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. 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
  2. james-cordoban
    Oct 25, 2017
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The ratings are a good example when the dual ranking of "metacritic" pays of. Nearly all "professional reviews" were done after the pilot, whereas the user score increases per time an reveals, imho, the more accurate ranking (e. g. with "The Orville" its the same).

    I'm not a Trekkie and I like it more dystopian. The one point I give for the visual effects. I don't give any more points because of giant plot holes (in E4 & 5 all it was all about how to power the spore-drive, in E6 they just jumped, no explanation how they did it, if they used the "eugenics" (sic!) way again), cheesy and unconvincing dialoges (the characters put their "heavy with meaning" voice on all the time and are always throwing worldly wisdom around), incredible sterotype characters (making the cast more diverse is great, but it doesn't help much if you just let them perform very uninspired role models).

    What really set me off was in E06, when the female Admiral (forgot her name, sry) is really , really upset with Cpt. Lorca (male) and he just offers some drinks, says "we can spend the time better", puts her hand on her leg and she gets up and undresses -- what the **** Let's get the Golden Raspberry Awards for the Writers!

    Watch "The Orville", that's definately the better show!    … Expand
  3. melchel
    Oct 24, 2017
    0
    How utterly disappointing. The writers of this show have completely missed the point of Star Trek. There’s no solidarity among the crew, there is conflict EVERYWHERE, they’re using **** saying **** A LOT, being sarcastic with each other, questioning superior officers all over the place, and torturing an innocent creature for their own benefit. And the storyline with the Klingons isHow utterly disappointing. The writers of this show have completely missed the point of Star Trek. There’s no solidarity among the crew, there is conflict EVERYWHERE, they’re using **** saying **** A LOT, being sarcastic with each other, questioning superior officers all over the place, and torturing an innocent creature for their own benefit. And the storyline with the Klingons is overbearing. It’s just terrible and it’s simply not Star Trek. It’s just stolen the name.… Expand
  4. 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.
  5. 998817268
    Oct 31, 2017
    0
    It's your bog standard sci-fi that unironically follows any sci-fi trope you could imagine. It's also melodramatic to the point of being unintentionally comedic at times. Good is not a word I would use to describe this show, because it's boring and hammy.
  6. Elstgav
    Oct 16, 2017
    0
    This show is tragically bad. There isn’t a single likeable character, the dialogue is painfully wooden, the Klingons can’t act behind their rubbery makeup, none of the crew members seem to like or even respect each other. It’s appalling to see how they got the tone of Star Trek fundamentally wrong on EVERY level. Star Trek was an optimistic show about humanity working together and doingThis show is tragically bad. There isn’t a single likeable character, the dialogue is painfully wooden, the Klingons can’t act behind their rubbery makeup, none of the crew members seem to like or even respect each other. It’s appalling to see how they got the tone of Star Trek fundamentally wrong on EVERY level. Star Trek was an optimistic show about humanity working together and doing their best when confronted with moral dilemmas. In STD we have starfleet officers who mutiny, bald-face lie, are warmongers, carelessly insubordinate, commit warcrimes, are unwelcoming, untrusting, willing to torture animals to get their way (literally!), the list goes on… STD is just offensively bad and disrespectful to the Star Trek franchise.… Expand
  7. McMcDr
    Oct 11, 2017
    0
    It's not Star Trek, it's just SJW - propaganda.

    Tbh. i really hope the authors and the responsible persons, including their families and child will die on cancer. They totaly destroyed the Star Trek - Label
  8. sabrose1020
    Feb 12, 2018
    0
    Its pretty clear CBS caught wind of the negative reviews on this site and hired some botters to equalize things.
    The network has tried to shelter this show from itself by putting it on all access.It wouldnt have lasted a season on over the air television. Its playing with Netflix money for season 2 and has yet to release how many people actually watch the show on all access.
    It    Its pretty clear CBS caught wind of the negative reviews on this site and hired some botters to equalize things.
    The network has tried to shelter this show from itself by putting it on all access.It wouldnt have lasted a season on over the air television. Its playing with Netflix money for season 2 and has yet to release how many people actually watch the show on all access.
    It needs to listen to the negative reviews fire some people and hire someone with some competence to run it or its deader than a doornail.
    The contrived finale was one only Neville Chamberlain would love. But it fit the entire season -garbage.    … Expand
  9. Locust69
    Nov 18, 2017
    0
    utter garbage with nice cgi... go watch orville this is just a bad joke. Like everything bad about JJ-trek and nothing good. Story is bad, characters are TERRIBLE, cast is mostly boring + they used star trek to promote left wing agenda and SJW, PC propaganda (also the reason why so called pro-reviewers like it so much). Characters are probably biggest problem: bunch of arrogant clownsutter garbage with nice cgi... go watch orville this is just a bad joke. Like everything bad about JJ-trek and nothing good. Story is bad, characters are TERRIBLE, cast is mostly boring + they used star trek to promote left wing agenda and SJW, PC propaganda (also the reason why so called pro-reviewers like it so much). Characters are probably biggest problem: bunch of arrogant clowns written by some leftie millenial with no taste and doing terrible decisions every ten minutes... also good to know that devs compare klingons to trumps voters and only competent persons in star fleet are women while men are all racists or/and idi*ts... #NotMyStarTrek… Expand
  10. 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
  11. BurningHatred
    Oct 9, 2017
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was cautiously optimistic after watching the pilot episodes, which showcased stunning visual effects and sets more than anything else. I understand that this is 2017 and Star Trek is competing with shows like Game of Thrones which has set the bar incredibly high for what general audiences expect from TV series nowadays. Visually I have no complaints, it looks as good or even better than most sci fi movies I've seen recently, and I'm perfectly OK with visual changes made to the alien races. The other change/compromise that I have come to accept is that modern audiences want serialised programming, as opposed to a literal episodic format. This is part of the reason that I wasn't initially as turned off by the character of Michael Burnham as most people were. I understand that in a 15 episode serial, our main character needs to undergo a slow, gradual change over the course of the entire story. In the case of Michael they are clearly going for a redemption arc, which is nothing new or interesting, but it's perfectly passable. Long story short, I was hopeful that once the trappings of pilot dirty work were out of the way, we were in for some quality trek adventures, exploration, and maybe, just maybe, some discoveries along the way.

    Well, two episodes later I'm genuinely sad to say that the quality of this show has taken a nosedive in the hands of infamous Hollywood hack Alex Kurtzman, known for helming such classics as The Amazing Spiderman 2, Star Trek Into Darkness, Transformers, and many more. Only someone like Kurtzman could write a Star Trek ensemble, where literally every single character is a vapid, arrogant, smug prick who you hope fails in their mission to unleash war and destruction on the universe. Remember Gene Roddenberry's bright, hopeful vision of the future? Well forget it, because Star Trek is about people fighting with each other over how best to create weapons of mass destruction, YAY! In the pilot episode, the character Saru tells us that his race were biologically determined for the sole purpose of sensing the coming of death. I think the rest of the cast were biologically determined for the sole purpose of bickering at each other relentlessly while making highly idiotic decisions.

    But above all else, my main disappointment lies within the main character, Michael. And that's really the problem isn't it, this is a Star Trek show with a main character that the story almost exclusively focuses on. As I said, I was initially lenient on her despite the bizarre course of action she takes in the pilot episodes. I wanted to see her redeem herself by doing acts of kindness and selflessness, that would start out small and gradually become more and more significant. But less than two episodes after her mutiny, Michael is right back to her old ways. It's bad enough that she's cuddling up with the comically evil captain of the USS Discovery, Lorca, but what's worse is that she shows almost no signs of resentment for Lorca's boner for war and turning the Discovery into a war ship (???). You would think she of all people would be pleading for diplomacy and doing things differently, but no she has been relegated from her road to redemption and now serves as a passive protagonist, who spends her time caring for Lorca's murder machines. In some scenes on the contrary, she actually does seem to be filled with regret; but given her relationship with Lorca it just feels so tonally off. What the hell is this character supposed to be? It's like she's being written by two different people who speak different languages and can't communicate with each other or something. Oh, and speaking of relegated characters, Saru is now a walking vessel for Michael's backstory/sob stories to be filled in. At some point the writers must have realised that their main character is a miserable villain with no sympathetic qualities, so every now and then they drag Saru, one of her old colleagues into the scene so we can have a scene of her briefly smiling, as opposed to her usual expression of despair.

    I realise that I only have a few hundred characters left, which won't be enough to fully articulate my hatred for the character of 'Paul Stamets', but it goes without saying he encapsulates everything wrong with this new series. It's a Trek series that portrays the future as a dismal battlefield in space, one that I wouldn't WANT to discover. It feels like a Star Trek rollercoaster ride at six flags, not a serial. Before I end it I want to mention that I don't blame the character of Michael on the actress Martin Green, I actually think she's doing a pretty good job with what she's been given. Same with Saru, Lorca and Phillipa who I haven't mentioned, but I enjoyed Michelle Yeoh's performance in the pilot and was really disappointed that she was killed off so early.

    PS: I said earlier in the review that EVERY character was smug and dislikeable; exclude Tilly from that. Ripper and Tilly, please save us all.    … Expand
  12. MK500
    Oct 3, 2017
    1
    If you want to watch Star Trek; watch The Orville instead. Even after 3 episodes, this dark abomination has nothing to do with Gene Rodenberry‘s Star Trek. I feel terrible for the very decent actors that have to try to make something out of this horrible writing. You want to like the characters; but the situations they find themselves in are so absurd that it just doesn’t work. It feelsIf you want to watch Star Trek; watch The Orville instead. Even after 3 episodes, this dark abomination has nothing to do with Gene Rodenberry‘s Star Trek. I feel terrible for the very decent actors that have to try to make something out of this horrible writing. You want to like the characters; but the situations they find themselves in are so absurd that it just doesn’t work. It feels like they are trying to squeeze 3 episodes of plot into every episode. This series is obviously very high budget, but they should have hired some decent writers instead of dumping it all into CGI. I’m a huge fan of every prior Star Trek series until this; but this one is going to need to take a seriously major turn to have any hope of winning my fandom. If it wasn’t for The Orville I would be very depressed right now.

    Here is an easy way to judge a new Star Trek series: Does it make you feel inspired and excited about the future of mankind? This one is a hard No.

    Remember that Star Trek is often cited by astronauts and NASA engineers as one the things that inspired them to choose their path in life. I can’t imagine this series inspiring anyone.    … Expand
  13. Wihglah
    Oct 5, 2017
    2
    if you like Incompetent, criminal and cowardly bridge officers, unintelligible Klingons, war crimes committed by STARFLEET personnel - oh and weaponised lens flare, then this is the show for you.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. AngelZash
    Oct 15, 2017
    0
    I really really wanted to like this show, but the fact is: it's just not Star Trek!

    The characters aren't bad, and the writing is good if you ignore the fact the entire first two episodes would have been better being alluded to and referenced in the third and later episodes rather than being a full two (or single two-parter) episodes. However, the writers seem to have forgotten their    I really really wanted to like this show, but the fact is: it's just not Star Trek!

    The characters aren't bad, and the writing is good if you ignore the fact the entire first two episodes would have been better being alluded to and referenced in the third and later episodes rather than being a full two (or single two-parter) episodes. However, the writers seem to have forgotten their timeline and they seem to have neglected to find out about actual Star Trek canon when it comes to ethics and technology. I can get over Burnham being Sarek's foster daughter and being raised as Spock's brother. I find it harder to get over a Starfleet whose members would not immediately question the pain of a creature in front of them (even for science!). Not even Kirk or Sisko, arguably the more ruthless captains, would have gone for that. Additionally, the whole mutiny seems overblown and contrived from every angle, Burnham's being blamed for starting the entire war is definitely contrived, and even in war, maybe especially in war, no military organization is going to allow a mutineer to serve on a ship again. If the writers want to make things more interesting by bending or breaking the rules and canon, they should first LEARN those rules and that canon inside and out. As it is, it's obvious they are taking a few bits and pieces and merrily throwing out what doesn't suit them.

    The writers need to learn what made Star Trek a cultural phenomenon. It wasn't the science or the action or even the special effects; it was the heart and spirit of the show. It was the idea that humanity could learn and grow, we could become something bigger and better than what we are, and then we could reach the stars and keep our ideals and values even as we face impossible odds. Star Trek has always given us hope of a better way, a better tomorrow. This series would have us believe nothing changes and we are doomed to be a race of jerks forever.

    I really wanted to like this show, and I do see so so much potential in it. It just isn't Star Trek as it is. But hey, if all you want is a sci-if flick with lots of action and special effects, then this is the show for you!    … Expand
  17. joejoe1
    Nov 4, 2017
    2
    I couldn't continue watching episode 7 because it was just too awful. Lame, boring, unfocused, and extremely bad writing. I remember when TNG came out, there was so much excitement every week. People made it a point to clear their schedules to watch the show, and talked about it afterwards. Are they trying to wreck the franchise? Because STD will do exactly that.
  18. moviestalker
    Oct 7, 2017
    1
    So what happend here is that they put a 'Star Trek' sticker on a below average scifi show and hope to make a few bucks by fooling the fanbase with pretty costumes and explosions. Roddenberry would be rolling in his grave if he saw this.

    Ever since J.J.Abrams dealt severe damage to the Star Trek franchise by turning it into a over the top action circus and rewrote the shows law as he saw    So what happend here is that they put a 'Star Trek' sticker on a below average scifi show and hope to make a few bucks by fooling the fanbase with pretty costumes and explosions. Roddenberry would be rolling in his grave if he saw this.

    Ever since J.J.Abrams dealt severe damage to the Star Trek franchise by turning it into a over the top action circus and rewrote the shows law as he saw fit, I didn't have much hope that this show would follow a different path. And (sadly) I was correct. What we have here, feels like a bad crossover between 'Mass Effect' & 'J.J Abrams-Trek' and the longer you watch it, the more unbearable it becomes...

    Dear Hollywood writers: If this abomination is the best you can do when you think of Star Trek, then let the franchise die. Seriously: Let.it.die.
    Nobody needs weird looking klingons that talk, as if they had cotton balls in their mouth. Nobody needs these poorly written plots that make zero sense and Nobody needs your "vision" of Star Trek.    … Expand
  19. Angus
    Sep 28, 2017
    0
    Stafleet is now the bad, anti-liberal, intolerant team.

    "Reimagined" Klingons are not righteous or bad, but want to be left to their own culture. The new Star Trek+ crowd never saw Deep Space Nine, aka the best Star Trek series in my opinion, or at least the one I enjoyed the most due to Sisko and his son. Not because his skin color, because Avery Brooks and Cirroc Loften (sp?) are    Stafleet is now the bad, anti-liberal, intolerant team.

    "Reimagined" Klingons are not righteous or bad, but want to be left to their own culture.

    The new Star Trek+ crowd never saw Deep Space Nine, aka the best Star Trek series in my opinion, or at least the one I enjoyed the most due to Sisko and his son. Not because his skin color, because Avery Brooks and Cirroc Loften (sp?) are great actors. This series faced everyone checkmark on the modern anti-liberal left's progressive stack but did not preach like the creationists of old. You had a strong female first officer conflicted in her faith and the new anti-faith Federation perhaps taking the place of the fascist Cardassians who left the occupations. You had a science officer who lived life as a man and a women via her symbiote. Dr. Bashir was a character that had many facets but his character's biggest reveal was a discussion on eugenics and "designer kids." Shapeshift, male chauvanist Ferengi bar-tender with a heart of gold. Mysogist is the modern word to determine if you are a moron. If you use it in reference to anything today in the west from an institutionailzed aspect unironically then you are truly a moron.

    The new Star Trek throws away all good discussion on social issues and states with no subtlety...

    "If you are right of Lenin then you are evil, racist, sexist and any other new douche-words the anti-liberal left progressives make up."

    Would have been nice to not be preached to, but division is all that LA, San Francisco and New York has left. No one wants their **** politics, especially in entertainment or elected office nowadays but they are going to push it until they incite and actual backlash that will cause loss of life on a massive level.

    Too bad though, the main actress was good on walking dead and a deep character. We know she can act better if the writing was better and not one-dimensional hatred justification against those you don't politically agree with.    … Expand
  20. FRK
    Sep 28, 2017
    1
    The new series is a huge disappointment. Endless crying, overemotional, badly written long and senseless dialogues, no charisma from any of the characters, no engaging plot. So long waiting and what we get is a badly written and juvenile pair of episodes. It seems the producers have never seen a single start trek movie or series chapter before. So many resorces to do en epic series, such aThe new series is a huge disappointment. Endless crying, overemotional, badly written long and senseless dialogues, no charisma from any of the characters, no engaging plot. So long waiting and what we get is a badly written and juvenile pair of episodes. It seems the producers have never seen a single start trek movie or series chapter before. So many resorces to do en epic series, such a waste of time. Awful..… Expand
  21. hitzestau
    Nov 15, 2017
    0
    This is not what I expect from a show carrying the words Star Trek in its name. Everything that has been established in over 50 years is disregarded and ignored by producers and writers. The plots of the individual episodes are full of holes, races like Klingons and Vulcans have been rewritten or undergone a complete reboot.

    All the core Star Trek values are not present in this show –    This is not what I expect from a show carrying the words Star Trek in its name. Everything that has been established in over 50 years is disregarded and ignored by producers and writers. The plots of the individual episodes are full of holes, races like Klingons and Vulcans have been rewritten or undergone a complete reboot.

    All the core Star Trek values are not present in this show – and how shall all this turn into the Starfleet and the Federation we know from the adventures of Captain Kirk only nine years later? This is by no way a prequel (which is already bad enough), this is a lame sci-fi show that is abusing the words Star Trek in its title. If it wasn’t for those two words, the show would never have gotten this kind of attention and would have probably already been cancelled.

    This doesn’t bring Star Trek into the 21century, where TV shows are darker and it is less easy to tell heroes and villains apart. This also not about confronting the Star Trek values like respect for other lifeforms and peaceful coexistence with an ugly reality – no, with this new show, Star Trek itself has become that ugly reality.    … Expand
  22. 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
  23. ameenk67
    Oct 10, 2017
    2
    Simply does not live up to the Star Trek name. Being only 18 and watching almost every star trek episode in existence this show leaves much to be desired. Acting is shallow, weird camera angles and a flashy show all equate to something that rewrites the start trek genre and for me, that is not the star trek I have grown to love from a young age.
  24. Wizzer
    Oct 23, 2017
    0
    This is not Star Trek. It is a sci-fi that tries to imitate Star Trek made by people that are clueless about Star Trek. The cgi is great but everrything else is a major letdown. It doesn't even work as a mediocre non-Trek bland sci-fi show as the wooden and uninspired acting is unbearable to watch.
  25. afngary
    Sep 29, 2017
    0
    Been a Star Trek fan since the 70s and must say this is NOT Star Trek. This is total trash and not worth watching. The background, characters, and poor acting is really bad. Most of all this basically another JJ reboot. Stay away from this STD!
  26. OldTrekkie
    Sep 28, 2017
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I watched the 1st 2 episodes of Star Trek Discovery and these episodes will be my last. I was a kid when the original Star Trek (TOS) aired in 1966. Through reruns and syndication as I was getting older, I came to know the TOS episodes and the storylines very well.

    This version is the most implausible Star Trek to date. These 2 episodes are as bad as the finale of Star Trek Enterprise. The ship doesn't resemble the TOS Ship at all. In fact, we don't see the Starship Discovery in the 1st 2 episodes. That's a serious mistake for a premier of a series IMO.

    For the Trekkies who know TOS, on 2254 (or 2253) Spock with Captain Pike experience the adventure in the original unaired pilot "The Cage", which was used in TOS Season 1, episodes 11 and 12 titled the Menagerie. The Cage was not broadcast in its original form until in 1988 on TV. The Enterprise in that episode doesn't look like the ship Shenzhou in these episodes, even though its the same time frame. The uniforms don't match TOS, and the technology is way too advanced than the same time frame in TOS. Now I know this series is 51 years later, but geez, have a modicum of continuity.

    Since when does Star Trek borrow from Star Wars with the Hologram communications? The writing and acting in these episodes are deplorable to say the least. Burnham tells Captain Georgiou, if you kill T'Kuvma, he will be a martyr for the Klingons and it'll rally the Klingons to fight in his name. So after T'Kuvma kills the Captain, she kills him anyway. The tribunal is a compete joke where she sentenced to life imprisonment for Mutiny, striking an officer, and insubordination. She pleaded guilty before sentencing and states she'll violate Starfleet principles if she has to or something like that. Now in future episodes Gabriel Lorca, (Jason Issacs who I like as an actor) gets her sentence dismissed and takes her to his ship "The Discovery" for the war with the Klingons. How do you know if she disagrees with your decision she won't mutiny again or at least disobey orders? This is such poppycock. The weapons like the phasers are more advanced than TOS. Especially the rifle/gun used in the beginning to bring water to the surface of the desert planet and the Prime Directive is completely ignored. Why even have a prime directive at all? Is Burnham going to continue to disregard the prime directive every time she disagrees with it?

    So far, she's one of the worst Star Trek Characters ever to be in one of the Star Trek TV Shows. I 'd find it amazing if true Trekkies, especially from my age group, like this show. Its pathetic, unrealistic, and most of all insulting to older Trekkies like myself. I'll probably be wrong about my prediction, but this series shouldn't last 1 season.

    It seems people today are content with any movie or series created for one of the 6 top franchises of all time. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, James Bond, the Marvel Universe, and the DC Universe ( I know there are others like Rocky. Alien, Predator, Terminator, Dr. Who, etc...). Don't get me wrong, I grew up with 5 of the 6 and enjoyed the Harry Potter Series immensely. However, prequels, sequels, changing characters for diversity purposes, incorrect time lines, alternate universes or alternate versions of characters, reboots, and relaunches are saturation at its worst.

    For the comic book fans who read this post, since when was Barry Allen brought up by a step father who has a daughter named Iris West and a brother namesd Wally West. That concept goes against the original storyline of the Flash. The original Defenders were the Hulk, Doctor Strange, and Namor The Sub Mariner.

    It seems some heroes have become passe like Namor, The Green Hornet, and The Lone Ranger (Johnny Deep's movie, with him playing Tonto didn't do anything for that franchise nor did Seth Rogen's movie about the Green Hornet). I think the Green Hornet could be made today with a great script and two good actors playing Kato and the Green Hornet. The 1966 one season series of the Green Hornet is still a Cult Classic TV Series.

    Can we create anything else these days than redoing the same characters over and over again with different storylines just to attract new generations? Why doesn't the franchises create additional characters for the story to attract new audiences? Superman will become the Man of Tomorrow again as he was in 1938 as opposed to being the Man of Steel. How many times are we going to relaunch a character when the previous reboot didn't work out? Most changes I don't agree with, but once in a while there's a change I do agree with regarding these franchises. Wonder Woman was always set during World War II (WWII), not WWI. Is Steve Trevor dead? I doubt it, but I disagreed with this change in the storyline just like "Discovery". Yet, Superman and Wonder Woman should be together in this day and age.

    Thanks for reading.,

    OldTrekkie    … Expand
  27. 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).
  28. Tony2017
    Oct 27, 2017
    0
    Oh my God... what a horrible TV show. This should be taken down. The true Star Trek Gene Roddenberry is so far from ST Discovery. Horrible and all values for example ST TNG are flushed down the drain. The lack of respect for the true spirit of ST is just to much!!!! I decided not to watch the rest when the captain mentioned the name Elon Musk. What the ****, all respect for the man andOh my God... what a horrible TV show. This should be taken down. The true Star Trek Gene Roddenberry is so far from ST Discovery. Horrible and all values for example ST TNG are flushed down the drain. The lack of respect for the true spirit of ST is just to much!!!! I decided not to watch the rest when the captain mentioned the name Elon Musk. What the ****, all respect for the man and what he did, but to pay your way into a Star Trek series that belongs to the fans and not to particular individuals. I will not watch the rest! I will just go on my DVD-s for TNG, DS9, Voyager, where I can actually learn some interesting stuff every time I watch the shows.… Expand
  29. kaindestroi
    Sep 27, 2017
    2
    There is no logic in this show and to much emphasis on the fiction with no science behind it,
    This show could just as well be about elf's and goblins, not at all how sci-fi should be like.
    and they botched the Klingons!
  30. PhotonEmotion
    Oct 3, 2017
    0
    Where is Captain Conway, where is she? Where is Piccard! Where is Benjamin Sisko (I loved him!). No this Star Trek gutted the original vision of Roddenberry into something CNN would be proud of! Gone with the optimism, bye bye to the Klingons who had been degraded tribal barbarians who could never be imagined to have successfully built an Empire!
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 »