Season 3 Course Correction

[David cgc]

Your complaint is that you've watched an ep where you recognized you've seen things before.

No, I'm not. I actually agree with you about "Magic," so apply your own standard to how that episode is different than "Obol" in terms of structure and in terms of character pay-off.

In "Obol," narratively-speaking, three things had to happen; the ship needed to get an info-dump, Tilly needed to get kidnapped by May, and Saru needed to blatantly retconned. The Saru plot and the ship plot are interconnected, that helps, so you have a two parallel storylines. So why did they burn another couple plots they could've built whole episodes around on a couple of scenes? Ship in distress, characters split up and have to survive individually is a fine story, but it's just window-dressing to crank the tension, and the show relies on the audience's familiarity with the trope to get out of having to play out the storyline. Same with the universal translator going haywire. It's the opposite of what you're accusing me of. It is integral to the episode functioning that I recognize and allow them to short-hand their plots so they can use them for a scene or two and then can discard them when they're bored. That's bad. I don't want to watch Star Trek: Tropes.

Here, another perfect example of what I'm talking about; In the last episode, Stamets beams into Pike's shuttle, and quips, "Actually, I'm from ten minutes in the future." Why? Aside from the echo special effect, there hasn't been any timey-wimey shenanigans in the episode, or any suggestion of discontinuity. In fact, that ship and the shuttle are totally independent, there's hardly even an opportunity for something to have happened that would make that line make sense. It's just the kind of wacky thing people quip in sci-fi, so it doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with what's happening except in the vaguest sense of "there's a time rift, so I guess time-things should be happening."

 

[Alan Roi]

Again: Nobody cares if you change some tiny details, if the main plot points are still the same.

It's admirable they tried to at least superficially connect the plot more to their main characters (and if they hadn't, this episode wouldn't have been one of the fan-favourites of season 1). But it doesn't change these things from being only marginal changes in an otherwise directly lifted plot.

Your argument is that plot device=story. Details aren't tiny if they are the entire drivers of a plot. Its very simple, sir. I watch an episode and I ask "why is this happening?" and "what does it mean this is happening?" and I get a world of difference between the two episodes, even though they share a similar plot device. That is what a story is. All you appear to be interested in is the plot device. Okay. That's where you stop. I'm sorry to hear that. You missed a lot.

 

[nutshell]

I tend to find myself in the "not my Trek" camp when it comes to Discovery. Rather than beat a dead horse as to why (the character of Michael Burnham in general, disregard for continuity and the Prime Directive, and the forced melodrama to name a few), I'd like to visit an alternate universe where I've been named showrunner beginning with Season 3 and here are some of ways I'd like to "course correct" for the direction of the show.

Both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine made shifts in aesthetic and story-telling that made those shows markedly different (better) in their third seasons. So, I’ve been named showrunner and the only directive I’ve been given is that I can’t get rid of Burnham. Here we go:

Regardless of how S2 ends, the show gets a little bit of a reset button. The end of the season results in Section 31 being publicly disavowed by Starfleet, which allows for them to become the unsanctioned organization we know. Georgiou and Tyler leave the show to be on their spin-off. They take Owosekun with them so her character can be fleshed out on a show that has room in the cast.

The final scene of S2 sees the Discovery arrive at Vulcan to pick up the captain they were supposed to pick up at the end of S1. The Enterprise is there as well so Pike, Spock, and Nhan can return to their ship. Doctor Culber, having gone through everything he has the past two seasons, ends his relationship with Stamets and takes a transfer to the Enterprise. Whatever conflict Burnham has with Spock extends to Sarek and Amanda. They don’t want to see her ever again.

We meet the new captain of Discovery: an Andorian played by Jeffery Combs.

S3 picks up three months later. The ship has undergone a slight refit including the removal of the spore drive and an aesthetic shift to a more TOS looking design (the nacelles look more like TOS-era ones, the ship interior is redesigned and made brighter). The crew also adopt the uniforms used by the Enterprise crew. This will be the ONLY "‘member Star Trek?” we see from now on. No more Enterprise/Pike/Spock appearances, no hitherto unheard of encounter with the Gorn, Tholians, Romulans, the Talosians, Harry Mudd, or other species that it’s explicitly stated first contact occurs with in TOS. And certainly none from Berman-era Trek like the Ferengi, the Borg, Cardassians, etc.

From a story-telling standpoint, the biggest shift will be away from Burnham being the main character and to a more ensemble approach to the cast and an abandon of being a full drama and injecting some comedy into the series. The new captain says the state of the engineering department is in disarray. He names Stamets chief engineer, but because he’s actually a scientist, Jet Reno is made his assistant due to her expertise. The new chief medical officer is a Vulcan male who clashes with Burnham over her (perceived) appropriation of Vulcan culture. This, coupled with the conflict with Spock/Sarek causes her to re-evaluate how see acts, prompting her to be more human and a little less pretentious. Lieutenant Detmer becomes security chief. Tilly takes over as helmsman, continuing her quest toward the captain's chair. So our main characters are:

• Andorian Captain
• Saru
• Burnham
• Stamets
• Tilly
• Detmer
• Vulcan Doctor
• Jet Reno

Other characters who will be fleshed out throughout the season are: communications officer Bryce, tactical officer Rhys, Linus (the Saurian introduced this season), and a female command training program Ensign who will play as foil for Tilly.

The premiere will feature an attack on the Starbase where Discovery is undergoing refit. We learn that the attack is perpetrated by the Orion Syndicate and the goal is the theft of the spore drive itself. The Syndicate will serve as the season-long antagonists and will be played essentially as the mafia (in spaaaace!). Discovery will be tasked with tracking down the spore drive before they can figure out how it works or sell it to another power (e.g. the Klingons).

The season will advance with mostly standalone episodes focusing on exploration and science such as:

• A follow-up episode with the Kelpien homeworld to see how that situation is playing out
• An episode with a Tellarite ship to do some world-building
• A follow-up episode with Pahvo from S1
• A true first contact episode with a new species that has achieved warp drive
• A visit to the Saurian homeworld in an effort to flesh out Linus' character and that species

Generally, the aim would be somewhere in-between an episodic approach (like TOS, TNG, VOY) and fully arc based (like Discovery has been and DS9 in Seasons 5-7) while world building new concepts introduced in Discovery like the Kelpiens, Pahvo, the spore drive and previously under-utilized species like the Saurians and Tellarites rather than treading over established things like Vulcan culture, Klingon politics, Talos IV and General Order 7, and Spock's family dynamic.

I think I’ll stick with what Kurtzman and crew are giving us. The first two seasons of discovery have been amazing.

 

[Rahul]

Your argument is that plot device=story.

In a plot driven story? Yeah.
That's why James Bond's "Never say never again" can legally pass as a direct remake of "Tunderball", even though all the characterisations are vastly different, and Bond is now an old Man returning instead of the young agent he was in the original. It's still the same plot, with the same plot devices, and the same story beats.
And Roman Polanskis "Richard III" Macbeth will also forever be a "remake" (or adaption) of Shakespeares play, even if he considerably changed events and characterisations.
Same for this case.

 

[Alan Roi]

No, I'm not. I actually agree with you about "Magic," so apply your own standard to how that episode is different than "Obol" in terms of structure and in terms of character pay-off.

In "Obol," narratively-speaking, three things had to happen; the ship needed to get an info-dump, Tilly needed to get kidnapped by May, and Saru needed to blatantly retconned. The Saru plot and the ship plot are interconnected, that helps, so you have a two parallel storylines. So why did they burn another couple plots they could've built whole episodes around on a couple of scenes? Ship in distress, characters split up and have to survive individually is a fine story, but it's just window-dressing to crank the tension, and the show relies on the audience's familiarity with the trope to get out of having to play out the storyline. Same with the universal translator going haywire. It's the opposite of what you're accusing me of. It is integral to the episode functioning that I recognize and allow them to short-hand their plots so they can use them for a scene or two and then can discard them when they're bored. That's bad. I don't want to watch Star Trek: Tropes.

Here, another perfect example of what I'm talking about; In the last episode, Stamets beams into Pike's shuttle, and quips, "Actually, I'm from ten minutes in the future." Why? Aside from the echo special effect, there hasn't been any timey-wimey shenanigans in the episode, or any suggestion of discontinuity. In fact, that ship and the shuttle are totally independent, there's hardly even an opportunity for something to have happened that would make that line make sense. It's just the kind of wacky thing people quip in sci-fi, so it doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with what's happening except in the vaguest sense of "there's a time rift, so I guess time-things should be happening."

When I am asking the question why in a narrative I'm watching on a character driven show I ask why? Why are characters doing what they are doing. Sure as a writer, I have different goals, but they need to align with the characters. Why does May kidnap Tilly. Why does Saru act the way he's acting? Why are other characters doing what they are doing. The narrative construction aren't my concern at a human level. Once situation leads to another based on who the characters are and what influences them. And you are complaining about the quip in Light and Shadows because you weren't paying attention to the lead up which explain why he said it that you are dismissing as 'timey-wimy' and not interested in thinking about, IMO.

 

[fireproof78]

Again: Nobody cares if you change some tiny details, if the main plot points are still the same.

I care, at least.

And, this is a Star Trek board, where tiny little details are debated for over 50 years. I think this is a tad dismissive.

 

[Alan Roi]

In a plot driven story? Yeah.
That's why James Bond's "Never say never again" can legally pass as a direct remake of "Fireball", even though all the characterisations are vastly different, and Bond is now an old Man returning instead of the young agent he was in the original. It's still the same plot, with the same plot devices, and the same story beats.
And Roman Polanskis "Richard III" will also forever be a "remake" (or adaption) of Shakespeares play, even if he considerably changed events and characterisations.
Same for this case.

But again, Magic is not a plot driven story, so it does not qualify. It is also not a remake, because again, all it shares in common with Cause and Effect is a plot device. Film Noir's all share certain plot devices, but that doesn't mean that every film noir is a remake of Out of the Past.

Also, Never Say Never Again is called a remake of Thunderball because legally that is what it had to be. The company that owned the rights could not make a different Bond film because Thunderball was the only film they could make with the Bond character. Polanski made MacBeth, not Richard III. And it follows the plot.

Magic does not follow the same plot as Cause and Effect. The reason for the time loops is very different. The solution to stopping them is very different. The motivations of the characters is very different from one story and the other. The tone is entirely opposite. And the climax of one story isn't even that the ship is saved as it was in Cause and Effect. Its that a woman is reuinited with the man she loves. Its like saying Groundhog Day is a remake of Urustai Yatsura's Beautiful Dreamer.

 

[Rahul]

I care, at least.

And, this is a Star Trek board, where tiny little details are debated for over 50 years. I think this is a tad dismissive.

Well, in the larger telling of this series - of course I care as well. As I watched the episode, it was important what happened to the main characters and what that meant for the further development of them.

But regarding of weather that story was pretty much directly lifted from "Cause and Effect" - yeah, it was, and for this assessment - I don't care there were more than a few differences between the two. Because - in this regard - it really is the main premise, plot points and story beats that count.

 

[David cgc]

And you are complaining about the quip in Light and Shadows because you weren't paying attention to the lead up which explain why he said it that you are dismissing as 'timey-wimy' and not interested in thinking about, IMO.

Three times! In one day! Amazing. Now I've managed to dismiss an undisclosed plot point as "timey-wimey" by saying that there was not, in fact, anything timey-wimey in the episode. I don't know how you're still getting anything out of this, considering you seem to be running both sides of the conversation and ignoring my contributions. At this point, I'm just trying to salvage my own good name from the aspersions being cast upon my character.

Explain the "ten minutes" line. I'll give you a hint, if you say it's because they're in a time rift and the probe had aged five hundred years, I'll say, "Then why wasn't the line, 'I'm from five hundred years ago.'" But I'm not going to let you just assert that I missed something without backing it up.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, in the larger telling of this series - of course I care as well. As I watched the episode, it was important what happened to the main characters and what that meant for the further development of them.

But regarding of weather that story was pretty much directly lifted from "Cause and Effect" - yeah, it was, and for this assessment - I don't care there were more than a few differences between the two. Because - in this regard - it really is the main premise, plot points and story beats that count.

If we want to get highly technical then we could say that with many stories. Star Wars might be the most famous example, Lion King is another great example, and on and on it goes.

And, many will differ, but I don't take one assessment and apply it broadly. As you note, you care as well which means that the difference is already there.

 

[Alan Roi]

Well, in the larger telling of this series - of course I care as well. As I watched the episode, it was important what happened to the main characters and what that meant for the further development of them.

But regarding of weather that story was pretty much directly lifted from "Cause and Effect" - yeah, it was, and for this assessment - I don't care there were more than a few differences between the two. Because - in this regard - it really is the main premise, plot points and story beats that count.

The premise of Magic is Harry Mudd wants revenge on Captain Lorca and the secret of The Discovery to sell to get him out of his marriage with Stella. He uses a device to allow him to learn the secret of the Disco's new spacedrive for enough money to escape his marriage and to get repeated revenge on Lorca which happens to be a time loop device. Stamets, who happens to be the only person on the ship who can experience things outside of time, figures this out, but he's also filled with love and a desire to make sure everyone around him can feel what he feels.So he spends an inordinate amount of time, literally hundreds of iterations of the loop to learn about the situation get what he figures is the best possible result, which is not merely ending the loops, but ensuring Harry is back in the arms of his loving Stella and perhaps will one day feel what he feels.

I skipped a few bits, but that is essentially the plot.

Of course, Cause and Effect has the exact same story down to a tee, right?

 

[Terok Nor]

It doesn't need another course correction. It is what is. Do I like it? Not really. Luckily for me Georgiou/Section 31 and Picard are on the way. No need to care about Discovery anymore. Besides, The Orville is giving me the kind of Trek I enjoy right now so I'm good. Let Discovery fans enjoy Discovery for what it is I say.

 

[The Wormhole]

We meet the new captain of Discovery: an Andorian played by Jeffery Combs.

You do know Jeffrey Combs has already tried to be on the show, only to be rejected because the producers want to make a clean break from actors used in the other Treks, right?

 

[Mudd]

If true, that's really stupid.

 

[Qonundrum]

They refuse other actors from the franchise yet take as many fiddly plot points from the franchise? (and some are taken often so far out of canonical context that it's a bit much to swallow; with TNG onward I wasn't expecting rock solid perfection but it sometimes felt like they weren't bothering to try... and for all we know Red Angel is real Spock and the mass murdering nutjob is an impostor (or mind-controlled by aliens or is a figment of Burnham's imagination, etc, etc, etc.)

Yup, makes perfect sense that they refuse the actors but not the plots and characters... not.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, it's something Jeffrey Combs himself said at a convention when someone asked when he'd be on Disco. Although it should be noted, if there were such a rule it didn't prevent them from casting Clint Howard last year in his fourth appearance in the Trek franchise.

 

[Qonundrum]

It doesn't need another course correction. It is what is. Do I like it? Not really. Luckily for me Georgiou/Section 31 and Picard are on the way. No need to care about Discovery anymore. Besides, The Orville is giving me the kind of Trek I enjoy right now so I'm good. Let Discovery fans enjoy Discovery for what it is I say.

I'm looking forward to S31 and Picard as well. S31 delves more into what DS9 started and from their POV primarily. If they could lure Patrick Stewart back to a role he said he was officially done with, the vision for his show must really be special...

And if it's true DSC season 3 is having reduced episode runtime length so the budget can be spent on the new series instead, which makes a certain sense depending on condition... it's still hilarious, season 2 trying to laugh it up whereas Orville has gotten more serious and Orville still blows DSC away each time (thanks to good scripts and good acting, though I'd rather see a bad script improved by good acting as opposed to a good script let down by wooden acting (suggesting the actor doing the role playing is bored, doesn't have much sincerity for the material or is apathetic. Or just isn't a good actor. Or other reasons not encompassed in this response, which is de facto.)

 

[Alan Roi]

Three times! In one day! Amazing. Now I've managed to dismiss an undisclosed plot point as "timey-wimey" by saying that there was not, in fact, anything timey-wimey in the episode. I don't know how you're still getting anything out of this, considering you seem to be running both sides of the conversation and ignoring my contributions. At this point, I'm just trying to salvage my own good name from the aspersions being cast upon my character.

Explain the "ten minutes" line. I'll give you a hint, if you say it's because they're in a time rift and the probe had aged five hundred years, I'll say, "Then why wasn't the line, 'I'm from five hundred years ago.'" But I'm not going to let you just assert that I missed something without backing it up.

The probe went through the rift and came back from 500 years in the future. The Shuttle never did.

Stamets stated that the shuttle was bouncing around time but only weeks or days and pointed out that they had a short upcoming period (8 minutes) where the shuttle will be at about the same point in time as the Disco. He's pointing out to Pike that he was there but not yet, because he actually won't be there from their perspective for another ten minutes and is giving them a heads up probably to make sure they didn't freak out or do something that would screw up what he's trying to do to get them back out to safety . Its been long established he experiences time differently than others and has pointed this out before/ The line isn't "I'm from 500 years ago", because a) the Shuttle never went 500 years into the future and at that particular moment shuttle and the Disco are at about the same point in although not exactly, as it turns out. Based on his character's abilities if he says he's 10 minutes into the future, its probably just him painting what he sees.

 

[Alan Roi]

I'm looking forward to S31 and Picard as well. S31 delves more into what DS9 started and from their POV primarily. If they could lure Patrick Stewart back to a role he said he was officially done with, the vision for his show must really be special...

And if it's true DSC season 3 is having reduced episode runtime length so the budget can be spent on the new series instead, which makes a certain sense depending on condition... it's still hilarious, season 2 trying to laugh it up whereas Orville has gotten more serious and Orville still blows DSC away each time (thanks to good scripts and good acting, though I'd rather see a bad script improved by good acting as opposed to a good script let down by wooden acting (suggesting the actor doing the role playing is bored, doesn't have much sincerity for the material or is apathetic. Or just isn't a good actor. Or other reasons not encompassed in this response, which is de facto.)

The Orville is still pretending its made in 1990 with dumbed down TNG pastiches where computer civilizations don't have wifi, clumsy "those aliens are so primitive socially" allegories where insulting them serves as attempts at diplomacy. A Happy Refrain was almost as enjoyable as Calypso, except we had to sit though commentaries on the relationship which seemed right out of daytime TV..

As for Stewarts vision being special, well, he most recently had a show called Blunt Talk which was kinda special in its own way, and he's stated that the show won't be him being Captain Picard again and instead something very different, so I'm not at all convinced TNG fans will like it any more than they do Disco, especially if Stewart's co-stars aren't color coded uniforms and beige sets.

 

[BillJ]

It's the highlight of my Thursday.

That's The Orville for me. Heck, The Orville is the highlight of my TV week.

Discovery isn't giving me anything more than hundreds of Star Trek novels and comics have over the last forty years. Probably why it hasn't connected with me on any level, nothing about it feels fresh. Of course, YMMV.