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. Palanthemion
    Oct 3, 2017
    4
    Interesting story so far, but if you remove the insignias and rename the Klingons to whatever just another sci-fi show. The Star Trek you know is absolutely insignificant to follow the events. No real depth so far. I hope this will change. Otherwise nice to see - but definately nothing to really get involved with.
  2. DukeJon
    Oct 3, 2017
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I thought the first two episodes were pretty poor. Firstly there was far too much talking. Oh there's a probe with weapon damage and a mysterious object on our scanner. Let's all stand around talking about it. An large enemy ship has just appeared right in front of us. Time for a long chat with my boss. Loads of enemy ships have just arrived. Let's line up all our ships right in front of theirs then have a big meeting about it.

    The scenes with the klingons were long and dull. They didn't look or behave anything like the klingons I am familiar with; their language was slow and tiresome to listen to. They should have switched to english rather than have us read all those subtitles. The reference to skin color/race was unsubtle to say the least. Lots of scenes were ripped from other shows; the spacesuit trip to discover an object (from star trek the motion picture), crossing space from the brig to an escape hatch (from 2001 a space oddysey, though in that movie it was at least plausible), "we haven't heard from the enemy in a hundred years" from battlestar galactica. Starfleet fleet tactics seem to be "line up all your ships at point blank range in front of the enemy and wait for them to take the first shot". The main character was ice cold like a vulcan one minute then a rash hotheaded human the rest. She ran about shouting like a hormonal teenager, not a disciplined starfleet officer. I found her quite unlikeable, a critical flaw for a show like this. Michelle Yeoh phoned it in. The only interesting character was Sari. Everyone else was dumb; like the crews in the recent alien movies they have only their own stupidity to blame for their deaths. My main gripe; why does the main female character have a male first name? Episode three didn't really improve things. I like the whole "derelict ship" vibe to this episode but why would they allow a convicted mutineer to wander around a top secret research ship without any handcuffs? The main character pretty much comes and goes as she pleases, she's either being thrown in the brig or being lectures on how wonderful she is. Hand me the sick bag! Another thing; calling an episode "battle of the binary stars" is a bit of a spoiler, don't you think?

    On the plus side production values were high and the ships look cool. It usually annoys me how they always have to shoehorn Sarek into a show but they used him well this time.    … Expand
  3. brentwshelton1
    Oct 2, 2017
    9
    I'm rating this show as a "9" as any TV show generally has some flaws - and Discovery hasn't been immune to that. However, I have to commend it for bringing us a different type of Trek. I'm in my fifties and have been a fan of the original show, TNG, and Voyager. For me the fact that this show portrays Star Fleet officers as flawed is important. If one truly thinks of the "Trek time"I'm rating this show as a "9" as any TV show generally has some flaws - and Discovery hasn't been immune to that. However, I have to commend it for bringing us a different type of Trek. I'm in my fifties and have been a fan of the original show, TNG, and Voyager. For me the fact that this show portrays Star Fleet officers as flawed is important. If one truly thinks of the "Trek time" line - Picard and Janeway were centuries after Lorca. It is totally realistic for Star fleet officers to be darker in nature and fuzzier on ethical grounds than what is achieved in the future. Quite honestly, most of the negative reviews seem to harp on (1) Having to pay (by the way - only if you want to see it right away - I'm sure it will be available on other streaming services or broadcast - after the season ends) and (B) that it isn't exactly the same ( as TNG, etc. Like I said - I'm glad it is a different type of Trek and really excited for the rest of the season! Thnik the cast and writers are doing awesome!… Expand
  4. KILLyrIDOLS1
    Oct 2, 2017
    9
    So many other reviews have completely missed the point or applied a standard that every other Star Trek series would also fail to meet. The first several episodes were great and a real return to form for the franchise after several movies that really seemed to, like so many users on this site, miss the whole point of what star trek is supposed to be about.
  5. shaheinm
    Oct 2, 2017
    0
    I want to like this show so badly, but it's terrible so far. It definitely isn't Star Trek (there are dozens of reviews from other users that detail why; I'll join that chorus in a minute), but more than that, it's just bad TV. The writing is lazy - it's incredibly obvious when they're just creating false tension to move the story along. You can't see anything because the set is soI want to like this show so badly, but it's terrible so far. It definitely isn't Star Trek (there are dozens of reviews from other users that detail why; I'll join that chorus in a minute), but more than that, it's just bad TV. The writing is lazy - it's incredibly obvious when they're just creating false tension to move the story along. You can't see anything because the set is so poorly lit all the time, and every character aside from Doug Jones is one-dimensional, boring, and unlikeable. The science makes zero sense (WTF is that "interconnected web of spores" BS, midichlorians?).

    Ignore all of the talk of "SJWs have taken over" and all that nonsense from people who clearly don't understand or haven't seen Gene Roddenberry's vision. Trek is at it's best when it portrays a hopeful, progressive future for mankind. The problem here is that you can't do that with terrible writing and lazy plotting.

    And as far as Trek is concerned, Seth MacFarlane has created something that captures the spirit of Trek quite magnificently (episode three may as well have just been a lost episode of TNG), and that makes STD all that much harder to watch. I'm a devoted Trekkie, and I want nothing more than a Star Trek series to live on television, so I probably will continue watching the full first season of STD, but it is abundantly clear to me that The Orville is superior in every way (and a better Star Trek show than the one that bears the franchise's name).

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone felt the need to "update" Trek (in a prequel, no less) on television, especially in a paid format like CBS All Access. I hate the JJ-verse movies, but I can kinda sorta understand the desire to bring mass market appeal to Trek on the big screen - movies are supposed to appeal to as large an audience as possible. But the only people who are going to pay CBS for a monthly subscription to watch a show week-to-week that still includes commercials are Trekkies. And all we want is a Star Trek show. I can live with updates and changes, but the Klingon redesign was awful and disengaging (they can't emote in those prosthetics - Klingons have always been boisterous and emotional - and the "no one has seen a Klingon in 100 years" line drove me nuts), the cloaking technology reveal screws up all kinds of timeline problems, the tech is too advanced for TOS to be a successor series (Enterprise went to great lengths to keep the tech in the show 100 years behind a show that was created 40+ years before it)... why are you even making a prequel show? Why not just put a show set after DS9?

    Now I'm sad. I'm gonna go watch The Orville to give me hope again.    … Expand
  6. Zybane
    Oct 2, 2017
    0
    Words cannot describe how cringe-worthy this show is. I just got halfway through episode 3 and I had to turn it off.

    Lets just say a Star Trek in which Star Fleet officers use ridiculous disparaging nicknames, prisoners simply have their handcuffs removed so that they can try and find a seat at the dining table among the crew and no one wants to sit with the prisoner like a high-school    Words cannot describe how cringe-worthy this show is. I just got halfway through episode 3 and I had to turn it off.

    Lets just say a Star Trek in which Star Fleet officers use ridiculous disparaging nicknames, prisoners simply have their handcuffs removed so that they can try and find a seat at the dining table among the crew and no one wants to sit with the prisoner like a high-school TV show, and the writing and dialogue is beyond cringe-worthy.

    I thought the new Michael Bay'esque Star Treks were awful, this show takes awful to where awful has never gone before!    … Expand
  7. cbeckman
    Oct 2, 2017
    10
    I've love Trek since the TOS and love all incarnations, except the JJ Abrams version (which is terrible). But, I do not get the hate for this version. It's great. The characters are great. The story is fun and exciting. It features both believable science and politics.

    This is certainly different than all other incarnations, but true to the heart of trek. This is the only show I'm    I've love Trek since the TOS and love all incarnations, except the JJ Abrams version (which is terrible). But, I do not get the hate for this version. It's great. The characters are great. The story is fun and exciting. It features both believable science and politics.

    This is certainly different than all other incarnations, but true to the heart of trek. This is the only show I'm at all interested in and actually the best thing I've seen in years!    … Expand
  8. Atriox
    Oct 2, 2017
    0
    Don't waste your time ! Seriously ! It is generic. The FX are just standard and not appealing. The lead character is unlikable. The production design is god awfully bad. The new Klingons are the worst.
  9. Talbis
    Oct 2, 2017
    0
    I'm like 25 minutes into the third episode I paused to write these first impressions here. I was beyond skeptical when this series was announced and at least now I know why it was sent to CBS Access - to die. Yeah, they knew it will suck, so they've sent it to die.
    I can forgive a lot of things, like inconsistent technology levels (holograms weren't a viable method of communication until    I'm like 25 minutes into the third episode I paused to write these first impressions here. I was beyond skeptical when this series was announced and at least now I know why it was sent to CBS Access - to die. Yeah, they knew it will suck, so they've sent it to die.
    I can forgive a lot of things, like inconsistent technology levels (holograms weren't a viable method of communication until about a 100 years after this series takes place in lore), I can forgive the visual changes to Klingons (to writers: just explain TOS Klingons, like DS9 and Enterprise did, eh?)... but I can't forgive wooden acting from main, unlikable hero. Michael Burnham doesn't deserve to wear that uniform. And hey, she's court-martialed, so at least writers know how stupid, unresponsible and out of place she is. Thing is, she does whatever she wants. Third episode and she's let loose to run around secret projects. Hey, writers, we keep prisoners in the brig, not in the same quarters as Starfleet Academy students... If I learned anything it's that Sonequa Martin-Green cannot act at all. But the biggest kick to the balls I received from Discovery was when Captain Philippa Georgiou, a most interesting and well-portrayed character in Discovery, was killed off in the second episode. All that noise about getting Michelle Yeoh, all those easter eggs hidden in captain's ready room... gone. Poof! The most interesting part of the series was nothing but a cock tease! Now we're stuck with an unlikable character that's not being balanced by a mentor figure, but instead is a menace released into the wild to **** things up as she wants. Michelle Yeoh sold me on the idea of another sodding prequel, guess I can't have that now, can I?
    Overall story also isn't all that great. Klingons are back and afraid that the Federation will take away their individuality. Federation would like nothing more than to take away the individuality of Klingons. They (writers) wanted to comment on current sociopolitical climate in the US... instead they've turned the Federation into less advanced Borg. Their message gets lost in the amount of ridiculously stupid decisions everyone makes in this show.
    Klingons aren't Klingons. I get that they got redesigned, I don't care, they can look whatever they want, thing is, they don't act or feel like Klingons at all. Gone is the "pirate ship" vibe of a Klingon ship, now they're all just stand in the room and whine about how cruel the galaxy is to them.
    Star Trek was always about the human condition, how good people can be, how open they can be, how hopeful the future might be if we just put work into it. Even much darker Deep Space 9 had a lot of hope in it. Star Trek was about who you are amongst many. Discovery doesn't care about any of that, in fact, it seems to be about destroying everything the Trek build for over 50 years. This has no soul of Star Trek. Even J.J. Abrams did a better job getting at the core of what Star Trek was about... I'm done with the show.    … Expand
  10. wolffandy3
    Oct 2, 2017
    10
    Loved it! Pitch perfect! Thrilling, mysterious, funny, and bold! Top notch acting, Sonequa Martin-Green is captivating and charming -- a perfect Trek lead. Writing is clever and deep, weaving a tapestry of intrigue, making the most of it's serialized structure. Fantastic direction, SFX, music -- the sets are incredible. I dig the big budget, love seeing Trek this way. Very epic. Star TrekLoved it! Pitch perfect! Thrilling, mysterious, funny, and bold! Top notch acting, Sonequa Martin-Green is captivating and charming -- a perfect Trek lead. Writing is clever and deep, weaving a tapestry of intrigue, making the most of it's serialized structure. Fantastic direction, SFX, music -- the sets are incredible. I dig the big budget, love seeing Trek this way. Very epic. Star Trek meets Game of Thrones, in the best way.
    This is Star Trek at it's finest!    … Expand
  11. gozu
    Oct 2, 2017
    10
    I was hooked right away and I'm loving all the plot twists. I am enjoying this much more than TNG, which is the only other Star Trek series I've watched in its entirety.

    I have we get 6 or 7 more seasons!

    Making the show streaming-only and 10 dollars a month the only way to watch it is terrible news for the show and its cast and crew.
  12. NotchFilter
    Oct 2, 2017
    1
    The bar had been set way too high for this premiere episode. It had to be good enough to convince the potential audience that the $6 per month for CBS streaming was "worth it."

    It's not. ST:NG got off to an uneasy start, but it quickly got its space-legs over the course of the first season and turned into one of the better SciFi TV shows. Sadly, I'll never know if ST:Discovery    The bar had been set way too high for this premiere episode. It had to be good enough to convince the potential audience that the $6 per month for CBS streaming was "worth it."

    It's not.

    ST:NG got off to an uneasy start, but it quickly got its space-legs over the course of the first season and turned into one of the better SciFi TV shows.

    Sadly, I'll never know if ST:Discovery gets better. The pilot was so bad that I don't even care, nor am I interested in, what happens to the characters as the series unfolds.

    $6 per month in order to watch this show? Who is CBS kidding?    … Expand
  13. Goreminister
    Oct 2, 2017
    0
    SJW Hollywood claimed the next classic franchise and turned it into disgusting propaganda. I´m sad to see that one of my beloved TV Series lost everything of the original message. On top the 90s called: They want their SFX back. Terribly executed! :(
  14. madmacdoo
    Oct 2, 2017
    1
    Unlikeable characters, poor storylines, and an all round mess of a show if the first 3 episodes are anything to go by. It can improve of course, but it doesn't look likely at this time. The worst star trek since enterprise(which was also rubbish).
  15. Groen
    Oct 2, 2017
    10
    I watch the first two episodes and loved it! i do remember the first episodes of TNG and was horrible. The first season of Voyager was ok, later it became the best next to STO. Discovery began very strong. SFX was fantastic, good characters and lots of actions. Hope they can keep up this level of tension and urgency. For all you haters (0 points really?) get a life :)
  16. DoctorZack
    Oct 1, 2017
    4
    Congratulations. Even if you don't delve into this with a political mind, this is by far the most disappointing inclusion into the Star Trek franchise. While visually stunning (because money), the series lacks any of the heart or resemblance to the franchise's previous entries. My advice, go watch The Orville if you want to see a true Star Trek heir.
  17. LaurentV
    Oct 1, 2017
    7
    Finally got around to watching the first two episodes and...we seem to have a winner! Lots of good potential in characters and SFX. I give it a "7" because I do wish the series would stay in line with the young concussed officer's lament "We're Star Fleet. We're explorers, not soldiers". I also find the new design for the Klingons to be baroque (literally) and most...unfortunate. It'sFinally got around to watching the first two episodes and...we seem to have a winner! Lots of good potential in characters and SFX. I give it a "7" because I do wish the series would stay in line with the young concussed officer's lament "We're Star Fleet. We're explorers, not soldiers". I also find the new design for the Klingons to be baroque (literally) and most...unfortunate. It's solid enough otherwise to just pretend it's an eight-hour "action episode" of Star Trek, like "Doomsday Machine" or "Best of Both Worlds"… Expand
  18. ashtrayb
    Oct 1, 2017
    1
    Set phasers to "Kill" , This is a quote from episode 3 of the Star Trek Discovery . it is a symbol to the loss of innocence and summarizes what this new series is about : dumb action filled story that is lacking the charm and exploration mission that the previous Star Trek TV series were about.

    Unfortunately the TV series has take the worst direction that I feared - they turned the    Set phasers to "Kill" , This is a quote from episode 3 of the Star Trek Discovery . it is a symbol to the loss of innocence and summarizes what this new series is about : dumb action filled story that is lacking the charm and exploration mission that the previous Star Trek TV series were about.

    Unfortunately the TV series has take the worst direction that I feared - they turned the TV series into a JJ Abrams Hollywood trash . Michael Burnham recites lines from Alice from Wonderland with a straight face? Are you kidding me ?! The actor who plays Michael Burnham is over-acting each of her lines which gives it a soap opera feel.

    And they put these series with a war storyline and some alien monsters in it ? This is disappointing. I am going back to watch Star Trek TNG or Voyager or Enterprise.    … Expand
  19. Alaska_Wolf
    Oct 1, 2017
    2
    I only got to watch the first show, then I found out CBS wants us to stream the rest after I couldn't find the 2nd show. Personally, I just didn't find the "New and Improved" Star Trek to be compelling enough for me to spend even more money on streaming it. As a long time, and original Trekkie from 1966, I was really looking forward to the latest installation, and I was honestly quitI only got to watch the first show, then I found out CBS wants us to stream the rest after I couldn't find the 2nd show. Personally, I just didn't find the "New and Improved" Star Trek to be compelling enough for me to spend even more money on streaming it. As a long time, and original Trekkie from 1966, I was really looking forward to the latest installation, and I was honestly quit disappointed with the show, and not just CBS's underhanded, money grubbing tactics.

    Oddly enough, in some ways this show was eerily reminiscent of Mass Effect:Andromeda to me. Neither the acting, nor script writing, were up to par with what I've come to expect from the Star Trek franchise. I honestly think the first season of TOS was better, and there is absolutely no comparison to TNG, or DS9. I'm honestly not even sure how to frame it in my Star Trek universe, it did not appear to be written for those of us that have loyally followed all of the Star Trek Series for generations. For lack of a better word, this first episode was just plain bad. After seeing it, then finding out I have to get a streaming service to watch the next episodes, all I can say is I really don't think so.

    I'm afraid that if the rest of the episodes are so poorly scripted, acted and just downright un-Star Trek like, this could be the shortest Star Trek iteration in history. I'm fairly certain that Gene Roddenberry would not be amused. From technology more advanced than TOS, to form changing Klingons that convienently get explained away, even Enterprise did a MUCH better job with that...well except for the Klingons that looked like TNG and DS9 Klingons! But seriously, 3 totally different iterations of the same species? That's a bit hard to swallow.

    Perhaps the show has gotten better, but CBS has turned me right off watching it with their "You have to subscribe to watch it" after the first show. Thanks CBS, but no thanks.    … Expand
  20. ernie76
    Oct 1, 2017
    10
    This is Trek at its best. Greates Problem for most haters seems to be that the "Massage" isent delivert on a silver plater like in TNG where Picard hold a long Monolog at the end of many episodes.
    The look of the Klingons and thair Ships is a bit strange but it isent the 90s anymore and so i can live with that.
    As the Trek Creed say i am open for "New and Strange" things and so i git    This is Trek at its best. Greates Problem for most haters seems to be that the "Massage" isent delivert on a silver plater like in TNG where Picard hold a long Monolog at the end of many episodes.
    The look of the Klingons and thair Ships is a bit strange but it isent the 90s anymore and so i can live with that.
    As the Trek Creed say i am open for "New and Strange" things and so i git this a chance!    … Expand
  21. Shaka_Igloo
    Oct 1, 2017
    10
    Loved it. A show where the action and plot comes first instead of jumping straight into being yet another sci-fi soap opera. So sick of these crews full of self doubting whining babies and their personal problems that end up taking center stage instead of adventures in space.
  22. Perrypelican
    Oct 1, 2017
    0
    The acting is not inspiring. The dialog is terrible. The glingons dont look even close to the original ones. The captain calls michael number one like she is forced to use that expression, not at all like it is her pet name. Nothing flows. Everything is all over the place. There are no relationships that seem to be more than 2 days old, never mind 7 years. The subtitles for the klingonsThe acting is not inspiring. The dialog is terrible. The glingons dont look even close to the original ones. The captain calls michael number one like she is forced to use that expression, not at all like it is her pet name. Nothing flows. Everything is all over the place. There are no relationships that seem to be more than 2 days old, never mind 7 years. The subtitles for the klingons disappear way too fast for nothing. I was not at all impressed with the graphics. The way the ships appear suddenly and always move slightly is so unrealistic. I found nothing good about the new star trek.… Expand
  23. sanchess
    Oct 1, 2017
    2
    Show is good quality. But thats about it. I believe all star trek (show) principles has been lost. Im gonna ignore messages of the show as this is open for interpretation. Decisions crew make are not calculated and most of times not reasonable. There is also no-one I connected with, however the show is just starting, maybe that will change. I feel the directors went on that flashy loudShow is good quality. But thats about it. I believe all star trek (show) principles has been lost. Im gonna ignore messages of the show as this is open for interpretation. Decisions crew make are not calculated and most of times not reasonable. There is also no-one I connected with, however the show is just starting, maybe that will change. I feel the directors went on that flashy loud route ignoring what got Star Trek very popular, which is diplomacy, reason, and thought provoking stories. I hope this was just to promote the series to new audience, but, to be fair, if you are hoping for something to get better then it isnt really good.… Expand
  24. katieelizabeth
    Sep 30, 2017
    5
    I can only review the first 2 episodes, because that's all that has aired so far. As someone who has enjoyed Star trek since TNG and has basically watched every episode since then at least twice, I am qualified to say that Star Trek: Discovery really isn't a Star Trek series. It has been "2017'd" - meaning it has lots of padded sequences, poor and pointless dialogue, juvenile conflictI can only review the first 2 episodes, because that's all that has aired so far. As someone who has enjoyed Star trek since TNG and has basically watched every episode since then at least twice, I am qualified to say that Star Trek: Discovery really isn't a Star Trek series. It has been "2017'd" - meaning it has lots of padded sequences, poor and pointless dialogue, juvenile conflict between characters that are supposed to be professional star trek officers, and the show's writers seem to value shock value at times - all evidence of the 2017 tv show formula. Star Trek is supposed to look forward - it has got to be better than this, and treat it's audiences with some respect.

    Seeing as Enterprise started it's season with a Klingon arc, and has already explored these early Klingon-era stories quite well before, doing it yet again feels like the series is going over well-explored territory already. The Next Generation had the best Kligon focused stories, and DS9 even went to war with them. Honestly, what is there left to do?

    The show's special effects are quite amazing, but that's honestly the only thing that's really going for it. I'll take the rich characters, deeper plots and intrigue from DS9 over this any day.

    Maybe I shouldn't be too critical - most Star Trek series have started fairly poor after all - but the acting and direction is very clear here... it's almost as if I can predict the tone for the rest of the series, just because I've seen it all before with other modern tv shows. Uninspiring to be sure, and very disappointing.    … Expand
  25. mujanovic
    Sep 30, 2017
    0
    Disturbingly bad. Unimaginative, soulless, bad writing, bad acting, no sense of space exploration and adventure, no science in sci-fi... Did CBS hire a bunch of middle schoolers to write this? Visually it's the same level of lazy and unimaginative: tilted camera angles, lens flares, blockbuster CGI, no soul, no sense, nothing more than a cynical ploy to make you give your money to CBS.
  26. notafan54
    Sep 30, 2017
    0
    Character Michael Burnham ruins this show. She is not believable nor even likeable. Lt. Saru is disgusting to look at. It's the future. Don't they have better plastic surgery? The Klingons are a joke. Why are we going with Klingons? How about something new? That's what the Original show was all about. The unknown. The only redeemable is Michelle Yeoh. The rest of the show really stinks.Character Michael Burnham ruins this show. She is not believable nor even likeable. Lt. Saru is disgusting to look at. It's the future. Don't they have better plastic surgery? The Klingons are a joke. Why are we going with Klingons? How about something new? That's what the Original show was all about. The unknown. The only redeemable is Michelle Yeoh. The rest of the show really stinks. it is not Trek Worthy and I have seen every episode in all of the earlier series. They are also pushing Homosexual activity onto the show. What's the point? Star Trek Sucks Literally!… Expand
  27. JLC
    Sep 30, 2017
    8
    The only problem was the visual (Lens Flares and the battle scenes).
    The characters were amazing, and the script was fine and well written
    If you consider the visual as canon, you wont like it.
    If you consider only the history, well...you'll be rewarded.

    3/4
  28. coustoe
    Sep 29, 2017
    0
    Uninspiring, unoriginal, boring and dull. Seems like CBS tried to save money on the writing and development team. Another lazy attempt by corporate heads and SJWs to milk a franchise without coming up with any original ideas on their own.
  29. MysticDingo
    Sep 29, 2017
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. HONEST REVIEW:
    It's just not Star Trek. We have Michael Burnham as the main character, and the only one that matters. She's a complete Mary-Sue character who is perfect in everything she tries to do. The show gives the appearance of her failing, but she doesn't actually fail at anything. Seeing as how she is able to do any job required on the ship so far, it's a wonder why there are any other characters at all, specifically the science officer. Furthermore, once they encounter the Klingons, our Mary-Sue thinks that she knows better than the captain, assaults the captain with a vulcan nerve pinch(really? any trekkie knows that the only being other than a vulcan who can perform this is Data, an android), and then proceeds to mutiny on the ship. It "fails" but she gets her desired result anyways. Since when is mutiny, assaulting a superior, and disobeying direct orders something that makes for good star trek? My question is, where's the crew? Where's the meaningful character interaction? Where's the moral or philosophical question at heart in the episode(s)? No, what we get is a pew pew fest where needless things happen. If you have watched it, then Michael had no need to go out to the beacon, why not send a drone instead which we know they had because they planned to use one to carry a torpedo in the second episode. Why did the captain and first officer leave the ship in an attempt to capture the klingon leader, resulting in the captains death? Why did Michael MURDER the Klingon leader after killing the captain even though they were going there to capture the Klingon to disgrace him, instead of killing him and thereby turning him into a martyr? Michael literally disrespected the memory of her captain by intentionally failing in her mission. And for god sakes, why give a black female character a dudes name? Michael? Really? The only reason for this is for the writers to virtue signal and go "Oh look how progressive we are!" Why not show some ACTUAL respect for ACTUAL black females by ACTUALLY giving Michael a REAL black female name like, Tamika, or Monique, or Aaliyah, or Chanelle?

    At the end of episode 2, we see Michael getting courtmartialed and sentenced to life imprisonment, only to have the preview for the rest of the seasons episodes completely shatter than. According to the previews, it looks like Michael will get some sort of work release on a Federation ship, where she loses all her previous rank and prestige and will likely have to work her way up from the bottom and "overcome a ton of adversity and oppression," that she quite frankly deserves after assaulting her captain and attempting a mutiny!!!! Seriously, watch as they try to cast Michael as the good guy(girl?) in trying to overcome her adversity and oppression while ignoring the fact that she's the one who brought it on herself!!!!

    Worst aspects of the show:
    1. Klingons have been downgraded from a noble warrior race and turned into mindless beasts which look ugly, and can't speak Klingon for crap.
    2. Michael is the only human to have studied at the Vulcan Science Academy, and who can perform a Vulcan nerve pinch. Completely cannon breaking on both counts.
    3. The entire series revolves around a black female named Michael, who is important because she's black, a female, smarter than men and can kick their asses. Total Mary-Sue. If you liked the Mary-Sue-Perfect-In-Every-Way character known as Rey from "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," then you may just love this show.
    4. Because the show center's around Michael, there's no need for crew. There's no crew interactions, no asking of the opinions of the science, tactical, medical, or engineering officers, because Michael is so perfect she just knows everything and what the right course of action in any situation is of course.
    5. It's not sci-fi. It's set in space in the future sure, but it's not real sci-fi. There's no real deep science fiction questions or problems to solve. There are no moral and philosophical questions to deal with that have been the basis of Star Trek for decades. All this new show has is "Wow sweet graphics bro!" and "OMG PEW PEW PEW!!!!! YEAH LET'S KICK SOME KLINGON ASS!!!"

    All in all, this show looks to be the death knell of Star Trek as we know it. If this is the caliber of Star Trek show/shows we can expect to come in the future, then I'm going to start watching ST: Enterprise reruns because ST:E blows Discovery out of the water.    … Expand
  30. 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
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 »