Spoilers Bonus scene from Season One Finale

[Jadeb]

So what if the subtext for Season 2 and/or Season 3 involve Section 31, horrified at the damage caused by the Klingons, decide that the Federation needs to radically change in order to survive and make sure this sort of thing never happens again? That they blame the logic extremists -- if not Vulcans in general -- for undermining the war effort and believe they must be purged from the Federation or dominated entirely?

You make a good point about the potential for timely commentary. But the downside of doing a prequel is that we know the outcome. The Federation doesn't change its philosophy, or purge the Vulcans, or do anything similarly dramatic, so we would end up going through the motions to reach the inevitable Star Trek Moral Conclusion. That's how we got the heavy-handed sermonizing at the end of the first season. When the message is obvious from the beginning, it starts to feel like a lecture.

To me, the potential for doing that sort of storyline well on Discovery is much more at the individual character level. They had the opportunity with Lorca but threw it away.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You make a good point about the potential for timely commentary. But the downside of doing a prequel is that we know the outcome.

And this is a downside HOW? All we really know is that the bad guys are going to lose. We have no idea how or why or whether their defeat is a permanent one or what victory is going to cost. It's Star Trek, we know the heroes are going to come out on top (in 42 minutes or less!) because they always do. We're come here to see HOW they do it.

To me, the potential for doing that sort of storyline well on Discovery is much more at the individual character level.

That's just it, individual characters are defined by internal and external conflicts. How Burnham, Stamets and Saru deal with a xenophobic ultra-nationalist faction like Section 31 becomes an external conflict that hits a number of Discovery viewers VERY close to home. I'm waiting for the episode where Saru asks the inevitable question, "So if it comes at the expense of people like me... that's for the greater good, isn't it?"

In short, Section 31 is, thematically and morally, a rebuttal to Burnham's Season 1 ending speech, and given the presence of the black badge on Discovery they're probably the very people who got her out of prison in the first place. They're the people who recognize that she was RIGHT at the Battle of the Binary's, that the war isn't her fault, and that Starfleet really does need people like her. So Burnham's conflict is simple: does throw in with Section 31 knowing that they don't stand for Federation principals (and knowing, on some level, that they're pro-human imperialists who seek to dominate the Federation for Earth's benefit rather than cooperate with its allies for everyone's benefit) or does she adhere to the system that has routinely failed her again and again because it's the right thing to do?

It's Discovery asking the question: "Given a choice between corrupt incompetence and an gestapo-like outfit that may or may not be Nazis, which is the lesser evil?"

 

[Jadeb]

And this is a downside HOW? All we really know is that the bad guys are going to lose. We have no idea how or why or whether their defeat is a permanent one or what victory is going to cost. It's Star Trek, we know the heroes are going to come out on top (in 42 minutes or less!) because they always do. We're come here to see HOW they do it.

The bad guys have to lose only if the writers have made the stakes too high. It's why modern Doctor Who's obsession with universe-ending threats is so silly (and, ultimately, tiresome). Clearly, that won't happen. But a character could die, a ship might be destroyed, a battle be could be lost or even a whole people/planet might be wiped out. There are plenty of ways to create genuine jeopardy, if you bother to make us care about the characters.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The bad guys have to lose only if the writers have made the stakes too high.

When, in the history of Star Trek, have the bad guys ever actually WON?

a character could die, a ship might be destroyed, a battle be could be lost or even a whole people/planet might be wiped out...

And the bad guys still loose. That's my whole point.

Does the fact that the Nazis didn't win World War II make the plot of "Saving Private Ryan" uninteresting? We all know the allies won. In fact, since the entire movie is one big flashback we all know that Private Ryan survives to the end. The entire movie is just the story of HOW he survived. Same with "Titanic", which is also a massive flashback almost from start to finish. Hell, take any marvel superhero movie and it's a foregone conclusion that no matter how bad things get, the hero is going to win in the end, we're just watching to find out HOW.

 

[Jadeb]

When, in the history of Star Trek, have the bad guys ever actually WON?

The end of Wrath of Khan is a bit of a bummer, isn't it? And that's a highwater mark in franchise history.

Does the fact that the Nazis didn't win World War II make the plot of "Saving Private Ryan" uninteresting? We all know the allies won. In fact, since the entire movie is one big flashback we all know that Private Ryan survives to the end. The entire movie is just the story of HOW he survived. Same with "Titanic", which is also a massive flashback almost from start to finish. Hell, take any marvel superhero movie and it's a foregone conclusion that no matter how bad things get, the hero is going to win in the end, we're just watching to find out HOW.

Right, and if the plot of Titanic was "Will the ship sink?" that too would be a stupid, pointless runaround. Instead, it focused on smaller human drama, which is what I'm proposing. Consequences for the characters, not consequences for the Federation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The end of Wrath of Khan is a bit of a bummer, isn't it? And that's a highwater mark in franchise history.

And Khan still lost, if I remember correctly...

Right, and if the plot of Titanic was "Will the ship sink?" that too would be a stupid, pointless runaround. Instead, it focused on smaller human drama, which is what I'm proposing. Consequences for the characters, not consequences for the Federation.

And that's different from what Discovery is already doing... how?

 

[Jadeb]

And Khan still lost, if I remember correctly...

Sure, but it's not about winning or losing, per se. It's about the events having the potential to have impact and meaning.

And that's different from what Discovery is already doing... how?

I'm not speaking about Discovery in general. Rather, I was responding to your suggestion:

So what if the subtext for Season 2 and/or Season 3 involve Section 31, horrified at the damage caused by the Klingons, decide that the Federation needs to radically change in order to survive and make sure this sort of thing never happens again? That they blame the logic extremists -- if not Vulcans in general -- for undermining the war effort and believe they must be purged from the Federation or dominated entirely?

Which prompted my point that focusing on big threats to the Federation or future events, when we already know those threats won't come to pass, is not a productive path for a prequel.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sure, but it's not about winning or losing, per se. It's about the events having the potential to have impact and meaning.

How does knowing the eventual outcome take away from impact or meaning?

I'm not speaking about Discovery in general. Rather, I was responding to your suggestion:
Which prompted my point that focusing on big threats to the Federation or future events, when we already know those threats won't come to pass, is not a productive path for a prequel.

Still not seeing your point here. If I watch a movie about the Civil War, I know going in that the movie is going to end with the defeat of the south and the final abolition of slavery. I don't have to worry about the movie setting up some sort of weird alternate universe where the Confederacy wins the war and slavery soldiers on into the mid 20th century. So the story isn't about the consequences for the Union, it's about how the soldiers DEAL with those consequences and what they mean for them.

So what exactly prevents the writers of Discovery from putting their characters into the middle of this conflict in ways that modern audiences can relate to? Especially since we don't actually know the outcome of OUR story as well as we know the outcome of theirs?

 

[fireproof78]

Which prompted my point that focusing on big threats to the Federation or future events, when we already know those threats won't come to pass, is not a productive path for a prequel.

Which pretty much underminds any point of a prequel.

 

[Jadeb]

How does knowing the eventual outcome take away from impact or meaning?

Still not seeing your point here. If I watch a movie about the Civil War, I know going in that the movie is going to end with the defeat of the south and the final abolition of slavery. I don't have to worry about the movie setting up some sort of weird alternate universe where the Confederacy wins the war and slavery soldiers on into the mid 20th century. So the story isn't about the consequences for the Union, it's about how the soldiers DEAL with those consequences and what they mean for them.

So what exactly prevents the writers of Discovery from putting their characters into the middle of this conflict in ways that modern audiences can relate to? Especially since we don't actually know the outcome of OUR story as well as we know the outcome of theirs?

I don't think we're actually disagreeing. There's nothing wrong with having events unfold in the midst of a larger conflict, even one where we know the outcome. But the drama can't come from suspense about what will happen in that larger conflict. There simply isn't any suspense there. Instead, the writers must find smaller stakes where things of consequence can happen to the characters we care about.

 

[Discofan]

I wonder if for the second season the Klingons will learn to speak English.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing. There's nothing wrong with having events unfold in the midst of a larger conflict, even one where we know the outcome. But the drama can't come from suspense about what will happen in that larger conflict. There simply isn't any suspense there. Instead, the writers must find smaller stakes where things of consequence can happen to the characters we care about.

Character investment is largely a subjective thing, in my experience. I could certainly say "Well, I care about DISCO's characters" but there will someone else who will state the opposite.

On the whole, yes, I agree that the characters in a prequel are essential, as they are in any story. But, I'm also weird in that I will watch a sporting event even after I know the final score.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I wonder if for the second season the Klingons will learn to speak English.

They should take up Latin just to fuck with everyone.

 

[You Can't Know]

The top argument levelled against Discovery is that they are coming up with too many original ideas and concepts that are too different to what's come before, not the opposite.

That's why you don't make a prequel, you set it after Voyager. Any complaints and backlash they get could've been avoided and is on them.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Lack of originality has nothing to do with setting.

 

[cooleddie74]

We'd complain about a show set 10 years after Voyager. The ship would still be too advanced for a Starfleet hobbled by the carnage of the Dominion War or the uniforms would be changed and would no longer have the same commbadges we saw in all the future-setting episodes of TNG, DS9 and VOY or the Klingon Empire would suddenly be acting aggressively again and why would it do that if Chancellor Martok and Worf and other likeminded Klingons had such a friendship with and affection for the Federation? Or why do the phasers change yet again and was it necessary to make the tricorders even smaller?

Please. We'd bitch about a new Trek series even if it were set after the era of Crewman Daniels. Not advanced enough. Not slick enough. Too many throwbacks to the previous series. And why does the Enterprise-Z still have just two warp nacelles? CBS better change everything or I'm boycotting and never paying to watch another episode!

#NotMyStarTrek

 

[Discofan]

Seriously, I love the show but if they could just stop with the subtitled Klingonese! I think I've heard enough for a lifetime. I wonder who's bizarre idea it was to do that. What if all alien talk was subtitled? I don't think I could stand that very long.

 

[fireproof78]

Seriously, I love the show but if they could just stop with the subtitled Klingonese! I think I've heard enough for a lifetime. I wonder who's bizarre idea it was to do that. What if all alien talk was subtitled? I don't think I could stand that very long.

Making aliens more aliens is "bizarre?"

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't talk about it much on here but, as an anime fan, I read sub-titles all the time.

Turning it back to Trek, I had no issue with the Klingons speaking in Klingon in the original movies. The thing that struck me as odd would be when they'd suddenly switch to English while there was no one else around. Though I know it was done for dramatic effect.

 

[Discofan]

Making aliens more aliens is "bizarre?"

Not "bizarre" or even bizarre, only tiresome and not "tiresome"...