Menu
Spinning is always a good Trick
(Spoilers, Obviously)
Discovery is a middling show
Having finished the 1st season, I'm of the opinion that Discovery wasn't much to write home about. Not terrible, by any stretch of the imagination. But, equally, not good. This middle-of-the-road comparison can be applied to nearly all aspects of the show, I think. It's certainly not boring, but it's also not particularly engaging. It's not bright and utopian, but it's hardly dystopian, even if it seems darker than previous iterations of Star Trek. The acting is serviceable but not the best performance that any of the main cast have ever given.
Discovery comes off as a bland, by accountant's council cash grab into a market that is at once over saturated and devoid of material. That is to say that science fiction is reaching a commercial zenith with all sorts of booming franchises, however the Star Trek style of science fiction has been sorely maligned in the last decade, with a few notable exceptions.
The thing is, while I'm sure CBS just wanted something to get "the nerd audience" on board with their shitty streaming service, I'm also fairly certain that the writers behind this show thought they could tell a good story. When Bryan Fuller was announced as the prospective show runner, people were excited. Perhaps this was unwarranted. His legacy was, after all, 2 very melodramatic episodes of DS9 and routine involvement with Voyager. However, nobody could say he didn't have Trek credentials.
Of course, Fuller would eventually get bounced from his position. And since then he has, unfairly, been tarred with the accusation that everything that is terrible about Discovery is somehow related to him. While he was absolutely part of the problem, I doubt Fuller was responsible for all of the bad decisions that went into making Discovery what it is.
Fuller's main involvement was with the 2-part Pilot. We can see how this 2-parter set the tone and visual style (2 things i dislike about Discovery). People were very divided over these choices. Some people liked the "modernisation" whereas some people saw it as overly dark. The one thing it shouldn't have done is surprise us. I mean, look at where Fuller went after Voyager. He was the developer behind Hannibal, a show with a stark visual style and an obsessive, almost pornographic attention to detail when it came to violence and viscera. With each season, the production and direction staff sought to find more shocking and garish imagery with which to assault the viewer.
So is it really all the surprising that Fuller's Trek ended up being much darker (visually) while repeatedly attempting to shock the audience with body-horror, cannibalism, sexual violence and torture? Or that the Klingon redesign made them look like demons living in lavish bdsm castles? I'm not blaming Fuller for all of this. I'm saying that CBS took a guy who has a deserved reputation for fucked up, intense imagery and gave him a show about making friends in space with human-looking aliens. There was really only 1 way that decision was going to pay off. And I think that was something CBS was going for. "Gritty, Grim, Gory". To compete with the current glut of dark science fiction. Your Westworld, Altered Carbon, Cloverfield and whatever else.
One of the problems, then, is that they chose to try this with Star Trek, while also trying to still be Star Trek. There is a dissonance between all the lofty exposition dumps about how great and noble Starfleet is (and there are quite a fucking few) and how everybody in this show behaves. Not just the Mirror characters, but the good guys too. With the notable exception of Tilly, everybody else engages in some action or another that would get them bounced out of Starfleet, on their own initiative. Just as the new aesthetic of Discovery doesn't line up with old versions of the series, it's own logic is not internally consistent.
So the show has a lot of problems (many of which I'll discuss later). But a lot of the execution is technically sufficient. The bad design of the Discovery is assayed by the flashy visual style of the show. You don't have a lot of time to look at the fuck-ugly exterior because everything is always in motion. Visually and narratively. The show rarely pauses in it's storytelling to give you time to absorb the stupider details. This is certainly one way of dealing with the weaker elements of your plot/setting/design. Another way to deal with them might be to go back to the drawing board and iron that shit out.
So, I don't hate Discovery. But I don't really like it either. It sits there, existing. And the strongest emotion I can muster for it is disappointment. I'm disappointed that this flashy action schlock is what Star Trek is now. I'm disappointed that the hype engine of the internet will probably keep the embryonic problems with this show from being done away with and I'm disappointed that we're not likely to get a good, thoughtful Trek series any time in the near future. But hey, the show looks not-terrible, so there's that.
Discovery comes off as a bland, by accountant's council cash grab into a market that is at once over saturated and devoid of material. That is to say that science fiction is reaching a commercial zenith with all sorts of booming franchises, however the Star Trek style of science fiction has been sorely maligned in the last decade, with a few notable exceptions.
The thing is, while I'm sure CBS just wanted something to get "the nerd audience" on board with their shitty streaming service, I'm also fairly certain that the writers behind this show thought they could tell a good story. When Bryan Fuller was announced as the prospective show runner, people were excited. Perhaps this was unwarranted. His legacy was, after all, 2 very melodramatic episodes of DS9 and routine involvement with Voyager. However, nobody could say he didn't have Trek credentials.
Of course, Fuller would eventually get bounced from his position. And since then he has, unfairly, been tarred with the accusation that everything that is terrible about Discovery is somehow related to him. While he was absolutely part of the problem, I doubt Fuller was responsible for all of the bad decisions that went into making Discovery what it is.
Fuller's main involvement was with the 2-part Pilot. We can see how this 2-parter set the tone and visual style (2 things i dislike about Discovery). People were very divided over these choices. Some people liked the "modernisation" whereas some people saw it as overly dark. The one thing it shouldn't have done is surprise us. I mean, look at where Fuller went after Voyager. He was the developer behind Hannibal, a show with a stark visual style and an obsessive, almost pornographic attention to detail when it came to violence and viscera. With each season, the production and direction staff sought to find more shocking and garish imagery with which to assault the viewer.
So is it really all the surprising that Fuller's Trek ended up being much darker (visually) while repeatedly attempting to shock the audience with body-horror, cannibalism, sexual violence and torture? Or that the Klingon redesign made them look like demons living in lavish bdsm castles? I'm not blaming Fuller for all of this. I'm saying that CBS took a guy who has a deserved reputation for fucked up, intense imagery and gave him a show about making friends in space with human-looking aliens. There was really only 1 way that decision was going to pay off. And I think that was something CBS was going for. "Gritty, Grim, Gory". To compete with the current glut of dark science fiction. Your Westworld, Altered Carbon, Cloverfield and whatever else.
One of the problems, then, is that they chose to try this with Star Trek, while also trying to still be Star Trek. There is a dissonance between all the lofty exposition dumps about how great and noble Starfleet is (and there are quite a fucking few) and how everybody in this show behaves. Not just the Mirror characters, but the good guys too. With the notable exception of Tilly, everybody else engages in some action or another that would get them bounced out of Starfleet, on their own initiative. Just as the new aesthetic of Discovery doesn't line up with old versions of the series, it's own logic is not internally consistent.
So the show has a lot of problems (many of which I'll discuss later). But a lot of the execution is technically sufficient. The bad design of the Discovery is assayed by the flashy visual style of the show. You don't have a lot of time to look at the fuck-ugly exterior because everything is always in motion. Visually and narratively. The show rarely pauses in it's storytelling to give you time to absorb the stupider details. This is certainly one way of dealing with the weaker elements of your plot/setting/design. Another way to deal with them might be to go back to the drawing board and iron that shit out.
So, I don't hate Discovery. But I don't really like it either. It sits there, existing. And the strongest emotion I can muster for it is disappointment. I'm disappointed that this flashy action schlock is what Star Trek is now. I'm disappointed that the hype engine of the internet will probably keep the embryonic problems with this show from being done away with and I'm disappointed that we're not likely to get a good, thoughtful Trek series any time in the near future. But hey, the show looks not-terrible, so there's that.
Problems; imagined, real and irrelevant
Here I'm going to address what I feel are the 3 categories of problem that people most frequently have with Discovery. Most of them, particularly in the 1st and 3rd categories, are comments I've heard or read around the internet. A few of them are problems I feel the show has.
1: Bullshit
In the ever evolving pseudo-political landscape of the internet, there is a sort of arms race. People rush to find the dumbest reasons to hate/love something. Then they stockpile those reasons so that everybody can know that they feel the strongest about whatever thing they're deifying/demonising.
Naturally, Star Trek has it's fair share of assholes that do the same. Most notably and vocally, the identity politics crowd. That's right, everybody's favourite migraine. If you hate Discovery because of the colour of the actors' skin or their real/depicted sexual preference, then there is nothing I can do to save you. This is science fiction. It shouldn't matter what colour or creed somebody is centuries in the future. Fuck, this is Star Trek. The show that has been so ardently in favour of a colourblind future that it sometimes borders on weird. If you can't get behind a story unless the protagonist is the same colour or sex as you, then you're limiting yourself to an absurdly insular worldview and probably discounting most works of fiction. It is absurd and you are, by association and by action, an asshole.
But that goes both ways. If you are defending Discovery, or any show, for that matter, purely because of the sex, skin colour or preferences of the cast, then you are also ridiculous. I'm not so naive that I don't see why defending marginalised groups in tv and film is a worthwhile endeavour. But you can't expect subpar work to get a pass because of the cast and their own personal, private lives. That, right there, is how studios can justify putting in as little effort as possible. You're settling for less because the people making your shows know that you'll blindly defend them.
In summation, judge the quality of a show by its message and its performances, not the buzzword nonsense of your online tribe.
Naturally, Star Trek has it's fair share of assholes that do the same. Most notably and vocally, the identity politics crowd. That's right, everybody's favourite migraine. If you hate Discovery because of the colour of the actors' skin or their real/depicted sexual preference, then there is nothing I can do to save you. This is science fiction. It shouldn't matter what colour or creed somebody is centuries in the future. Fuck, this is Star Trek. The show that has been so ardently in favour of a colourblind future that it sometimes borders on weird. If you can't get behind a story unless the protagonist is the same colour or sex as you, then you're limiting yourself to an absurdly insular worldview and probably discounting most works of fiction. It is absurd and you are, by association and by action, an asshole.
But that goes both ways. If you are defending Discovery, or any show, for that matter, purely because of the sex, skin colour or preferences of the cast, then you are also ridiculous. I'm not so naive that I don't see why defending marginalised groups in tv and film is a worthwhile endeavour. But you can't expect subpar work to get a pass because of the cast and their own personal, private lives. That, right there, is how studios can justify putting in as little effort as possible. You're settling for less because the people making your shows know that you'll blindly defend them.
In summation, judge the quality of a show by its message and its performances, not the buzzword nonsense of your online tribe.
2: Criticism
With that out of the way, I want to cover the actual criticisms that can be leveled against Discovery. And there are a few. I'll preface this by saying that some of the criticisms here are things that can be built upon in a 2nd season and may, eventually be fixed.
I've already touched a little on the breakneck pace that Discovery engages in. This style of story telling sacrifices character development and setting development in favour of action. You'll note that nearly every episode of Discovery ends with a "WHAT A TWEEST" moment. This is a very popular style of serialised tv at the moment, especially for online, bingeable series. Where you finish your story and immediately start into the next one as a way of fabricating a cliffhanger. There isn't inherently a problem with this as a plot device. But it becomes tiring. Sometimes it pays to end a story and leave it there, so you can start afresh with the next episode. Even DS9 and Enterprise, which had the most serialised style of Star Trek storytelling before Discovery, only used this trick sparingly.
So we actually know very little about the crew, the Federation in this time period or indeed the Discovery itself, because we've been much more caught up in the action than the development of those 3. Let's start with the least important of the 3, the world at large. We know bits and pieces. The Federation is still a peaceful, Utopian collection of species, generally trying to be friends with everyone. Those of us that have watched Star Trek will obviously know a lot more but, there lies the problem. Someone new to Star Trek, seeing Discovery for the 1st time, won't have those touchstones to fill in the gaps. All of the references that Discovery bandies about will seem obfuscating to a newcomer and intentionally exclusive, because all they have to go on is the actions of 1 super-dodgy crew and their interactions with each other. Looking in form the outside, someone might think that the Federation is just a bunch of humans getting aliens in trouble by being standoffish assholes. Hell, we know more about Vulcan "Logic Extremists" than we do about the humans of this time because they make their own ideology very clear.
Next we have the ship itself. What was her original purpose? Why was she chosen for the Mushroom drive experiments? We know she has a shit ton of science labs, but, besides engineering and the bridge, we see no other work-spaces on board. We don't see whatever other things this ship is being used for. We only have a very narrow idea of what her capabilities are. (besides spinning, that is.)
Then, and most damningly, we have to look at the crew of the Discovery. First let's look at the main cast. Who are they as people? Why should we like them? What do they do besides fight Klingons and plan more ways to fight Klingons? You can take any other crew in a Star Trek show and tell a lot about what kind of person each of them are by the end of the 1st season. Besides being involved with the main story, those characters develop alongside each other in scenes of downtime and debate. 2 classic Star Trek plot mechanisms that are sorely lacking in Discovery. Of all of them, Tilly is probably the best fleshed out. Her character is still threadbare, but we get little moments of characterisation. She's awkward and shy, but ambitious with a strained parental relationship. And yes, it's not like these characters are completely devoid of character. But they're all generally one-note. As time goes on, we might see these characters grow, hopefully.
What is less unclear, however, is how completely uncharacterised the secondary characters are. Besides Lorca, Burnham and Saru, there are 5 other recurring bridge characters that get dialogue. Without looking it up, think of how many of their names you can recall. And yes, they all have names, I checked. I'm guessing that the only one you remembered was Detmer, because she was also on the Shenzhou and her name got called out in the 3rd Episode. At a stretch, you might get Commander Airiam too, because they said her name a bunch and she constantly made random dubstep noises when she moved. But you know basically nothing about them. These aren't extras. These are named cast members with determined roles on the bridge. That's completely ridiculous. I don't expect to know everything about these characters and their motivations but there should be something more than "sits at their controls", right?
Finally, that brings me to all of the decisions surrounding Micheal Burnham, our protagonist. Firstly, it is very odd within Star Trek to pick a single main character. In Every series since TNG, it has been readily acceptable to have episodes that centre on 1 or several members of the cast that aren't the technical main character (the captain). Burnham is certainly the centre of our story, but there really wasn't a need to discard the other characters so completely. Yes, Lorca, Saru and Stamets get a fair few POV scenes, but only at the expense of Burnham. I think the most egregious example of this happens in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" where we mostly stick with Micheal and Mudd throughout the story. This is an episode where Stamets is the one reliving every cycle. It's odd then that we don't get to see his version of events, as he pieces together what's happening. Here, the show is sacrificing the better story element to facilitate a single romantic scene between Burnham and Ash Tyler. I shouldn't have to explain that this was a bad call, when there are always plenty of opportunities for that sort characterisation, while this was a singular opportunity to make Stamets more than the know it all asshole that gets high on space-shrooms.
Another bad decision regarding Burnham was deciding to make her special by relation rather than by action. Every character, at one point or another, tells us how special and competent Micheal Burnham is, she is also given the prodigy treatment by making her Sarek's ward. But we're never shown her doing something that sets her apart. She's a competent enough Starfleet Officer, but the solution to this weeks problem, more often comes from Saru or Tilly, than the supposed genius that is Burnham. It might seem like a nitpick, but if you say that your character is hot shit, it's important to back those claims up.
Focusing on 1 protagonist is always a gamble. You have to make that character likeable, relateable on some level and easy to root for. So it is baffling that the writers of Discovery decided to rehash the most antagonistic traits of 7 of 9 as a protagonist. It's hard to root for a character that doesn't give you reason to. This gradually changes as the story goes on, but we were in the Mirror Universe before I was even really on Burnham's side. I think a good way to have avoided this, might have been to relay the Battle of the Binary Stars as a flashback, later in the season, once we've already established that Burnham is a likeable person. That way, her character's shortcoming can be buffered by a pre-existing well of empathy.
I've already touched a little on the breakneck pace that Discovery engages in. This style of story telling sacrifices character development and setting development in favour of action. You'll note that nearly every episode of Discovery ends with a "WHAT A TWEEST" moment. This is a very popular style of serialised tv at the moment, especially for online, bingeable series. Where you finish your story and immediately start into the next one as a way of fabricating a cliffhanger. There isn't inherently a problem with this as a plot device. But it becomes tiring. Sometimes it pays to end a story and leave it there, so you can start afresh with the next episode. Even DS9 and Enterprise, which had the most serialised style of Star Trek storytelling before Discovery, only used this trick sparingly.
So we actually know very little about the crew, the Federation in this time period or indeed the Discovery itself, because we've been much more caught up in the action than the development of those 3. Let's start with the least important of the 3, the world at large. We know bits and pieces. The Federation is still a peaceful, Utopian collection of species, generally trying to be friends with everyone. Those of us that have watched Star Trek will obviously know a lot more but, there lies the problem. Someone new to Star Trek, seeing Discovery for the 1st time, won't have those touchstones to fill in the gaps. All of the references that Discovery bandies about will seem obfuscating to a newcomer and intentionally exclusive, because all they have to go on is the actions of 1 super-dodgy crew and their interactions with each other. Looking in form the outside, someone might think that the Federation is just a bunch of humans getting aliens in trouble by being standoffish assholes. Hell, we know more about Vulcan "Logic Extremists" than we do about the humans of this time because they make their own ideology very clear.
Next we have the ship itself. What was her original purpose? Why was she chosen for the Mushroom drive experiments? We know she has a shit ton of science labs, but, besides engineering and the bridge, we see no other work-spaces on board. We don't see whatever other things this ship is being used for. We only have a very narrow idea of what her capabilities are. (besides spinning, that is.)
Then, and most damningly, we have to look at the crew of the Discovery. First let's look at the main cast. Who are they as people? Why should we like them? What do they do besides fight Klingons and plan more ways to fight Klingons? You can take any other crew in a Star Trek show and tell a lot about what kind of person each of them are by the end of the 1st season. Besides being involved with the main story, those characters develop alongside each other in scenes of downtime and debate. 2 classic Star Trek plot mechanisms that are sorely lacking in Discovery. Of all of them, Tilly is probably the best fleshed out. Her character is still threadbare, but we get little moments of characterisation. She's awkward and shy, but ambitious with a strained parental relationship. And yes, it's not like these characters are completely devoid of character. But they're all generally one-note. As time goes on, we might see these characters grow, hopefully.
What is less unclear, however, is how completely uncharacterised the secondary characters are. Besides Lorca, Burnham and Saru, there are 5 other recurring bridge characters that get dialogue. Without looking it up, think of how many of their names you can recall. And yes, they all have names, I checked. I'm guessing that the only one you remembered was Detmer, because she was also on the Shenzhou and her name got called out in the 3rd Episode. At a stretch, you might get Commander Airiam too, because they said her name a bunch and she constantly made random dubstep noises when she moved. But you know basically nothing about them. These aren't extras. These are named cast members with determined roles on the bridge. That's completely ridiculous. I don't expect to know everything about these characters and their motivations but there should be something more than "sits at their controls", right?
Finally, that brings me to all of the decisions surrounding Micheal Burnham, our protagonist. Firstly, it is very odd within Star Trek to pick a single main character. In Every series since TNG, it has been readily acceptable to have episodes that centre on 1 or several members of the cast that aren't the technical main character (the captain). Burnham is certainly the centre of our story, but there really wasn't a need to discard the other characters so completely. Yes, Lorca, Saru and Stamets get a fair few POV scenes, but only at the expense of Burnham. I think the most egregious example of this happens in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" where we mostly stick with Micheal and Mudd throughout the story. This is an episode where Stamets is the one reliving every cycle. It's odd then that we don't get to see his version of events, as he pieces together what's happening. Here, the show is sacrificing the better story element to facilitate a single romantic scene between Burnham and Ash Tyler. I shouldn't have to explain that this was a bad call, when there are always plenty of opportunities for that sort characterisation, while this was a singular opportunity to make Stamets more than the know it all asshole that gets high on space-shrooms.
Another bad decision regarding Burnham was deciding to make her special by relation rather than by action. Every character, at one point or another, tells us how special and competent Micheal Burnham is, she is also given the prodigy treatment by making her Sarek's ward. But we're never shown her doing something that sets her apart. She's a competent enough Starfleet Officer, but the solution to this weeks problem, more often comes from Saru or Tilly, than the supposed genius that is Burnham. It might seem like a nitpick, but if you say that your character is hot shit, it's important to back those claims up.
Focusing on 1 protagonist is always a gamble. You have to make that character likeable, relateable on some level and easy to root for. So it is baffling that the writers of Discovery decided to rehash the most antagonistic traits of 7 of 9 as a protagonist. It's hard to root for a character that doesn't give you reason to. This gradually changes as the story goes on, but we were in the Mirror Universe before I was even really on Burnham's side. I think a good way to have avoided this, might have been to relay the Battle of the Binary Stars as a flashback, later in the season, once we've already established that Burnham is a likeable person. That way, her character's shortcoming can be buffered by a pre-existing well of empathy.
3: Nitpicking
I'll save you the trouble. This is basically where the objective analysis (such as it is) ends and we go fully into the world of the Star Trek fandom. Words like "canon" and "retcon" abound. Suffice it to say that what follows is mostly just someone that grew up with Star Trek using their wasted time to tear apart the poor attention to detail within the show. None of these criticism are anything but nitpicking, however they bear repeating, if you're into Star Trek. Turn back now. Or don't. Your Call.
So let's complain about the Klingons again, shall we? I'll give you a quick run down of why I dislike the redesign, visually and culturally, of the entire Klingon species. In one of my other pieces, I talked about how I was enthusiastic about the idea of showing off multiple Klingon cultures. While I wasn't all that keen on the heavier make up that they were getting, giving the Klingon multiple, potentially contradictory cultures sounded like a pretty good concept. But none of that really made it to the screen.
Maybe at one point there were plans to have the Klingons from each house look and act different. But all we get to see is that each of the leaders of a great house dresses slightly differently. They use the same ships, behave the same way and speak the same language. I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to imply that they're multicultural now.In some ways, this has undone the good work of DS9, which introduced the idea of Klingons that weren't warriors or even all that interested with honour. The Klingons lean into the warrior monoculture here more so than anywhere else in all of Trek's iterations.
Visually, I think the Klingons look bad. Mostly for reasons I explained here. To sum up, quickly, the make up is very clunky and impacts of the actors ability to emote. Besides L'Rell, who stuck out the entirety of the season, every other actor in Klingon make up sounded and moved like they were in an incredibly restrictive costume with heavy cosmetics. And yeah, I guess I'm just more of a fan of TNG era designs, not like I'm being objective here.
However I think I'm in the strong majority when I say that the designs for the new Klingon ships are not well liked. I'm not sure where they really came from. The visual update to Starfleet is distinct, yes, but you can clearly see where they were coming from and the ships still closely resemble older designs. The Constitution class, for instance is easily recogniseable. However the Klingon ships ended up as these horrible, indistinct, spiky shapes with no clear design heritage. I don't like this current trend of making bad-guy ships look "evil". Simple, but distinct designs tend to work better because they're easily recognisable and you can make basically anything feel menacing or threatening with the right visual and audio queues.
All in all, the new aesthetic and culture of the Klingon Empire amounts to a full retcon of all the other series as it is. And while visual changes are inevitable, there is a way to do them well and there's a way to do them poorly. For instance, nobody much complains about the Romulans and Klingons in the Kelvinverse Trek films. They're distinct and modern looking, however they clearly embrace a modernised version of an older aesthetic. Whereas the Discovery Klingons throw this all out the window for no obvious reason. I really can't get over how completely at odds with the rest of their appearances in Star Trek the Klingons are.
Besides that, we have some canon issues between series. Such as the fact that the Klingons have cloaks about 30-40 years before they should. The Federation is aware of the Mirror Universe and the threat it poses, again, decades early. The Spore drive represents a whole slew of problems. The Romulans seemingly don't occupy a bunch of worlds that we know to be Romulan. The oddly sterile interior of the Starfleet ships. The list goes on but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Because this show is already well down that rabbit hole, so there's no fixing it.
Like I said before, really this show is very okay. Every good thing about it is counterbalanced by something bad. I just wish there was something openly positive I could say about it.
So let's complain about the Klingons again, shall we? I'll give you a quick run down of why I dislike the redesign, visually and culturally, of the entire Klingon species. In one of my other pieces, I talked about how I was enthusiastic about the idea of showing off multiple Klingon cultures. While I wasn't all that keen on the heavier make up that they were getting, giving the Klingon multiple, potentially contradictory cultures sounded like a pretty good concept. But none of that really made it to the screen.
Maybe at one point there were plans to have the Klingons from each house look and act different. But all we get to see is that each of the leaders of a great house dresses slightly differently. They use the same ships, behave the same way and speak the same language. I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to imply that they're multicultural now.In some ways, this has undone the good work of DS9, which introduced the idea of Klingons that weren't warriors or even all that interested with honour. The Klingons lean into the warrior monoculture here more so than anywhere else in all of Trek's iterations.
Visually, I think the Klingons look bad. Mostly for reasons I explained here. To sum up, quickly, the make up is very clunky and impacts of the actors ability to emote. Besides L'Rell, who stuck out the entirety of the season, every other actor in Klingon make up sounded and moved like they were in an incredibly restrictive costume with heavy cosmetics. And yeah, I guess I'm just more of a fan of TNG era designs, not like I'm being objective here.
However I think I'm in the strong majority when I say that the designs for the new Klingon ships are not well liked. I'm not sure where they really came from. The visual update to Starfleet is distinct, yes, but you can clearly see where they were coming from and the ships still closely resemble older designs. The Constitution class, for instance is easily recogniseable. However the Klingon ships ended up as these horrible, indistinct, spiky shapes with no clear design heritage. I don't like this current trend of making bad-guy ships look "evil". Simple, but distinct designs tend to work better because they're easily recognisable and you can make basically anything feel menacing or threatening with the right visual and audio queues.
All in all, the new aesthetic and culture of the Klingon Empire amounts to a full retcon of all the other series as it is. And while visual changes are inevitable, there is a way to do them well and there's a way to do them poorly. For instance, nobody much complains about the Romulans and Klingons in the Kelvinverse Trek films. They're distinct and modern looking, however they clearly embrace a modernised version of an older aesthetic. Whereas the Discovery Klingons throw this all out the window for no obvious reason. I really can't get over how completely at odds with the rest of their appearances in Star Trek the Klingons are.
Besides that, we have some canon issues between series. Such as the fact that the Klingons have cloaks about 30-40 years before they should. The Federation is aware of the Mirror Universe and the threat it poses, again, decades early. The Spore drive represents a whole slew of problems. The Romulans seemingly don't occupy a bunch of worlds that we know to be Romulan. The oddly sterile interior of the Starfleet ships. The list goes on but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Because this show is already well down that rabbit hole, so there's no fixing it.
Like I said before, really this show is very okay. Every good thing about it is counterbalanced by something bad. I just wish there was something openly positive I could say about it.
Another Opinion
I don't tend to link to other peoples work on this site, but I recently read a quite engaging tear-down of Discovery and why it shits all over Star Trek. I don't fully agree with the points made, particularly regarding the political sentiments of the author, however it is cogently written, (more cogent than any of the rubbish I spew out, anyway) and well reasoned. In all likelihood you've already read it if this sort of thing interests you, however I'll link it regardless for your consideration.
The Dismal Frontier - by Lyta Gold
The Dismal Frontier - by Lyta Gold