Star Trek: Discovery

:

Season 1
Season #: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
4.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1324 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 527 out of 1324
  2. Mixed: 158 out of 1324
  3. Negative: 639 out of 1324
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. SpecimenB
    Nov 13, 2017
    3
    What's getting rated here? When you peruse through the critic reviews and the user reviews, it seems very few of the positive reviews are actually reviewing the show on its merits. They seem to be reviewing how politically correct it is. "The captain is a middle-aged Asian woman, About time." "The lead is a strong, black woman. How progressive." "The ships doctor and chief science officerWhat's getting rated here? When you peruse through the critic reviews and the user reviews, it seems very few of the positive reviews are actually reviewing the show on its merits. They seem to be reviewing how politically correct it is. "The captain is a middle-aged Asian woman, About time." "The lead is a strong, black woman. How progressive." "The ships doctor and chief science officer are gay lovers. Bravo!" But when you look at the reviews for the show itself, the results are predominantly negative. The credit I will give this show is the acting is top notch. And the allowed budget clearly allows this show to go where no show has gone before. But the plot and story are abysmal. The science is ridiculous. The characters themselves, while expertly played, are very cliche and difficult to relate to. It seems the attempt to bring Star Trek to a wider audience has backfired and lost them their original fanbase.… Expand
  2. AyHy
    Oct 24, 2017
    3
    Frankly, Star Trek: Discovery is everything I *don't* want in a Star Trek show.

    It's: * Basically humorless * Basically joyless * Pessimistic * An "interquel" so we know how everything ends * Despite its name, not focused on discovery at all - just a war story Why did they think this was the Star Trek we wanted? The Orville, despite its ridiculousness, is closer to being the    Frankly, Star Trek: Discovery is everything I *don't* want in a Star Trek show.

    It's:
    * Basically humorless
    * Basically joyless
    * Pessimistic
    * An "interquel" so we know how everything ends
    * Despite its name, not focused on discovery at all - just a war story

    Why did they think this was the Star Trek we wanted? The Orville, despite its ridiculousness, is closer to being the Star Trek we wanted.

    The production values are amazing, the editing and sound is amazing, but the story they're telling just... kinda bums me out.    … Expand
  3. StrongHarm
    Nov 21, 2017
    3
    First, why am I paying cash to ABC for 15 commercials an episode? Because I'm an idiot? Hey! Thanks a lot.. I thought we were in the age of ignoring truth.. and here you go hitting me in the face with it.

    The season finished and I LOVED the technology and exploration aspects. This show made me reflect on one thing repeatedly however; it's mostly intelligent people who like science    First, why am I paying cash to ABC for 15 commercials an episode? Because I'm an idiot? Hey! Thanks a lot.. I thought we were in the age of ignoring truth.. and here you go hitting me in the face with it.

    The season finished and I LOVED the technology and exploration aspects. This show made me reflect on one thing repeatedly however; it's mostly intelligent people who like science fiction and Star Trek.. so why would they assume that intelligent people require social engineering to implant "correct thinking" where diversity and acceptance are concerned? Is this actually already clear to the producers and the constant bombardment of correctness is actually some sort of self flagellation for the Socialist Religion? Don't get me wrong, I don't care that there are transgender people, and the science officer is gay (and they French kiss with close ups), and a man was raped (justice!), and nature is more powerful than tech since the spores allow us to jump, and the harmony of a planet as a thinking sentient ecology saves all of our lives... I'm actually good with all this... but GOOD GOD, did you have to put it all in a few episodes and parade it around like a trophy? The other Star Trek series did a good job of featuring social issues with a subtlety and grace. This was like a mixture of good scifi and an orgy of self congratulation for moral and social superiority at the DNC. It was rather distracting.

    Can't wait for next season.    … Expand
  4. SupR_G
    Oct 9, 2017
    3
    I don't know what I just watched, but this was not Star Trek. Do not pay CBS for this garbage. And no, this has nothing to do with "SJWs" or "PC culture" or whatever other buzzwords said by people who never watched an episode of Star Trek in their life.

    It's just bad writing, period.
  5. SkalderSan
    Oct 5, 2017
    3
    Awful TV series. I am disappointed. I expected a worthy continuation of the famous series, but got full suck. I do not like the main character. I do not like special effects, I do not like the plot and its presentation.
  6. dougal83
    Oct 20, 2017
    3
    The production values are good but it's ruined by screenwriters shoe horning in their politically correct agenda. Edgy writer give a female a man's name for reasons... Klingons are obsessed with their cultural purity rather than being testosterone filled; strong and honorable, nothing wrong with that. Last straw was the two odd overly groomed officers being homosexual... Not a programThe production values are good but it's ruined by screenwriters shoe horning in their politically correct agenda. Edgy writer give a female a man's name for reasons... Klingons are obsessed with their cultural purity rather than being testosterone filled; strong and honorable, nothing wrong with that. Last straw was the two odd overly groomed officers being homosexual... Not a program I'd let my children watch.

    Still waiting for a Star Trek reboot... Bring back Deep Space Nine.    … Expand
  7. ozymandias79
    Oct 4, 2017
    3
    It doesn't feel like Star Trek. This show focuses too much a single character who is boring and shallow. The two pilot episodes were bad and I made it about halfway through the third before giving up. What a waste of money.
  8. Artimecion
    Mar 15, 2018
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. (some spoilers if you haven't seen the first season.)

    Firstly, I should probably point out that I've seen all of the other Trek series and must admit that I'm not an Enterprise Fan, nor am I fan of the newer reboot films. This may help to explain some of my views with Discovery.

    Discovery is a tedious mess of a show that just doesn't feel like Star Trek. Unlikable, dumb characters and unnecessary changes to established design (Especially the Klingons) really stand out in the absence of an engaging story. The characters are emotionally very one-dimensional and make absolutely baffling, and often unrelateable, choices. I often found myself thinking "in what possible scenario was this choice a good idea?'. Compounding the issues with the story and characters is that there are very few consequences to actions. Major plot elements happen with no feeling of gravity (except perhaps the start of the klingon-federation war that the series mostly focuses on) and people get injured or 'die' with relatively little impact.

    The characters are a particular annoyance. The formula is usually a) the character 'dies' only to reappear later or b) the character is actually not who they claim to be. This is fine when these thing happens once, but it becomes groan worthy when yet another character is masquerading as something else. This is to the point that, by the end, most of the remaining cast are either not what they appeared to be in the opening episode and only one of the 'deaths' appear to be permanent. The cast is also pretty unmemorable to the point that I can only really remember the names of Burnham and Lorca - the others just become 'the klingon lady' 'the annoying scientist' or 'the awkward ginger one'. Compare this to Deep Space Nine, for example, where the characters are relatively complex and memorable from the get-go.

    The show also suffers heavily from being a prequel. Technology exists where it shouldn't in the Trek timeline, but this sits alongside an awkward attempt at continuity (backwards and forwards in time). These issues really impact on this being an engaging star trek show when you're constantly trying to figure out where things fit because it is a prequel. Then there are weird anachronisms, such as the 'disco' sweatshirts and the nightclub on board the ship which feel out of place and pop-culturey. I'm really hoping the series gets better, but the cast needs a complete overhaul and they really need script writers than can write an engaging sci-fi story that fits the star trek universe.

    To give some credit, it does look pretty and the story picks up briefly about 3/4 of the way through with an unexpected jump the alternative universe. However, this is short lived and the last few episodes become a tired return to 'oh look, another character isn't who they say they are' and 'oh... that character is back...'.

    The writing is very poor and is probably the element I take the most issue with. Dialogue is generally awkward and people don't really speak 'naturally'. Plot points are introduced for temporary convenience and forgotten in a drive to move the story along. Albeit minor, one problem that highlights this (and irrationally infuriates me) is how they deal with the difference between Terrans from the alternative universe and Humans in the federation-verse and the framing of this. They mention that there is a difference in people's vision, with Terrans being more sensitive to light, therefore explaining Lorca's optical affliction. However, nobody else seems to demonstrate this (particularly the empress when she is bought back to the federation-verse). In addition, this fact is dealt with in the alternative dimension, not within the federation-verse. Therefore, surely it should have been explained that the Federation Humans are less sensitive to light, with the Terran sensitivity being normal in their universe? It's probably ridiculous, but it does bug me that a Terran described themselves as having an 'affliction' that would have been entirely normal to them in their universe. Maybe i'm nitpicking, but the culmination of poor story and character elements mean that Discovery is a miss for me.

    I'll gladly watch season two, but if the characterisation and story remains dull, I do not see myself going out the way to watch any future seasons.    … Expand
  9. nilsy
    Oct 22, 2017
    3
    Think this will be remembered as the worst star trek ever.

    Se more and more look back at enterprise which was the whipping dog of star trek in the past as ... hmm maybe it wasnt that bad it could have been a discovery abomination. Those that dislike this really dislike it, why didnt you make a star trek everyone would have watched that sure they would have complained but they would    Think this will be remembered as the worst star trek ever.

    Se more and more look back at enterprise which was the whipping dog of star trek in the past as ... hmm maybe it wasnt that bad it could have been a discovery abomination.

    Those that dislike this really dislike it, why didnt you make a star trek everyone would have watched that sure they would have complained but they would have watched it.
    This isnt "star trek" its just another bad scifi show    … Expand
  10. akovia
    Oct 9, 2017
    3
    Not a single negative review by critics? I just completely lost faith in the so called professionals that this site pools from. If great production is all it takes to dazzle, it doesn't say much for the future.

    I seriously wanted to love this. I am a Trek fan for sure, but would fail on all but the easiest trivia. I don't care about if it stays true to timelines or technology and never    Not a single negative review by critics? I just completely lost faith in the so called professionals that this site pools from. If great production is all it takes to dazzle, it doesn't say much for the future.

    I seriously wanted to love this. I am a Trek fan for sure, but would fail on all but the easiest trivia. I don't care about if it stays true to timelines or technology and never have. It's always been about the storytelling and thoughts it provokes. This feels like a high school script with a Hollywood production budget. I take that back. A high schooler with passion could do better.    … Expand
  11. gaargod
    Nov 3, 2017
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I gave this show a chance but after episode 7, I give up. On the bright side, the visuals are great.

    I can perhaps forgive inconsistencies with the previous shows (such as Vulcans being able to telephatically communicate instantaneously at distances of several light years). However, what kills the show is bad writing. And I'm being very polite when I call it 'bad'.

    Episode 7 is a great example of what's wrong with the show. The ship is in the middle of the war. Somehow, a dude called Mudd has access to technology which is way too advanced for the era (maybe it will be explained later), and is able to almost take the ship and sell it to the Klingons.

    Despite the severity of the situation, the writers decide to focus on a cheesy love story. Seriously? Towards the end of the episode, it turns out that the Klingons would be more interested in Michael Burnham than in getting the most advanced ship in the alpha quadrant.... The reason? Michael is special. Oh, so special. I almost threw up in my mouth at how bad the writing was at this point.

    Finally, at the end of the episode the crew decided that the punishment for Mudd is not a summary execution or prison, but getting married to a rich girl which he doesn't really like. The guy almost caused the Federation to lose in the war against the Klingon empire. He also has knowledge of all the ship's secrets, which would be very valuable to the Klingons, and which are not widely known even in the Starfleet. And they let him go. Just like that.

    Nope, I can't take this anymore. They are butchering Star Trek with this writing. It's better to rewatch an old series with solid writing, and forget that this garbage even exists. I hope that the show gets either cancelled, or that they get completely different writers for Season 2.    … Expand
  12. Hessmix
    Sep 24, 2017
    3
    With the first two episodes out...if they don't go back to the original formula this will go down as worse then Star Trek Enterprise. I don't know what they're trying to achieve. Making the First Officer the main character was a mistake as far as I can tell.
  13. deltagilbert
    Mar 17, 2019
    3
    There's so much to dislike about this show. It's Star Trek in name only. Everything in this show blue. It looks awful. The dialogue is terrible. Conversations between characters are forced and awkward as the writers try to make them sound witty with short sentences delivered at lightening pace. They just sound stupid. No one talks like that.

    It's just generally not very good. Just    There's so much to dislike about this show. It's Star Trek in name only. Everything in this show blue. It looks awful. The dialogue is terrible. Conversations between characters are forced and awkward as the writers try to make them sound witty with short sentences delivered at lightening pace. They just sound stupid. No one talks like that.

    It's just generally not very good. Just cancel it and start again.    … Expand
  14. Hawk321
    Nov 1, 2017
    3
    Not Star Trek to me. Acting, story, dresses, logic....all far beyond TNG, VOY or DSN 9.
    And why the heck do those klingons have no hair anymore ??? While I find it interesting to hear real klingon voices and to see some klingon skin heads....it makes no sense to me why each klingon is now hairless.
    There are a couple more of stupidity stuff that is not kanon proofed like modern beaming,    Not Star Trek to me. Acting, story, dresses, logic....all far beyond TNG, VOY or DSN 9.
    And why the heck do those klingons have no hair anymore ??? While I find it interesting to hear real klingon voices and to see some klingon skin heads....it makes no sense to me why each klingon is now hairless.
    There are a couple more of stupidity stuff that is not kanon proofed like modern beaming, spore jump, spocks step sister, klingons organic looking star ships and peacock alike space fighter "jets".    … Expand
  15. sonny2dap
    Feb 13, 2018
    3
    This was mixed to begin with, and went downhill.

    The performances in general were solid by the cast but the writing and direction were lacking exemplified best by the finale. So we have set up a backs against the wall scenario, a war like implacable foe is at the city gates and everything you know says the enemy will not back down unless confronted with overwhelming force, they    This was mixed to begin with, and went downhill.

    The performances in general were solid by the cast but the writing and direction were lacking exemplified best by the finale.

    So we have set up a backs against the wall scenario, a war like implacable foe is at the city gates and everything you know says the enemy will not back down unless confronted with overwhelming force, they respect warriors and strength and if you don't defeat the enemy everything you know will be destroyed, you're playing for all the marbles.

    You have a way to strike back at the enemy and save your people but to do so will mean compromising your ideals and millions of the enemy will be killed, whereas if you don't act millions of your people will die and the ideals you stand for will be gone too as they're not shared by your enemy. Had the writers followed the internal logic of their story and had it play out that Starfleet the idealistic organisation has to compromise its' ideals to survive and make some point about that's why they're ideals and people are imperfect and sometimes horrible acts are necessary to prevent even worse outcomes, that would have been a poignant arc and thought provoking, instead we had our lead character come up with an implausible solution that essentially has the war end because someone with no army or navy or broad base support, from a minority religious/political group turns up making terrorist demands.

    The message is hardly appealing to most audiences and the reaction of the honorable warrior Klingons who respect strength of arms in battle is also unbelievable in that they meekly acquiesce to such an extremist demand, in complete contradiction of the way Klingons have been portrayed all season.

    i could go on and on, the injection of certain contemporary politics which will date this show horribly is another topic that you could easily spend another few thousand words on.

    Season 2 is coming as we know already but unless serious changes happen on the writing team, 2 seasons will be it.    … Expand
  16. Semtex_Steve
    Sep 29, 2017
    3
    I'm not really sure what to make of all this. The effects were impressive, but the sets were dull and dark and the new Klingons looked ridiculous - even compared to the old Klingons who looked like Kiss fans with Cornish pasties on their heads. The main character came across as a psychotic maniac who really didn't belong on the bridge of a Starfleet vessel and the side characters wereI'm not really sure what to make of all this. The effects were impressive, but the sets were dull and dark and the new Klingons looked ridiculous - even compared to the old Klingons who looked like Kiss fans with Cornish pasties on their heads. The main character came across as a psychotic maniac who really didn't belong on the bridge of a Starfleet vessel and the side characters were entirely forgettable.

    The effects were pretty, but nothing we'd already seen in the JJ Abrams remake almost a decade ago, and the constant Dutch angles reminded me of Battlefield Earth.    … Expand
  17. amaljaa
    Sep 24, 2017
    3
    Trek fans who are looking for something that actually follows canon will be immensely annoyed by how much this show ignores all of it. Not as bad as I thought but everything is way too over designed. The graphics, CG, ships, props, everything has way too much going on that it's extremely distracting.
  18. BlueSun86
    Oct 3, 2017
    3
    The setting and the effects were great - what you would expect. I don't like the nod to the original series. For example the sounds and look of the tricorder and the old design of the chair make no sense in this day and age. Those are small things though. What i didn't like is that the character acting and dialog, and the big gaps in science, especially in the third episode. Seems likeThe setting and the effects were great - what you would expect. I don't like the nod to the original series. For example the sounds and look of the tricorder and the old design of the chair make no sense in this day and age. Those are small things though. What i didn't like is that the character acting and dialog, and the big gaps in science, especially in the third episode. Seems like this series is going in the footsteps of a fantasy show instead of a sci-fi...… Expand
  19. DoctorMan
    Oct 6, 2017
    3
    This is NOT Star Trek. No logic, no character development. Characters are unlikable and then just die. Too dark, damn lens flare. I really wanted to like this but I guess I'm going to give The Orville a chance instead.
  20. CybershamanX
    Oct 13, 2017
    3
    Gorgeous visuals don't make up for the fact that the true spirit of Star Trek is missing from this the latest installment to the franchise. Yes, it's all show with the "go" consisting of heavy plot shoveling and character motivations that make no sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, you will not be discussing the finer details of each of Discovery's episodes in the far future which is aGorgeous visuals don't make up for the fact that the true spirit of Star Trek is missing from this the latest installment to the franchise. Yes, it's all show with the "go" consisting of heavy plot shoveling and character motivations that make no sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, you will not be discussing the finer details of each of Discovery's episodes in the far future which is a hallmark of each of the previous series. Yes, they've chosen to go a more serialized route but that's not a problem. They've got amazing visuals to show us and they are heavily anchored to an overarching plot that, damn the torpedoes, will be told at the heart's expense. Why they chose to wedge this show between Enterprise and TOS, I will never know. It limits them by having them attempt to conform to existing canon, which I have yet to see how any of it fits despite the creators claims to the contrary. It might have been better for them to have just set the show after Voyager. At least then it would have been somewhat of a clean slate and they pretty much could have done whatever they want without too much trouble. I can understand why they wanted to update the look of the show. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that it had more to do with keeping it in line with the look of the JJ Trek "Kelvin timeline" than anything else. Short of vaguely looking like what has gone before, Discovery has little in common with previous Treks. At the time of this writing, I have yet to see anything worth discussing as far as how it relates to the "real world". Gone are the heady discussions of man vs. machine, race, government or any of the other topics that Trek has so boldly tackled in the past. What we have on display is space combat and very snooty characters attempting to outdo each other's putdowns. Indeed this is NOT your father's or mother's Trek. So, if generic space shoot 'em ups are your thing, then buckle up and take Discovery for a spin. Literally a "spin", as you will find out in episode 4. But, if you're looking for something a little deeper that will have you talking about other things than the look of a show, look no further than The Orville. THAT show looks like it will be shaping up to be the Trek we were all waiting for. And it will make you laugh, at that. ;)… Expand
  21. Karoneska
    Oct 13, 2017
    3
    "It's new, all different, all better Star Trek", say defenders. "You just stayed in '90 man, be progressive! Future is now!". But new Star Trek is not just different. Even treated as collateral vision with no connection with old Star Trek...still it is silly, visually weak, politically charged show with no respect for viewer intelligence.
  22. Knight3079
    Nov 2, 2017
    3
    A show that has lost what it is and is turning it to something very generic and forgettable... It's a beautiful show with amazing visuals but a weak story. Numerous plot holes make this show seem confused and sometimes boring.
  23. antina
    Nov 7, 2017
    3
    To put it simple: this is not Star Trek.
    Someone must have tought that a good sci-fi show must be dark, gritty and grim. Maybe they are right, but please, please, don't call it star trek!
    This show has nothing of what made legions of fans fall in love with Roddenberry's vision. Nothing.
    Ad, apart from that, is really bad.
  24. P4inskiller
    Feb 2, 2019
    3
    Beverly Hills 90210-Star Trek. This is real "2019" Star Trek....a lot of "Me too", woman power, feelings and emotions - even the Klingons..?! People in 400 years will not be like this! To strange, unrealistic, stupid and therefore nothing for me. I hope the Picard show will be less stupid...
  25. Adules
    Dec 19, 2017
    3
    This show feels like CBS meddled with the production, transforming Bryan Fuller's ambition into a generic sci-fi action show. If you were expecting quality writing and characters akin to Deep Space Nine, The Next Generation, and Enterprise, you will be disappointed. The main word I can use to describe this show is "thoughtless". It feels like they were more interested in making a generic,This show feels like CBS meddled with the production, transforming Bryan Fuller's ambition into a generic sci-fi action show. If you were expecting quality writing and characters akin to Deep Space Nine, The Next Generation, and Enterprise, you will be disappointed. The main word I can use to describe this show is "thoughtless". It feels like they were more interested in making a generic, manipulative, action movie than they were about verisimilitude, realistic characters, and subtext.

    The idea for the show is intriguing, but that's where the positive aspects end. It is distinctly not star trek. The klingons don't look, act, or think like klingons. The themes of the show is more focused on grim-dark story telling than the optimistic thought provoking soul of star trek.    … Expand
  26. AdamKingry
    Jan 11, 2018
    3
    I feel terrible for giving the show a bad review because I really like some of the characters. Rainne Wison was funny and interesting in his role - perfect casting. Also perfect casting is Jason Isaacs as Lorca - completely believable as an experienced, embattled maverick with exceptional leadership skills, dispassionate resolve and cunning, and a moral compass that is a little in the greyI feel terrible for giving the show a bad review because I really like some of the characters. Rainne Wison was funny and interesting in his role - perfect casting. Also perfect casting is Jason Isaacs as Lorca - completely believable as an experienced, embattled maverick with exceptional leadership skills, dispassionate resolve and cunning, and a moral compass that is a little in the grey area.

    The Ash Tyler character is well-acted and well written, but for some reason I'm not buying the chemistry between Ash and Michael yet.

    Sonequa Martin Green does an excellent job as Michael, oscillating between heartfelt emotions and Vulcan reserve. Remember that she hasn't rejected her humanity, and isn't half Vulcan like Spock. She's fully human with all that entails, but can be remarkably focused and calm in a crisis. She has a snappy mathematics ability and has above average combat prowess - evidenced by the fact that she can take down a Klingon who is twice her weight. But she's not a Vulcan and doesn't need to eschew emotion.

    I actually really love her character. She seems like a genuine person and her emotions feel very real to me. Excellent acting. Ash just isn't swashbuckling enough, or stable enough, for me to believe she'd take an interest in him. And I think it's unlikely she'd kiss him with that greasy, scraggly beard.

    Tilly's character is okay. She's quirky and irritatingly upbeat, but she is growing on me. I think her character has potential. She's sort of a Neelix-like character - upbeat, optimistic, overly talkative, and more savvy than she appears.

    I don't like Lt. Saru partially because he's sniveling and irritating, but mostly due to the fact that he's hard to look at. Those tendrals on the back of his skull that pop up and writhe  like little worms when he senses danger actually make me cringe with revulsion.

    I don't like the homosexual couple at all. One is a mean albino and the other is a flat-acting Prince clone with a distracting overbite; but that isn't why I don't like them. I don't like them because their relationship is a propaganda move that was presented to and approved by GLAAD ("a media monitoring organization founded by LGBT people") .

    There has been a systematic and aggressive campaign to pressure production companies to represent the tiny contemporary subculture in numerous, positive, substantive, prolonged, central roles in the media - particularly aimed at markets for families and children, with the central aim of mainstream normalization. I'm not a supporter of propaganda in any form, but I really don't like the idea of special interest groups pressuring production companies, especially when massive overrepresentation is taking place already.

    The matching red pajamas, brushing teeth scene caused me to stop watching for weeks. When I gave the show another shot due to the memorable acting of Sonequa Martin Green, I stopped watching entirely​ at the homosexual kissing scene. I found it to be contrived to the degree that I utterly lost my suspension of disbelief. All I saw was aggressive special interest activism intruding upon a beloved television franchise.

    In typical militant fashion, Wilson Cruz, the overbite doctor, said "We aren't here for [the fan's and viewer's] comfort" and essentially said, if you don't like it, don't watch the show. That's not very business-like, but it may prove to be prophetic if the 200 Metacritic negative  user reviews to 100 positive reviews is any indication of the show's longevity - or the nation's polarization over the issue.

    My suspicion is that the primary fan base just wants to watch the show with their family without any f-bombs or ham-fisted propaganda. I suppose they may need to decide if they want to make a show fans enjoy (and buy) or bow subserviently to the watchful diligence of the GLAAD Gestapo.

    I probably won't watch Season 2 despite the many great performances, interesting storylines and good special effects. Great disappointment from an avid Star Trek fan who has seen every movie and every episode in each incarnation of the franchise.    … Expand
  27. thapeloa
    Feb 1, 2018
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This show is so political its boring...nothing feels natural in the show. The gay couple reveal did not feel like a natural relationship but mainstream TV checking the box that they had the first gay couple. Burnham is acted out by a brilliant actress pity her character went from emotionally devoid to ultra loving and caring in the space of 3 episodes! Took the mystery completely out of her. Then the show blatalntly once again tries to check the boxes from episode 12 by turning a very interesting character (Lorca) into a male villain who is taken down by two female heroins, the other female heroin being a previously ruthless emperor who tortured and murdered people but for the sake of checkboxes she turned into a loving co-star for Burhams (Marvel-esque) action sequence in episode 13. Instead of the evil empress dying in the end Burnham saves her so they can go live happily aboard the discovery. The script writing in this show is horrendous nevermind all the politics of the show. Oh and the show touches on slavery too in a total of probably 2 minutes on screen, the slaves were being sold by Burnhams new best friend the emperor...but Burnham forgot all that in favor of ticking check boxes.… Expand
  28. Zygzagoon
    Apr 6, 2018
    3
    I finished watching S01 a week ago with Dad. I have always wanted to watch a StarTrek show with him because he loves them. Finally! And ... huh, not what I expected. I mean, I wanted new flashy CGI. I wanted space battles like Deep Space Nine (which were awesome). But what I really wanted was some lovable characters, especially comedy characters who don't understand the way humanI finished watching S01 a week ago with Dad. I have always wanted to watch a StarTrek show with him because he loves them. Finally! And ... huh, not what I expected. I mean, I wanted new flashy CGI. I wanted space battles like Deep Space Nine (which were awesome). But what I really wanted was some lovable characters, especially comedy characters who don't understand the way human interaction work like Data, the Doctor or Seven of Nine. Tilly is the closest to a lovable, positive Star Trek character and she disappeared into the background very quickly. At the end of the series, Dad and I turned to each other and asked the same question: Why do they keep giving Burnham monologues? She is SO boring. SO boring! And, dare I say it, I miss the space jargon! It made the show sound smart and I felt privileged for watching it! I learned the word "isotope" listening to them talk. All I learned from this one is "boohoo, our relationship is failing". Its sci-fi, not drama! Ugh! I MIGHT watch the second season.… Expand
  29. Antares8001
    Nov 16, 2018
    3
    It's basically a mediocre sci-fi action thriller that someone slapped a Star Trek sticker on.
    When I heard that this show was gonna take place in the original timeline and not the one of the god awful movie reboots I was excited. But then I started watching it and oh boy...
    Everything that made Star Trek great is missing. The likable characters, the diverse and thought provoking    It's basically a mediocre sci-fi action thriller that someone slapped a Star Trek sticker on.
    When I heard that this show was gonna take place in the original timeline and not the one of the god awful movie reboots I was excited. But then I started watching it and oh boy...
    Everything that made Star Trek great is missing.
    The likable characters, the diverse and thought provoking story-lines, the social criticism, the positive outlook, the focus on diplomacy and exploration has all been traded for terrible dialog, run of the mill sci-fi art style, a CGI action spectacle, second rate story-lines that have been not only been done to death but also seem to belong in an angsty teenage drama show, all topped off by characters that you couldn't pretend to like or relate to with a gun to your head. And let's not say anything about that utterly ridiculous and unnecessary Klingon redesign other than:"What were those P'takhs thinking?".
    Don't get me wrong, the older Star Trek series have more than a few rather campy and outlandish episodes, but as a whole they mostly managed to be thought provoking and created one of the most thought out and coherent Sci-Fi universes populated by believable characters and species.

    If they didn't call it Star Trek I would consider it a kinda ok 6/10 sci-fi show you wouldn't mind watching on a slow evening or as a distraction while doing chores. But as it is simply another laughable and sad entry into the Star Trek canon. If only they had kept it within the movie timeline, at least then it wouldn't have left such a sour mark on Gene Roddenberry's legacy.

    It's a truly weird day when a Seth MacFarlane parody is widely considered to be the true spiritual successor to the likes of TNG, DS9 and Voyager and the actual canonical franchise entry feels like the parody.

    On a semi-relatied side note I find it very odd that quite a few people seem to criticize this "libtard, SJW crap" considering the social criticism and very progressive world view that has always been integral to Star Trek is pretty much non-existent here. Unlike previous entries it never even tries to seriously deal with social issues.    … Expand
  30. Vectis99
    Oct 24, 2018
    3
    A failed attempt to adapt the Star Trek franchise for a modern audience. Pointlessly edgy and crude, Star Trek Discovery tries to squeeze out as much dark shock value as possible accompanied by little else.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

80
#80 Best TV Season of 2017
1
#1 Most Discussed TV Season of 2017
9
#9 Most Shared TV Season of 2017

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 20 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 20
  3. Negative: 0 out of 20
  1. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    Oct 19, 2017
    50
    Discovery feels like it’s adrift between the adventure-of-the-week format of its network-TV predecessors and the kind of complex serial favored by cable and streaming.
    Read full review
  2. The Oregonian
    Reviewed by: Kristi Turnquist
    Sep 26, 2017
    60
    Star Trek: Discovery feels like it's just finding its footing. On the promising side, Doug Jones is already a standout as Science Officer Lt. Saru, who's from an alien race called Kelpiens. And James Frain is perfectly cast as Sarek, the Vulcan who veteran "Trek" fans know as the father of Spock. The relationship between Burnham and Sarek is one of the more intriguing aspects of Star Trek: Discovery.
    Read full review
  3. Salon
    Reviewed by: Melanie McFarland
    Sep 26, 2017
    80
    Happily Star Trek: Discovery strikes a balance between what diehard Trekkies love about Roddenberry’s universe and what J.J. Abrams injected into its theatrical resurrection. Ethical dilemmas and a clash between cultures and traditions comprise the fore of the narrative, but the hours don’t skimp on phaser blasts and broadcast-appropriate carnage.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »