Star Trek Discovery Renewed For Season 3
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
As far as "message of the week," a topical theme is fine if it organically fits into the story. But Star Trek does not need to beat the viewers over the head with some sanctimonious message like it did so much from the late 1980s and into the 1990s.
As I've pointed out before, the TOS writer's guide said the following:
The "firm foundation" was entertainment value through solid storytelling about people. A message to the audience should take a back seat to that, rather than being the very basis in and of itself.
Kor
As I've pointed out before, the TOS writer's guide said the following:
The "firm foundation" was entertainment value through solid storytelling about people. A message to the audience should take a back seat to that, rather than being the very basis in and of itself.
Kor
If they really wanted her to be the star, then they shouldn't have cast Captains who are clearly better actors than she is. All the best scenes in STD are when she is NOT the center of attention, like the secondary character that she is supposed to be.
Last edited:
This video discusses the news that Star Trek Discovery has been renewed for a third season.
I still don't think the problem is Martin-Green. I think it is the writers not knowing what to do with the character. And I'm dreading the inevitable repairing of Burnham/Tyler. Two wet pieces of cardboard have more chemistry than they do.
Go rewatch TOS. For all GR's claims that they ALWAYS did social commentary; in fact most of the series was straight up science fiction adventure; and when it did go heavy on the "social moralizing" you ended up with stuff that had the subtlety of a Sledgehammer like say TOS S3 - "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield".
In rewatching TOS over the past 50+ years, many have found more tidbits of certain scenes here and there that they equate with major "social commentary", but honestly, many of the original writers when questioned about these at Cons over the years have said - "It's nice you see that, but no, I wasn't overtly trying to make a social statement or social commentary with it. I was just writing a story."
I think that says a lot about the writers of TOS, their experiences and the world they lived in.
Tyler's character has no function anymore. They could kill him off in some self sacrificing gesture to make you appreciate the human underneath yadda yadda but at this point he's pointless. He shouldn't be on a ship with the person he killed (you can only make a statement like that in Starfleet), he's an in credibly security risk, he's put on board a ship where he doesn't have to answer to the master and commander of said ship which makes no sense. Burnham's relationship never made a great deal of sense but I've had a few of those myself, plus they were under a lot of stress.
but its hard to imagine her wanting to get back with him. She dumped him, he ran off with L'Rell, his former lover/rapist/torturer and made a really ugly baby with her then dumped it off at the local shao lin temple, because star trek will still need plot material two decades from now.
I love Discovery, but I would love it 1000x more if Tyler would just stand up and say "You know what, I'm sick of this. I'm taking my back pay and spending a couple of years on Risa. Suck it." and leave.
I've often said that I have learned more real world applicable life lessons from the works by and inspired by Gene Roddenberry and Stan Lee than I ever could from a 3000 year old book of creation myths, fairy tales and doomsday prophecies.
True. Besides, I would much rather have a 13-16 episode season than 22-26 episodes anyway. There are too many shows to watch and too little time to watch them. I am a little over nine months from finishing my masters degree, am less than three months from my wife having a baby, am beginning to look into changing careers and have other interests than just TV. I like the idea of 14 episodes of Star Trek. 26? Completely unrealistic for me today.
I dunno. She was good on The Walking Dead, but she was a secondary character. So the jury is still out how good an actor she is. But yeah, if they reintroduce Boringham+Voqyler romance again, I'll start drinking again...
But yeah, if they reintroduce Boringham+Voqyler romance again, I'll start drinking again...
Fifteen minutes is a good run!
To be clear, I wasn't saying that Discovery needs to be "all message all the time." Every Trek series mixed together heavy theme-based episodes with straight-ahead action adventure and generally some comedic romps as well.
My issue is I think the heavy theme episodes are an essential part of the variety of Trek - part of what makes it such a resilient franchise. And while Discovery has significantly stepped back on serialization to date this season, I feel like the overall structure of the season isn't firing on all cylinders because it's relatively narrowly focused on one particular type of Star Trek story.
People used to complain about filler episodes back in the day. Go figure.
I shall settle the discussion once and for all. I decide what Star Trek is, and let me tell you: Star Trek is as Star Trek does. Except for space nazis and Khan, who is stupid. There you go. You're all welcome! 8D
Personally, my favorite types of episodes are the character dramas like "City on the Edge of Forever" and "The Visitor," which are very human and are quite emotionally moving, but really don't have any kind of sociopolitical message that the writer is trying to prove to you.
Kor
From a narrative perspective, I can see why they want Ash/Burnham to be a thing. But from an show perspective, it's an awful idea, because they have absolutely no chemistry together whatsoever.
The weird thing is Shazad Latif has been good in some work this season - like in Point of Light - when he isn't dealing with her. I think he's salvageable as a character, but as soon as they hook up he'll turn back into captain blandsome again.
Yes, that's how/why ENT got a FULL SEVEN SEASONS...oh, wait...
It's not that it's "prestige" format but rather they're from cable/streaming networks that don't actually need the 26 episodes that broadcast networks demand. GAME OF THRONES being 10 episodes instead of 26 a season wasn't done out of "prestige" but because HBO didn't need so many.
The upside is condensing the amount of episodes means there's more budget to spend on each episode, as opposed to having to spread it out with more episodes. This is why so much of broadcast television feels "cheaper" than cable/streaming programs. I don't just mean more money is put into f/x work but that filmmakers can do more elaborate cinematic camerawork that broadcast shows wouldn't have the time to afford, like Daredevil fighting a bunch of goons in one long continuous take.
Similar threads
