Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x14 - "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2"

[Michael]

that's a bit of a cop out, at least in my book

I‘m not sure how it‘s a cop-out. If I find something bad, illogical or improvable in previous Trek, I‘m just going to call it out just like I‘m doing with Discovery. You seem to assume that I find no fault with any previous Trek, which just isn‘t true.

 

[Alan Roi]

Just an observation, but what‘s kind funny is how there seem to be two kinds of responses to people questioning the logic of something presented in Discovery: You are either (1.) called to not think about it too much, not scrutinize it, just go with the flow and just enjoy it, or you are (2.) pointed to a totally logical explanation that would have presented itself to you if only you imagined a couple of scenes or lines of dialog they just didn‘t include, because they wanted you to think for yourself.

We are expected to take on faith that the characters know what they are doing in every Star Trek series, and often it hasn't made logical sense based on the world we live in, and often we have to fill in blanks ourselves. Now one can either accept them and not think to much, Use the analytical tools work out what happened in the gaps, say its bad writing and demand more explicit explanations so its easy for everyone in the room to understand. Better is in they mind of the observer.

FYI, when I read Dune at the age of 13 I didn't think it was a good book. When I reread it at 23 I thought it was brilliant. just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[oberth]

I‘m not sure how it‘s a cop-out. If I find something bad, illogical or improvable in previous Trek, I‘m just going to call it out just like I‘m doing with Discovery. You seem to assume that I find no fault with any previous Trek, which just isn‘t true.

you got to me before i was done editing

 

[The Butter Phantom]

Most badass hour of telly I've ever seen besides Game of Thrones and its big battles!

 

[Alan Roi]

There is nothing stopping her going and getting another crystal from the planet in the future either, depending on its current state.

And probably does given that she was able to create the seventh signal 124 days later.

 

[Longinus]

The story logic in vast majority of Trek episodes (even if we include VOY and ENT) definitely holds up much better than main plots in either of the Discovery's seasons. Now of course forging a story for a standalone episode is easier than doing so for a whole season, and indeed many of Disco's more stanaloneish episodes worked well. But frankly, if you can't write a proper serialised story, then just don't. Make it is episodic if that's all your writers are capable of successfully executing.

 

[Alan Roi]

The story logic in vast majority of Trek episodes (even if we include VOY and ENT) definitely holds up much better than main plots in either of the Discovery's seasons. Now of course forging a story for a standalone episode is easier than doing so for a whole season,and indeed many of Disco's more stanaloneish episodes worked well. But frankly, if you can't write a proper serialised story, then just don't. Make it is episodic if that's all your writers are capable of successfully executing.

200,000 word novels are also rarely written the same way 7,500 word short stories are.

 

[Longinus]

200,000 word novels are also rarely written the same way 7,500 word short stories are.

Yes. And it is possible to make a good serialised story, many shows do that. Discovery just isn't one of them.

 

[Alan Roi]

Yes. And it is possible to make a good serialised story, many shows do that. Discovery just isn't one of them.

IMO, Discovery is one of them. I agree you have a differing opinion.

 

[Longinus]

IMO, Discovery is one of them. We obviously agree to disagree.

Yes. Your ability to bury your head in the sand and ignore glaring inconsistencies, illogicalities and plotholes is something I could never match.

 

[Alan Roi]

Yes. Your ability to bury your head in the sand and ignore glaring inconsistencies, illogicalities and plotholes is something I could never match.

I have pointed out many things that happened in story in the episodes that we have all watched that detractors stated happened differently than they actually did (such as the claim that we were told Burnham could only use the suit for any kind of time jump once or that they thought only the people standing in the corridor were all the people who were coming with Michael, when Tilly explicity states others couldn't come because they were working) and used that kind of claim as examples of inconsistencies, illogicalities and plotholes.

I honestly do not know how one can claim that I am "sticking my head in the sand" by paying close attention to the show I am watching and then bringing up the scenes that support my arguments clearly. And I agree I also work to fill the gaps of what I do know of the series when it isn't explicit. But again, that doesn't qualify as sticking my head in the sand either where it comes to any definition of the term that I know of.

 

[DEWLine]

The battles are visually like Battlestar Galactica now.

You weren't the only one to get that impression.

Amazing how well they managed to hybridize elements of Second Galactica's space battle design style with their own.

 

[JoseNoodles]

So yeah, decent end, but not without problems.

I feel this part was weaker than part 1, mostly because of the space battle. I like space battles as much as the next guy, but this seemed liked a George Lucas fever dream. It was too incomprehensible and drawn out. So much stuff going on, like the show was trying to keep you distracted from processing all that was going on. We get the space battle, Georgiou/Nhan vs. Robo-Leland, Burnham and the gang with the time suit, and the torpedo on the Enterprise. Cornwell's death was another telegraphed death like "asteroid guy" on the Season 2 premiere. For having her on-screen more, they really didn't seem to know what to do with her. In the end, she served as a MacGuffin to save Pike, who decided to go down to the front of the ship for... ??? Like I read in an online review, why didn't the Enterprise crew use the astromech droids to pull out the torpedo? Moreover, I am bit disappointed we don't actually see the Discovery crew emerge into the future. Instead, we get an ending with Spock, Pike, and Una that while sentimental, seems to make the Discovery crew guests on their own show. It's like if "All Good Things" ended on a scene with the DS9 crew. What was ultimately the point of that ending, cause I don't think Spock saying goodbye to Burnham was it. You wouldn't have needed Pike and Una for that, especially if there is not going to be a "Star Trek: Early Voyages" type show.

 

[Longinus]

I have pointed out many things that happened in story in the episodes that we have all watched that detractors stated happened differently than they actually did (such as the claim that we were told Burnham could only use the suit for any kind of time jump once or that they thought only the people standing in the corridor were all the people who were coming with Michael, when Tilly explicity states others couldn't come because they were working) and used that kind of claim as examples of inconsistencies, illogicalities and plotholes.

I honestly do not know how one can claim that I am "sticking my head in the sand" by paying close attention to the show I am watching and then bringing up the scenes that support my arguments clearly.

So you think it make sense that the suit can make unlimited jumps in the past, but only one in the future? And if that's what was intended, why didn't they say that? Why was the suit obvious future tech in one episode, and later it wasn't? How did the probe come from future via a wormhole that was not from the future? How did Michel disable the Ba'ul? How did they have a map of signals and then they didn't know where they were, to the extent that they didn't even know the quadrant in which they would appear? Why did they continue to the future when active Control was on board? And of course there is the whole absurdity of not being able to destroy one ship. This is not coherent storytelling. This is not a product of a writer or team of writers planning it like this from the get go, or if if it is those people are colossally incompetent. This seems like a result of many people making it up as they go along and trying (but often failing) to match it to what was established before. And frankly, I rather believe that this is a result of backstage chaos rather than professional writers really being this inept. And considering that many of the more episodic stories held up pretty well, I don't think the writers are that incompetent.

 

[Alan Roi]

So you think it make sense that the suit can make unlimited jumps in the past, but only one in the future? And if that's what was intended, why didn't they say that? Why was the suit obvious future tech in one episode, and later it wasn't? How did the probe come from future via a wormhole that was not from the future? How did Michel disable the Ba'ul? How did they have a map of signals and then they didn't know where they were, to the extent that they didn't even know the quadrant in which they would appear? And of course there is the whole absurdity of not being able to destroy one ship. This is not coherent storytelling. This is not a product of a writer or team of writers planning it like this from the get go, if if it is those people are colossally incompetent. This seems like a result of many people making it up as they go along and trying (but often failing) to match it to what was established before. And frankly, I rather believe that this is a result of backstage chaos rather than professional writers really being this inept. And considering that many of the more episodic stories held up pretty well, I don't think the writers are that incompetent.

I chose to accept that if new information can be presented in the real world there's every reason it can be presented in a fictional one. Many of the best episodes of this franchise offered new information that changed the outcome, and often this new information was unexpected and ultimately unexplained. Also, I accept that people can get hyperbolic in real life so I don't think that having people get hyperbolic in fiction is bad writing.

The fact is, writers write for a purpose and for an audience. How they chose to write is up to them. One person may be inspired by a piece of writing that another person just can't get into. That's art. Is that book good or bad? That's up to the reader.

Star Trek is chock filled with absurdities we take for granted because the characters in the story say they are OK. Even in the best episodes of all time, we are required to believe that things work in their world the way they claim they do. The fact that this happens in Discovery as well is a feature of Star Trek, IMO. And when a group of people are talking as if one jump into the future is what Micheal is planning, then they will answer based on their understanding of that plan. No one was talking about several microjumps to the past.

You can make claims all you want, reiterate your opinion as I do but again, I agree to disagree with you on pretty much all of your opinions. You are entitled to express them. As I am entitled to express mine. But again this is art, not math, and therefore open to interpretation. You've had difficulty following it, I haven't. Okay. But I'm not going to stop arguing that it can be followed and it works for me.

 

[Mr. Nova]

Still waiting...

He's the guy in the taxi in the movie "Airplane!", who says, "Alright, I'll give him 20 more minutes, but that's it!"

 

[cooleddie74]

In short: a far better season finale than last year's but still extremely flawed and frustrating.

 

[Discofan]

In short: a far better season finale than last year's but still extremely flawed and frustrating.

That's how season finales are supposed to be: Leaving you wanting more.

 

[Longinus]

That's how season finales are supposed to be: Leaving you wanting more.

That's not why it was frustrating...

 

[Discofan]

That's not why it was frustrating...

That's why it was to me.