discovery and SNW feels like they are being made for teenagers.

..on board with all you said, as per usual. But the nagging strange feeling that it’s the first Trek show I gave up uncomfortably sticks. I guess that’s one reason I’m so vocal about this.

I never thought to give up on Discovery but yes after season 4 was the first time I thought of not watching it live anymore and just binge it after it ran. I felt the same way after Picard season 2. I really thought why am I’m watching these shows that I’m clearly not enjoying???

So I get your point.

Bryan Fuller was removed from his position as showrunner, then his lieutenants who took over were as well, and a new showrunner was in place from season 3 onwards. That turmoil is reasonably as responsible for issues as this perceived lack of fortitude being ascribed to them. For all we know, the only fan feedback Kurtzman and co ever actually took on board could be giving the Klingons hair.

Fan feedback ruined Discovery. The series sacrificed its identity and uniqueness to pander to fanaticism. By the third season, the series was no longer what it started out as, not just because of the change in setting, but mainly because of the overall change in tone.

Agreed. The radical changes in Season 3 — and they were very radical in changing of the overall tone, the entire setting, the purpose/mission and the major characters roles — were all a result of the direct, pandering response from the producers/showrunner/writers to the negative fanaticism from that that small, but very loud group that incessantly could never let go of their dislike for the series — and most were never going to like DSC anyway given the Burnham and Georgiou characters.

And that fan subgroup, whose members on this site know who they are, certainly bear some responsibility for this — although, by listening to the incessant whiners, most of the blame goes to Kurtzman and company for not having enough spine to stay the course and ignore those whiners.

Indeed. It is unfortunate how many new franchises were ruined over the last decade by studios listening to people that hated what they were doing and were never going to like them no matter what they changed.

Indeed. It is unfortunate how many new franchises were ruined over the last decade by studios listening to people that hated what they were doing and were never going to like them no matter what they changed.



Agreed. Considering there was a vision in the first place.


I don’t know what you are talking about. Nothing in seasons 3 and 4 are what the complaints were in favour of.

Emotional soap opera? Flawless, invincible Michael? The whole bizarre Adira/Gray thingy? The Burn?

If the writers truly believed they were following fan criticism, then they were beyond deluded.

They ended up making the show far worse.

Exactly. I brought this up and it went completely ignored lol.

It’s just bizarre to me. You can’t have it both ways. The things people complain about the show are mostly things no one was even asking for.

But this is why it’s frustrating trying to have a well rounded conversation. Some people are just too biased and only want to see what they see.

The show is bad because it ultimately comes down to the people running it. If a restaurant decided to change their menu because people complain the food is bad you still blame the restaurant if they change it and it ends up being worse but they also added items people never wanted but keep serving it anyway.

That’s how it goes. Period.

You speak too much common sense bro! 👍

It’s hilarious the show being awful is somehow the fans fault but not the people making it lol.

It’s always funny to see the latest excuses to excuse a bad show. At least now some people can admit it’s bad. Before people just kept saying it’s actually a great show that fans are just being too hard on. Now it’s a bad show but it’s apparently still the fans fault.

You can not make this up. 😂

This show has turned into Star Trek: Discovering your feelings. No one asked for that. 🙄

People can’t admit the obvious, the show sucked from the beginning and then instead of hiring people to make it better they did the OPPOSITE of that and hired CW producers that knew nothing about Star Trek and turned it into a boring show with little stakes, ridiculous plot twists and everyone has the weepy virus.

Yeah fans were really asking for this train wreck lol.

Discovery is a show that started with no real identity and they kept throwing any crap at the wall they could.

It’s their own fault hiring bad producers to make it with no clear vision. The 32nd century could be awesome if they hired real sci fi writers, not people who take their inspiration from Riverdale.

That’s because you start with the false assumption that the first two seasons were bad and needed changes. Changes were NOT needed — therefore, of course unneeded changes were more likely than not to screw up the series.

The first two seasons of DSC were the best two seasons of Trek for me since S7 of DS9, and are right up there for me with SNW S1 and Picard S1. It’s a damn shame that Kurtzman and company listened to the subgroup of fans that didn’t like the first two seasons, and were never going to like DSC anyway — the show just wasn’t for them, and Kurtzman and company should have just stayed course and accepted that that subgroup was never going to like the series — but instead they made changes which never should have been made to try to be responsive (when no response was needed).

Have to disagree here. The best thing they did was throw the ship and it’s sordid stories into a far away century, far away from any semblance of continuity the franchise has left, which is now weak. Just my opinion.

Also fully agree. The first two seasons of Discovery was just as awful as the last two seasons. All people do is complain about it everywhere.

It’s a miracle it’s so far in the future now not to destroy anymore canon.

The best thing they did was throw the ship and it’s sordid stories into a far away century, far away from any semblance of continuity the franchise has left, which is now weak.

How would you yourself actually know this given you have not watched one single episode where they are in the far away future? And given that, I cannot take your opinion seriously — sorry, it’s just that you have no “standing” to offer an opinion on this.

The great thing about that decision is that if you want to just avoid the show you can. You couldn’t avoid it when it was in the first two seasons all the canon mistakes it kept making..🙄

They made it worse in the course of giving people that hated the show and were never going to watch it what they wanted. Had they ignored them, none of that would have happened.

They made it worse in the course of giving people that hated the show and were never going to watch it what they wanted. Had they ignored them, none of that would have happened.


This is just completely wrong. Absolutely NOTHING was done that appealed to those who disliked DIS in seasons 3 and 4. I have no idea where you are getting this bizarre belief. Everything in seasons 3 and 4 were designed to appeal to a very different group of people.

Had they IGNORED them the show may have been cancelled way sooner. 😂

You seem to think your view was the majority. If it was the majority they would’ve stuck with it.

Many people I know hated Bayformers Transformer movies including me. All those movies were the same Michael Bay loud nonsense. Did they try to change any of it when people complained bitterly for 10 YEARS? No! Why? Because those movies were making a billion dollars. Obviously way more people liked them than hated them.

Discovery was probably just either losing subscriptions and had to go another way or not enough signing up to watch it. Why do you think they brought Spock and Pike the next season. To get the TOS fans who thought the show wasn’t TOS enough.

What’s funny is you guys think only a tiny amount of fans hated the show. If the show was pulling in millions of subs they would’ve doubled down on it. That’s how Hollywood always works. But the numbers probably told a different story and the studio told them fix it. They ONLY care when they are losing money. Right?

End of the day this is probably the real answer.

The show just probably wasn’t getting enough subs so they panicked and started making changes.

That would make sense. Especially when no one wanted All Access and that show was the only real show on it.

Where is anyone getting the notion many people like Discovery???

This show has never been remotely popular. I’m sure people like it of course but most seem to hate it.

Nowhere lol. Just pulling it out of their butts. Sure it could be totally true but until I see some actual proof anywhere take it for the grain of salt it is. The show has been around for 7 years now and I never read anywhere it was well liked other than people on message boards like here saying they like it. Yeah great.

But every place the show is actually rated it’s the worst performing show. 😂

Michael Bay’s Transformers went on like they did b/c of Chinese box office returns.

Oh yeah also true but many of the movies still made around $300+ million in America. That’s really big. The second movie Revenge of the Fallen made $400 million in America which even today few movies past that mark and it was horrible.

Yes, you saved me a post. Thank you.

What exactly about the “bizarre Adira/Gray thingy” was bizarre?

You don’t think it’s bizarre that one of the worst actors to ever appear in Trek was thrown in for the sake of an episode or two, is “adopted” out of the blue, then ditched as soon after? Adira is slightly better but again, kind of pointless.

The fact that they, like so many other things on Discovery, were simply put into the show for reasons other than in service to the story.

Well said dear.

Fans were asking to make a better show like all the others. The writers were not up to the task.

And if someone else cries on that show I’m going to snap.

Cry Baby Burnham will definitely be pulling out the water works in the finale. I’m guessing the additional shooting is just five minutes of every one crying and hugging each other on the bridge.

It’s going to be great! 😂

The problem with this argument though is that most people thought seasons 1 and 2 sucked as well. I will say season 2 was a lot better but still ultimately sucked. And btw I don’t remember anyone telling them they had to throw the show 900 years into the future either. They decided that on their own as well.

The show was bad from the start. People made legitimate complaints about it from the Orc Klingons to the show feeling like it belonged in the 25th century. On top of that they put themselves into a bigger hole with giving Spock a sister that was never needed and the spore drive which felt completely out of line with canon. So much of season 1 was so out of line with canon they basically classified everything to get themselves out of the hole they created.

The show had so many problems because the people who made it created these problems. So when people simply called them out on issues people would call out any show to their credit they tried to change things. And some of it was for the better. But most of it even worse because they hired people who seem to have even less of an idea what Star Trek was about.

Instead of trying to blame fans for it being a bad show maybe you should blame the writers for it being a bad show lol.

That’s why the show is in the mess it’s in. Oddly Terry Matalas changed Picard in season 3 and people seen to love it and Picard was considered just as bad as Discovery.

Because Matalas understands Star Trek. People making Discovery today simply doesn’t.

Yes that is the main problem with the argument lol..

Sure there were people who loved the first two seasons of TNG as well but MOST didn’t. So what did they do? They changed it and brought in people who changed it for the better. And while TNG had it’s problems it didn’t nearly have the same problems Discovery did.

But guess what if they changed TNG WORSE in season 3 it’s still their fault because it’s their job ms to MAKE IT BETTER!

The brain trust making Discovery failed to do that. But Discovery just had much bigger issues in general. Apparently so big someone thought they had to throw the show 900 years to fix them lol. Again I don’t remember anyone saying they needed to throw the show a thousand years into the future just to like it. If someone can find me a link anywhere I will stand corrected.

Every Star Trek show has famously gotten better in their third seasons. YMMV obviously but that’s the basic notion. Discovery is the first show where the feeling is the opposite. Why is that?

Because the people making it are making bad decisions period. When you have something like the Burn and you see fan theories with ACTUAL scientific theories only to have a Kelpian kid crying as the reason 80,000 light years lost warp power for over a century whose fault is that??? Please show me all the fan theories who was hoping more crying would be behind the biggest mystery in Star Trek history. Because that’s not what anyone was asking for from what I was reading. Most was hoping for actual science in a so called science fiction show.

Stop blaming people who watch the show and blame the people whose job is to write a compelling science fiction drama but keep failing at it spectacularly. 🙄

The show sucked. Most people thought it sucked, hence the changes.

Then they made changes only for it to suck even more. That’s the gist. People can certainly like it but my guess is people who hated it were dropping their subscriptions over it and that was probably the REAL problem. 😉

People that hated DIS did make the argument that the technology was too advanced even for the TNG era, and insisted that it should have been a sequel instead of a prequel.

The spore drive made perfect sense as a form of technology that cannot be replicated due to Federation laws against augments. And Michael being Spock’s sister made as much sense as him having a brother in Trek V, meaning there was nothing wrong with either.

Do you know if Uhura, Sulu, or Scotty have relatives? Would it bother you if Scotty had 10 brothers and 10 sisters? Of course not.

The spore drive made perfect sense as a form of technology that cannot be replicated due to Federation laws against augments. And Michael being Spock’s sister made as much sense as him having a brother in Trek V, meaning there was nothing wrong with either. Do you know if Uhura, Sulu, or Scotty have relatives? Would it bother you if Scotty had 10 brothers and 10 sisters? Of course not.

Yeah, it should be no big deal…unless of course your a fan who always finds a reason to trash DSC, then it’s a really important Star Trek violation…lol

Yeah, heh.

Um…yeah. No one is denying that. That was just one issue in a sea of many.

Having a piece of technology that was more advanced than what was around a century was another reason people thought the show sucked because it was stupid. But welcome to Discovery.

Spock having a sister who served in Starfleet the same time as him but was never mentioned by him and his family was just dumb.

But don’t worry Discovery cleared that reason up really well by Spock telling Section 31 if Burnham s name is ever brought up again they will be stoned in the courtyard or something.

That’s more top tier writing from the makers of Discovery. I mean these are the reasons why people think the show is bad lol.

This is why the show has a 35% audience score on RT. Don’t kill the messenger.

Technology on Enterprise was more advanced than it was in TOS because one show was made in the ’60s and the other in the ’00s. Likewise, DIS had even more advanced technology than either because it was made 20 years later.

Trek is an extrapolation of the present, it is not beholden to the production values and limitations of the 1960s.

On TAS, the Enterprise had a holodeck that was called a “rec room”. Then TNG pretended that such technology would not exist for another 75 years.

The phone in your pocket is more advanced than the entire TOS-era Enterprise bridge.

But, again, that takes us back to what Daniels said about how changes in the timeline wash over history like a wave, and how the timeline was in fact changed in First Contact and Enterprise, with Discovery and Strange New Worlds now acting as the tip of that wave washing over canon.

And why people originally hated Enterprise. And then Discovery made it ten times worse.

Michael you are arguing things that were argued back in 2017. Those arguments didn’t win out for a reason.

Or maybe this is why you should just avoid prequels. I been saying that since 2001.

Neither Enterprise nor Discovery did anything wrong. It was people’s belief that Trek series made in the 21st Century had to look like they were made in the 1960s that were mistaken.

Ok dude. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I know you love both of those shows. I’m just stating the obvious.


Agree 100%

*Having a piece of technology that was more advanced than what was around a century was another reason people thought the show sucked because it was stupid.”

Another reason not to take this show seriously. If they don’t care about the universe and how it logically fits in the timeline it just proves they never should have been writing for Star Trek.

Just more careless laziness from NuTrek sadly.

Yup, agreed 100%.

Also agree.

“Instead of trying to blame fans for it being a bad show maybe you should blame the writers for it being a bad show lol.”

This is silly. Fans don’t write TV shows, TV writers do. Discovery has bad writers and if they couldn’t write a good show before it’s not going to suddenly improve just because people complain about it.

That’s the entire fallacy.

If they wanted to REALLY improve the show they should get actual experienced science fiction writers to do that. But I imagine many writers have come and gone on this show.

It’s just people who don’t want to admit the obvious lol. It’s comical but you hear worse excuses online.

And you make a great point if they really wanted to improve the show, bring in actual sci fi writers, people who has experience making speculative fiction and could’ve came up with a more imaginative 32nd century.

Instead they brought in someone who wrote for CW and this is now what we got. 🙄

More miniscule point I want to react to – I think they’ve done well with the AR war (not snark). I think they’ve been more successful with it than Star Wars has. I think the reasons why (2 things) are 1. Their VFX lean to more surreal than real. Which is weird to say about Trek over Star Wars. Space has never been so colorful in Trek than it has in these series. So when they create a wild environment, it works, and that makes it easier to get away with some things. 2. it kind of invokes a modern take on the stagecraft of TOS. Those crazy atmospheric colors in the backdrops.. purple skies, orange skies.. whatever. with both, the fact that these aren’t based on Earth-like outdoor environments, it’s more forgiving. It hasn’t been perfect all the time, but in general, I think it’s worked pretty well.

Another thing that I haven’t seen on Trek, and has been the most egregiously bad use of an AR wall / Volume based set was in the Kenobi series. The DP on those episodes did not know how to lean in to what it was. WAY too many wide shots that really made the environments feel like you were watching actors on a stage. It was really bad.

Huh. I don’t get that feeling from the Star Wars shows at all.

It’s not all bad.. They’ve done some things well, and some others not so great.. but Kenobi was just especially bad.

I never noticed that on Kenobi?

I’m a bit of a photography / cinematography junkie. Not everything in Kenobi is bad, but there are some things that are as bad as anything Ive seen done with this AR technology. I thought Kenobi’s DP used some very wide shots that really showed the limits of that set. It looked like a contained environment with very limited range. You have to shoot it creatively to sell it. Smaller / shorter lenses are your friend.

Interesting. Yeah, I have a film techy in my family actually, and he frequently tells me that stuff I liked on screen has all kinds of issues…ignorance is bliss sometimes.

Yes it is, my friend. Yes it is.

Oh man, there are so many shots in Kenobi that look stagey.

I will say that as much as I enjoy truly strange new worlds, AR walls are often most effective when replicating environments that feel like they could have been shot in real locations.

See, I feel the opposite. I’m not anti – AR, either. if it helps stuff get made that otherwise wouldn’t, I think that’s fantastic, particularly for TV. I think part of the problem with Kenobi’s cinematography is it kind of doesn’t feel right for those monumental characters. It still could have worked, but they did it no favors.

Totally get that.

Discovery “Su’Kal” is amazing. I just rewatched it and I think IF the producers had been more episodic, delivered his baby drama in one can’t-miss episode, the drama that follows would have been more impactful and the images the created for that episode which they worked so hard to create would have had more impact. I really feel bad for them.

That’s another issue. Season long arcs are really problematic when it’s the one idea you’re building toward, and it’s supposed to be big sci-fi. Season 4 was the best they did, and to me, they ALMOST get there. I loved the idea they were going for, so I can’t fault them for it. I think each season needs 3-4 mini arcs as opposed to one big one. Link them together sure, but it just doesn’t quite work.

I been up and down with Discovery from the start and while the show has never won me over he is right and it kicked off the modern era we have today and especially the shows I do love like LDS, SNW and PRO. Discovery gets kicked around a lot (especially here lol) but of course it has it’s fans and definitely created a lot of firsts in the franchise.

I think its legacy will be divided for awhile in the fanbase but eventually more people will come around to it if history is any indication.

I don’t think it’s ever recovered after its mustache twirling take on the mirror universe. S2 built up a lot of good will in its execution, but it’s been downhill ever since, for me.

Agreed. Season 2 is still my favorite and there are certainly aspects of both seasons 3 and 4 I did like but ultimately disappointed by so much of the show.

I am crossing my fingers for season 5 though. It’s now or never at this point.

I’m always hoping it defies my expectations, and I’m open minded enough to accept it and even admit it. I think the overall story about species 10-C was great. It wasn’t as imaginative as it could be, thought. This species has been theorized about in multiple science publications and sci-fi properties. It’s directly based on a theory about life in the clouds of Jupiter that appears in a NatGeo book via artist rendition, and were used as an aside in Arthur C Clarke’s 2010 novel, but without the sentience. So in that regard, I don’t know if it’s homage or a rip off. So it’s not that it’s imaginative on the writer’s part, that’s for sure… but I just liked that it had somewhere solid to go. it was a bit distracting while watching it. Took the punch out of the scene.. good a good concept that would have been better as a mini-arc or even a single episode.

Such a lovely talented cast, the writing never did them justice. I’m still struggling to get through season 4 the show just never gets better.

I rather visit my dentist than try and ever watch season 4 again. Just tedious on so many levels. I think Burnham only cries once or twice though so progress?

I’m actually intrigued by your statement, however facetious. Do you think anybody has a sob-o-meter site or youtube vid listing how many times this character does cry? (this is coming from somebody who gave up on the show after s2, so I’ve managed to miss most all of these shattering emotional crescendos.)

This guy reminds me of the phrase “failing upward.” It truly is more about who you know than what you know in Hollywood.

Nice. Agreed,

Yum Yum.

And Gene the cleaner who was disrespected.

I disliked the show after that.

Thought the first half of season 1 was decent and it just got worse from then on.

“The idea was never to make one show that pleased everybody. It was to make a lot of shows that please individual segments of the fandom”

An absolutely flawed strategic judgment that resulted in abysmal quality shows and has likely killed the golden goose financially.


…same as I said above, basically. It’s so obvious.

Discovery was a pitiful and awful show from the start. I’m surprised it even made it to five seasons.

‘There is no one-size-fits-all all with Star Trek fans’.

This is such a political copout statement. Why were previous Star Trek shows, for the most part, one size fits all, at least the good ones.

Has anyone ever said, there’s no-size-fits-all with Breaking Bad? Or Sopranos? Or The Wire?

Make a great Star Trek show and everyone will be there.

But they demonstrably weren’t! TNG and DS9 were two VERY different experiences, on purpose. The folks who made DS9 did it specifically to counter TNG, and to offer an alternative to what Star Trek could be and to get away from Roddenberry’s undramatic conflict-free utopia, an ethos that absolutely hamstrung early TNG. And when Piller took over TNG in the 3rd season and retooled the show to be more about the characters themselves, they still didn’t feel like they could completely separate it from the original concept, so they made DS9 as a counter.

And then when TNG ended they wanted another TNG-like show, so they made Voyager, designed to be a counter to DS9. And then when all that was done they made Enterprise, specifically designed to be different from all the other Star Treks by being rougher around the edges, a bit sexier, with better effects, and so on.

And even when the shows like original Trek or TNG were a bit more one-size-fits-all, they had 26 episodes a year to do a bunch of stuff, so they could do comedy, bottle shows, big epic stuff, philosophical stuff, whatever they wanted. The current TV landscape and visual effects pipeline means they can only really do 10 or so per season, so no, the shows literally can’t be one size fits all.

As Kamen’s son said in “The Inner Light,” “but through it all, there was my music.”

It would more accurate to say that DS9 expanded on TNG, rather than “countered” it. All of those series offered a lot contemplative, serious science fiction: the music That is not what the workplace comedies, animated shows, kiddie shows, etc. are doing.

Sopranos is overrated — and I’m not alone in that opinion.

No, but arguably in the minority.

Well, my opinion is at least informed — I watched every ep for its entire run. It’s not like I just watched half the seasons and then went public on a fan site with my opinion that the series as a whole is overrated — that would be disingenuous.

We feel exactly the same, here. I even mentioned Breaking Bad. And I almost mentioned The Sopranos. Appreciate this.

I been pretty hard on Kurtzman and I say JJ verse and Discovery is mostly awful (and I know many others like them) but the last few years have been great IMO..

I expected to hate LDS and it won me over right away..I didn’t think Prodigy would be for me being a kid’s show but ended up being fantastic! SNW I thought I could like but not super fond of prequels but that ended up being amazing too and is tied with Enterprise and TOS for me. I had few complaints with that show.

But Picard season 3 is what really.brought me back to why I became a fan in the first place. It’s what the show should’ve always been and it was great to see such an amazing love letter to both TNG and Trek overall.

I used to be one of the biggest Kurtzman haters and now I actually appreciate all the things he’s been doing lately. I’m still not fond of SFA or Section 31 but I’m staying open minded…for now.

End of the day I just want good Star Trek like everyone else. And for me I can honestly say I been getting that mostly.

And if we ultimately get the Legacy show someday my Star Trek fandom will feel complete! And if we don’t I’m pretty settled right now.

Tbh it’s not just about the Legacy show to me it’s about the 25th century.
TNG, DS9 built up so many good alien cultures with it’s own politics and it’s own really 3 dimensional characters.You will never ever get a better supporting character than Garak as he is absolutely fantastic.Discovery and it’s spin offs have done nothing on building how good Star Trek was in it’s peak.
Some here hate Picard but it’s the continuation of Trek for me, good seasons and bad I don’t care , I want more continuation. I want to see proper Kingons not the awful Klingon reboot in Discovery.
We all know Kurtzman has no plan to continue post DS9 and TNG storylines as he sees Discovery and SNW as his Trek Legacy and the crappy Academy series is another part of this 31st century Trek. I am sorry for those that love it but these newer series are a big step down and why hard core Trekkers dislike them

I draw a line under good Trek now and anything to do with Discovery is mediocre to me.
But there are many much better Sci Fi series out there so the travesty that season 3 of Picard ends the best era of is not a total loss.Season 3 of Picard was the best Trek since DS9 ended. It’s the long movie to correct Nemises.
Also I agree with everyone here the time jump made Discovery even worse because the new century they are are in is so stagnant.

“The idea was never to make one show that pleased everybody.” I’m sorry, but exactly WHY is that??

His and Paramount’s idea was to build a broader audience. Sci Fi is a niche segment. Broadening the audience makes the franchise more profitable. That’s why we have Prodigy for kids, Lower Decks for teens, Starfleet Academy for tweens and on the other end of the age range Picard. He doesn’t want to alienate anyone. But he is keenly aware that a new (young) audience cannot be raised from Picard. ST is now a collection of special interest shows.

I appreciate what you’re saying, and I know I’m now of the older demographic (57), but I just keep thinking over these past few days of DSC-heavy articles that I grew up, very young, on TOS. I know it was a different time and age, but I didn’t need any ‘special interest’ treatment. I was watching the same Trek adults were, and I absorbed its lessons and values like a sponge. And I still appreciate it all, and passed those lessons and values in various ways, to my daughter, because the show was That Good, the values are still that…valuable. I hope DSC is that, to some kids out there.

As they say, the best way to get a teenager to do something is to tell him he can’t do it because he’s a teenager.

My friends in high school all enjoyed real, adult Star Trek.

Maybe if they could write as deftly as JD Salinger, I’d think differently, but the possibility of that being in the cards is near zero.

The Salinger reference made me think of something that I think Ira Behr once said, where he is questioning trek fandom in a weird way, saying, ‘why are there no Proust conventions?’ It made me kind of wonder why, given how big fantasy stuff has been for the last half-century, why there are no PRINCESS BRIDE conventions (I’m coming at this from a unique perspective, because I’m a SF guy who doesn’t have much interest in hobbits or spellcasting or dragons at all, yet totally adores PRINCESS BRIDE.)

This is probably going to get me a lot of negative responses, but … I don’t understand why folks who dislike Discovery keep talking about it. I don’t stick with a show if I think it sucks. A lot of folks in this thread continually trash it year after year. Let it go, friends, let it go. Most of you who hate the show continually post the same rehashed comments. If it were not for DSC we would not have PIC, SNW, LDS, or PRO. We wouldn’t get betting S31 or SFA … and to those who are negative about the upcoming titles … why? Give them a chance. If you gave DSC a chance and still dislike it, fine … you gave it a chance. Personally I loathed the ideas of LDS and PRO, but ended up loving them both. It’s almost like some folks intentionally seize on a DSC-centric article just to be negative.

…I appreciate what you’re saying, and can see why I’m guilty of that. But I’ve mentioned before (above) why the show was so problematic for me, and as a fan of 50+ years, it saddened me to actually stop watching DSC, the first, after all those years and shows and films,, I literally turned my back on. To me, it’s *that* bad. And I do not agree that without DSC, further iterations would not exist. They would, perhaps different and maybe even better. Anyway, I like PRO as well, and have high hopes for the future of our favorite franchise. And I fully believe in giving all new shows/films a chance. Cheers.,

If they had canceled DSC because of negative fan reactions after season 1, I can guarantee you there would be no SNW, no LDS, no Picard, no PRO. In fact, the CBS/P+ network would have folded.

DSC started it all, and, everything on Trek we are watching today owes their TV life to DSC.

Additionally, a huge issue I have with your response to iMike is that if you’re going to come here and be negative on a series and converse with other fans who like it, then please have the courtesy to have watched all the seasons/episodes before going negative. I watch every episode of LDS for example, even though I don’t like the series.

I would never publicly offer negative opinions on an ongoing series that I have not watched the full episode set to date of — to me that would be disingenuous, and using an analogy to legal terms I would feel I would not have the “STANDING” to take my critique public.

you don’t need to watch a hammer fall to know that it will if you’re within a gravity well, and that same TOS analogy applies to bad TV. Watching dozens more hours of DSC for the sake of ‘standing’ here on this board would be self-abuse and a huge waste of time.

To each his own , but I never publicly criticize any movies or TV shows I haven’t personally watched, and have a hard time taking people seriously who are critics who haven’t bothered to watch what they are talking about — it’s my personal opinion that that is intellectually lazy and I therefore view their opinions as suspect.

Hey, did you get out and see Dune part two? Best movie I’ve seen in a long time!

Except for a couple of private screenings, I haven’t seen a movie in the theater since well before the pandemic (though was sorely tempted when 2001 in 70mm was back in town … I haven’t seen it that way since the weekend after the Loma Prieta quake in 89.) Part of that is because there are very few theaters around Portland that have decent projection, but mainly because I don’t seem to find many films that really seem worth the trouble to see on the big screen (I blew it not seeing CHILDREN OF MEN that way.)

If we were going to break that tradition it would probably be for this film, which I’m expecting to be the GODFATHER II of SF flicks in a lot of ways. It is playing less than a mile from where we live at a place that has five dollar Tuesdays, which seems really really tempting! But my wife has no immune system to speak of currently and I have got at least three comorbidities for Covid (which due to massive diligence and tons of luck, have never contracted) , so am probably not going to see it till homevid. Maybe we can get a bigger TV by then to give it a more proper viewing.

Whether we see it in cinema or not, I don’t expect to fully love it (saw part 1 three or four times but still get more joy from the massively flawed Lynch film), but I’m sure I will admire it, even though I hate that Count Fenering (sic) doesn’t get included.

Kinda off topic, but I always figured Frank Herbert was some kind of liberal given his environmental bent. Was flabbergasted to read a couple days back that he thought FDR’s New Deal was a betrayal of the American ideal and that he dug Reagan and Nixon and hated JFK. Apparently very big on gay-hatred too, whereas I figured that feel in the books was calculated to appeal to mass audience of decades back. Guess my miscalc on Herbert proves you can’t judge a DUNE book by the size of its sandworms.

That’s interesting about Herbert’s politics – I didn’t know that.

BTW, Lady Fenering does show up in the current movie.

Austin Butler is suprisingly awesome as Feyd.

Yes, this exactly.

Not only that, but the dudes only watched two of the four seasons? WTF? And sure I’m negative on some series I don’t like, but I watch every episode so that I feel like I can provide at least my honest opinion of an ongoing series even if it happens to be negative — I just wouldn’t show up to a fan web site and be negative on a series that I hadn’t watched any episodes for the last 3 years on – in my opinion that would be being intellectually dishonest.

Omigosh someone give me a spoiler and tell me what the big secret of this season is!!! LOL!!! J/K don’t kill me!


Never going to happen. The TNG re-master didn’t make enough $$$, so Paramount threw in the towel.

According to Inglorious Treksperts, the show is being shopped around VFX houses. It’ll happen….one day.

Oh dang. If true, I certainly hope they arrange for the original Lightwave files to be the basis for any redone space CGI…

Freakin Babylon 5 got an HD remaster. Babylon 5! Fans on the internet are doing it for free with AI and the results are more than acceptable.

DS9 and Voyager look like shit in SD. When I watch TNG’s Birthright or What we Left Behind, and see the HD versions of DS9…I drool. I friggn drool.

The episode of Strange New Worlds with Khan perfectly showed how malleable history is, and it can be used to explain why Discovery and Strange New Worlds line up with Enterprise but not with The Original Series.

What SNW did in that episode is something DIS COULD have done in a proper second or even third season to explain such things as why Klingons looked different, why female captains were the norm, or why technology was more advanced.

“The Legacy Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’”Is that you don’t screw around with something that has worked very well for decades and expect no backlash.

Yep! 👍