I finally bit the bullet and ordered a subscription to CBS All Access (Paramount+) so I could watch "Star Trek: Discovery," the next installation to the Star Trek Franchise. This is a review of the first three seasons.
The first season starts out strong -- taking place a decade or two before the Original Star Trek, following the adventures of Michael Burnham, as she becomes a member of the Discovery, a science vessel that ends up being very important.
Burnham disgraces herself by helping to start a war with the Klingons. Captain Lorca is the only one who will take her on to his ship, the Discovery. Together they try to stop the war.
The ship is equipped with a spore drive that can instantly take the ship anywhere in the known galaxy. Yeah -- it's a technology that's far more advanced than anything we've seen in Star Trek, but don't worry, they take care of that toward the end of season two -- much like how C3PO gets his mind erased at the end of Star Wars III.
The first season held my attention until the writers decided to introduce the mirror universe. Yes -- insert eye-rolly things here. If it's one thing I hate, it's further mirror episodes beyond the Original Series. I know it's meant just to be fun, but if you think about it -- out of an infinite number of parallel worlds, they always end up in the same exact mirror universe? And everything is opposite -- evil and good switched? And yet the people look the same? How exactly can things be so opposite while at the same time preserving the genealogies?
It turns out that the mirror universe plays a large part of season 1, but in the end, they make it all work out pretty nicely.
Season 2 seemed to be more of a big bag of Star Trek easter eggs. It features Spock and Captain Pike at a time shortly after the pilot episode from the Original Series. This is also when the shows starting becoming more hit and miss. Season 1 suffered a bit from this as well, but not so much.
I think the problem is when a show is written by committee instead of by a strong show runner. Many threads seem to be opened only to be ignored, or even contradicted in later episodes. Sometimes some of the minor characters behave different between episodes. Some characters play minor roles, only to have a whole episode devoted to them just prior to killing them off.
My least favorite episodes by far so far were the last two -- the closer -- for season 2. It was just bad writing, bad editing, and a lot of rushing. So many plot holes. And then some kind of crazy excuse to set up Season 3 in a totally different place -- so to speak.
And Season 3 has been the weakest so far -- kind of like Doctor Who recently, which has lately been more politics and less plot. I just thought the overall arch for Season 3 was weak and inconsistent.
Also -- not to mention that this series doesn't feel too much like the Star Trek I grew up with. For example, the writers decided to introduce F-bombs, even though it was established more than once that "colorful metaphors" were no longer needed in Roddenberry's future.
I'll most likely continue watching, but it might be a while for me.
