Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Why did critics praise STD but audiences dislike it?

I forced myself to watch STD because I like ST, even ENT, but I had to give up after a bunch of episodes because i hated it, i thought it was easily the worst Trek. What was i missing? It was the other way with The Orville, audience liked it but critics didn't.


Anonymous: The Orville is a bit of a throwback to the 60s and 70s when sci-fi was as much bout playing with ideas as it was with more sensible, consistent episodes. The notion a bunch of C- IQ 100 types make it into space isn't that far-fetched, I would say.

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    I assume you mean Star Trek Discovery.  I don't know that critics praised it.  It got kind of mixed reviews. 

    I think a big reason is that the show differed in tone from most of the previous Trek series.  In general, Trek presents an optimistic view of the future.  The Federation is, canonically, supposed to be a utopia where poverty, racism, environmental degredation, etc have all been vanquished.  The Enterprise, in both TOS and TNG, is a moral force of scientific explorers (nominally military but with little military discipline or violence) who are going out and exploring new worlds for the betterment of all.  The good guys in the show were pretty much always right, there was little inter-personal conflict between them, at least of any lasting significance, and they almost always resolved issues for the better by the end of the episode.  Even DS9, which achieved praise as a somewhat darker take on Trek, adhered to a great degree to this formula. 

    Discovery was a more radical departure.  In terms of visual style it owed more to the JJ Abrams Trek and other, later, space opera shows like BSG.  But tonally it was more emotionally and thematically dark.  I mean, in the premiere, the hero mutinies against her captain and causes a major military incident by conducting a largely unprovoked attack on a Klingon vessel.  That's something that previous Trek franchises would have really shied away from.  And when Burnham gets transferred to Discovery things don't get much more optimistic.  We're treated to a more militarized vision of Starfleet than we've seen in previous shows.  Paul Stamets, one of the main characters, is portrayed as, initially, a real jerk.  Captain Lorca is portrayed as much more hard edged than any previous Trek captain.  If you're a big fan of the previous Trek franchises I imagine this was a bit off putting.  It's also probably why I, never a big Trek fan, liked the first season better than the others.  If it helps, I think that seasons two and three return a bit more to the traditional Trek fold of optimism

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    I thought it was one of the few good Star Trek series.  I watched TOS when it originally aired and loved it.  Absolutely loathed TNG, which was truly awful.  DS9 was pretty good (although lacking when compared to Babylon 5).  Voyager had potential but spluttered out.  The less said about Enterprise the better.  And the Orville was also simply awful - it was supposedly a comedy, but wasn't at all funny.  It failed as a drama because of the lack of internal sense or continuity - it would have worked if the joke was that the Orville was a cruise ship full of incompetents who had repeatedly been fired from other jobs and this was the only place they could get a job, but pretending they were a competent military crew made no sense.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    Because they can be paid off 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.