It isn't the mushroom drive that made Discovery bad, it's that Starfleet apparently no longer has any kind of standards.

TOS and TNG had all kinds of "woke" politics for their era, but they portrayed them as happening on a military vessel. People were calm, competent and followed the chain of command. The only time that broke down is when they were under the influence of some kind of alien disease or tech.

Discovery's crew was full of whiny, fragile people that were barely able to do their jobs for all the time they spent obsessing about their personal problems. Tilly is the prime example of this. The "Tilly" equivalent in TNG was Reginald Barclay. Shy, stressed, lacking self confidence, etc. Barclay's character arc makes sense for Star Trek. He is able to save the day, but he's certainly not promoted because it's clear that the senior officers on the show are calm, competent and project confidence. He's basically there to show that not all Star Trek characters are the confident, competent, brave people who make up the bridge crew. And, by doing that they emphasize how elite the bridge crew is. Meanwhile, on Discovery, Tilly is promoted and keeps gaining responsibility despite never addressing these gaping character flaws. The "Tilly" message seems to be something like "it doesn't matter if you're weird, awkward and unable to communicate competently, as long as you love and accept yourself, you too deserve to be on the bridge making life or death decisions".

Discovery also fails because that lack of competence is everywhere in the crew. The original shows had the crew acting as... well a crew. They'd tackle problems together. In TOS Kirk would lead the charge, but he'd never do anything on his own. Spock was stronger and smarter than anybody else, but he followed the lead of his commander. McCoy handled the medical stuff. Scotty handled engineering. In Discovery, Burnham is apparently the only competent person on the crew, and the only one not to be fazed when something bad happens, so rather than the crew working together to solve issues, it's superhero Burnham while the crew faints dramatically. The only real exceptions to that are Saru (whose personality doesn't really make sense given what they explain about his species), and Commander Reno, who is a breath of fresh air because she's basically the only one who isn't constantly freaking out -- although the sarcasm and fatalism of her character is almost too much.

What makes it all worse is that the backdrop is that the universe is doomed and only Discovery can save it. Sure, the other Treks have had major threats to the universe, but they were being slow-rolled over a long season, or sometimes multiple seasons. They had room to breathe and do episodes that didn't advance the plot. That gave them a time to do episodes focused on fleshing out the personality of a member of the crew, to do silly things, etc. Discovery has the whiniest, least professional crew that has ever crewed a starship (and I'm including Boimler and friends), who are whining while dealing with the most urgent apocalyptic scenarios. It's a soap opera while the end of the world is playing out.

People who whine about the silliness of some of the concepts in Discovery (spore drive, space-tardigrades) have never seen TOS.

Don't care. Still ignoring it exists.

This might hurt your bones a bit:

MOOPSY IS CANON TOO

Remember when TOS had magic wand worms?

I try to console myself with the fact that Lower Decks is canon, too.

Pop culture is mythology. You decide what's canon.

Aside: Y'all think the Egyptians ever had arguments over which version of Horus was canon?

If I've never seen them, they don't exist. Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks.. none of it. I'm safe and pure.

Why do people care about canon?

IMO they did a fantastic job reconciling why there's no mention of Discovery and it's fancy spore drive in the canon timeline. Launching them to the far future was probably the best decision

Everything except that one line about elon musk.

But in generall the concept of canon is completly overated. Like these are stories that are up to interpretation they not real. You can do what ever you want with that.

Its kind of interesting to see how some of those anti woke types loose their shit over this. (not just)

Anyways I can recommend jessie gender after dark's video on this subject relatong to trek

I haven't yet seen the last season of Lower Decks, but apparently they make the claim that Discovery was set in an alternate universe.

https://cosmicbook.news/star-trek-discovery-erased-canon
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/star-trek-erased.html

Again, I can't validate that, but have read those articles

My wife and I are watching Star Trek for the first time ever. We're on the 4th season of The Next Generation. So I'm not "in the know". Should we not watch discovery when we get to that point? What's wrong with it?

lol did you forget that you already posted this?

Is that the guy who was in rent?

You can keep the shrooms as long as I get to keep the Catians.

If Lower Decks added multiverses then anything can be canon or not canon according to the viewer's preference! Want a multiverse that's the same but Discovery doesn't exist? Okay, that's the multiverse whatever show is set in until such time as they explicitly bring it up.

That's how infinite realities work!

I don't care about Canon. Every Trek has done silly things that are then included, or ignored, based on the next writers whims.

What did annoy me was that it became less and less fun to watch. Neither the scripts nor the sets and backgrounds felt like they where done by people who liked the general ideas and vibes of star trek. Or maybe they just didn't share my idea for star trek.

Pretty much only sticked around because I liked Stamments, Culber, and Adira. For all it's failings, I did feel they nailed representation.