DISCO S3 = Voyager + Andromeda + Calypso.
Why the soft reboot?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Why would I be bored by a story set in WWI or II? Only if the main plot is will the Allies succeed? And that was the main point of PIC and DSC2. Will the Allies save the universe?
Dullsville. Cue the screaming tentacles defeated at the last minute by who-cares.
Or, give me a plot I don't know the outcome of.
Set a story within WWI or II, where the mission could succeed OR fail... or partially ... or the heroes could be killed.
Hm, let's see: All Quiet on the Western Front comes to mind. Bridge over the River Kwai. Rogue One. Smaller scale. Not will the Allies win the war? But will this mission succeed? And yes, will the heroes in fact survive (spoiler alert: maybe not), or how many will?
I think too many of us have only seen these crappy universe-stake plots and think that's all there is.
In other plots, a hero can die, or a lead character, at least (lookn at you, Jadzia and the vanished Sisko). The mission can fail at least partially. Unless.the earth or ALL LIFE is in the balance. Now the outcome of the plot IS predetermined.
And dull.
Non-predetermined plot outcomes really are possible. I've seen them. Many of them.
Just not in Trek anytime lately.
Dullsville. Cue the screaming tentacles defeated at the last minute by who-cares.
Or, give me a plot I don't know the outcome of.
Set a story within WWI or II, where the mission could succeed OR fail... or partially ... or the heroes could be killed.
Hm, let's see: All Quiet on the Western Front comes to mind. Bridge over the River Kwai. Rogue One. Smaller scale. Not will the Allies win the war? But will this mission succeed? And yes, will the heroes in fact survive (spoiler alert: maybe not), or how many will?
I think too many of us have only seen these crappy universe-stake plots and think that's all there is.
In other plots, a hero can die, or a lead character, at least (lookn at you, Jadzia and the vanished Sisko). The mission can fail at least partially. Unless.the earth or ALL LIFE is in the balance. Now the outcome of the plot IS predetermined.
And dull.
Non-predetermined plot outcomes really are possible. I've seen them. Many of them.
Just not in Trek anytime lately.
I didn't really think Rogue One was all that suspenseful in this regard, though I'll confess that when things started getting dire I wondered exactly how many of Our Heroes weren't going to make it out alive. I didn't really think TPTB would have the stones to kill all of them, but I think it's great that the film pushes it that far.
As far as the overall mission though, we already knew how that would turn out.
As far as the overall mission though, we already knew how that would turn out.
Ha! True - had to get the info into R2, but my point was we didn't know the heroes would live.
We believed Spock was dead for awhile in 1982.
My beloved Enterprise really got blown up in TSFS.
The best plots are.probably not an either-or Will they succeed? But a wtf is going to happen with this situation?
Breaking Bad comes to mind for that. Maybe 1st balf of DSC which gains favor in my mind cf S2.
Hey! First part of S2 had a mystery/mystical plot with Pike even being open to religion. That would have been way better. Then the producers had to get fired for being meanies
and we got Burnham-is-the-lights somehow shining instantly across the galaxy regardless of the constant C and evil AI threatening ALL LIFE or whatever. S3 should be less predetermined I hope.
The absolute best thing called Star Trek I've seen in years was.Calypso. Talk about no idea what was coming next. It was why I had faith in Chabon. and then we got generic with so many missed slow, reflective character moments that coukda been. But Seven shootin people! Awesome.
(not)
We could have had PIC be completely a drama about convincing the Fed to still rescue the Romulans in spite of Mars, and then some Trekky adventures about that rescue. Nothing predetrmined, really. But no, we got ALL LIFE being threatened and the smarmy Romulan agents and super smarmy evil synth at the end you totally knew would get defeated just by her smugness.
Time for bed. Be well, all. If your mileage varies, no worries.
We believed Spock was dead for awhile in 1982.
My beloved Enterprise really got blown up in TSFS.
The best plots are.probably not an either-or Will they succeed? But a wtf is going to happen with this situation?
Breaking Bad comes to mind for that. Maybe 1st balf of DSC which gains favor in my mind cf S2.
Hey! First part of S2 had a mystery/mystical plot with Pike even being open to religion. That would have been way better. Then the producers had to get fired for being meanies
and we got Burnham-is-the-lights somehow shining instantly across the galaxy regardless of the constant C and evil AI threatening ALL LIFE or whatever. S3 should be less predetermined I hope.
The absolute best thing called Star Trek I've seen in years was.Calypso. Talk about no idea what was coming next. It was why I had faith in Chabon. and then we got generic with so many missed slow, reflective character moments that coukda been. But Seven shootin people! Awesome.
(not)
We could have had PIC be completely a drama about convincing the Fed to still rescue the Romulans in spite of Mars, and then some Trekky adventures about that rescue. Nothing predetrmined, really. But no, we got ALL LIFE being threatened and the smarmy Romulan agents and super smarmy evil synth at the end you totally knew would get defeated just by her smugness.
Time for bed. Be well, all. If your mileage varies, no worries.
Same. My bullshitometre must be broken.
Nope. I had no particular problem with either (though the needle twitched on magic blood, but it had had a very trying 2 hours.) but there will always be something.
True story: I can’t bring myself to watch Calypso. I wrote a fifteen minute radio script for my MA aBout a year before, really liked it, a lot of people really liked it. Was gonna see if I could do something with it. Calypso has basically a very similar plot. That’s it, script dead, it looks like I ripped off Trek. It’s made me very sad.
Brilliant movie. It should be a must watch for every person that likes movies.
Do you think you could spoiler-tag the PIC stuff please?
Yeah, never thought for a moment the heroes in R1 would survive. Wasn't that kind of movie. There really were no stakes in it, which is one of the many reasons it doesn't work well for me. But, honestly, when I watch a movie or TV show, I usually go in thinking the heroes will ultimately win the day, even if they all die. People don't exactly go in hoping the bad guys will be the victors. There are relatively few examples of that happening in entertainment.
Exactly. I'm not sure what kind of Trek has been watched but I never thought Kirk wasn't going to win, or that the heroes would somehow loose. Even TWOK had a small out that Nimoy hated of showing Spock's casket on Genesis.
It's just one of those attitudes I guess I don't fully understand. Expecting Star Trek to not have the heroes win is kind odd in light of its history.
As I have noted it comes down to investment in characters. And, from what I have gathered around these parts that is a mixed bag, at best. And that's OK to not like the characters, and by extension the show, but I don't think that immediately precludes types of storytelling, i.e. a prequel.
Honestly, I just think it comes down to personal investment, regardless of the stakes. But, that's just me.
That is probably a flaw with Star Trek and other mass media.
But it needn't be. I'm most familiar with TOS.
Horta: obviously Kirk and E aren't gonna die (are they even in jeopardy?) -- but what the heck is gonna happen with the Horta and mining colony?
Taste of Armageddon: obviously the E isn't gonna get destroyed, but what's gonna happen with that planet and its war? (We really don't know at ep's end btw.)
Empath - (Man, the heroes get brutalized more n you would expect, btw) - Big 3 aren't gonna die, but what's gonna happen to Gem and the weirdies?
And yes, there are many predetermined plots too. Gorn v Kirk - yup Kirk's gonna win. (Though it's redeemed by the not-kill-today speech.)
David Gerrold wrote the best plot is about decisions. I like that. Maybe that's why I'll go back and watch DSC S1 first half and relive Burnham and her redemption. I don't remember any HUGE stakes -- there's a Klingon war, and all we know is it is on hold by the time of Errand of Mercy. So it's not foreordained the Fed has to win, right? (Unlike S2. More I think, the more I look forward to S3. If ALL LIFE is threatened with annihilation, shoot, maybe it can happen in the 29th century!
Edit: Hey, the Mandalorian -- I truly have no idea what's gonna happen in the ep I'm watching or in the next, other than the lead character stays alive. ("The Deceased Mandalorian" isn't a good title!) The fate of the GALAXY is not at stake. And that other, very popular character? I have no surety that he/it lives to the end of the run or even to the next ep. Seems likely. But I would have said that about Spock's survival in 1982: pretty dang likely -- oh, wait, . . . what!?
But it needn't be. I'm most familiar with TOS.
Horta: obviously Kirk and E aren't gonna die (are they even in jeopardy?) -- but what the heck is gonna happen with the Horta and mining colony?
Taste of Armageddon: obviously the E isn't gonna get destroyed, but what's gonna happen with that planet and its war? (We really don't know at ep's end btw.)
Empath - (Man, the heroes get brutalized more n you would expect, btw) - Big 3 aren't gonna die, but what's gonna happen to Gem and the weirdies?
And yes, there are many predetermined plots too. Gorn v Kirk - yup Kirk's gonna win. (Though it's redeemed by the not-kill-today speech.)
David Gerrold wrote the best plot is about decisions. I like that. Maybe that's why I'll go back and watch DSC S1 first half and relive Burnham and her redemption. I don't remember any HUGE stakes -- there's a Klingon war, and all we know is it is on hold by the time of Errand of Mercy. So it's not foreordained the Fed has to win, right? (Unlike S2. More I think, the more I look forward to S3. If ALL LIFE is threatened with annihilation, shoot, maybe it can happen in the 29th century!
Edit: Hey, the Mandalorian -- I truly have no idea what's gonna happen in the ep I'm watching or in the next, other than the lead character stays alive. ("The Deceased Mandalorian" isn't a good title!) The fate of the GALAXY is not at stake. And that other, very popular character? I have no surety that he/it lives to the end of the run or even to the next ep. Seems likely. But I would have said that about Spock's survival in 1982: pretty dang likely -- oh, wait, . . . what!?
Last edited:
I'd argue that part of why Discovery's first season finale felt so lackluster is they seemed to forget that it wasn't the if, it was the how that was important.
That is to say, absent temporal shenanigans, we knew that Earth wouldn't be bombarded by the Klingons. We also knew Qo'noS wasn't going to get blown up. The real question was how Michael Burnham was going to get them out of the pickle. And the answer was underwhelming, because it came down to...knowing MU Georgiou wouldn't kill her? And then giving the bomb to L'Rell, who then somehow bluffed the Klingon Empire into making her ruler through threatening to destroy the planet? Basically a series of writer contrivances which happened just so because they needed to in order to end the series, not because they made any sense.
That is to say, absent temporal shenanigans, we knew that Earth wouldn't be bombarded by the Klingons. We also knew Qo'noS wasn't going to get blown up. The real question was how Michael Burnham was going to get them out of the pickle. And the answer was underwhelming, because it came down to...knowing MU Georgiou wouldn't kill her? And then giving the bomb to L'Rell, who then somehow bluffed the Klingon Empire into making her ruler through threatening to destroy the planet? Basically a series of writer contrivances which happened just so because they needed to in order to end the series, not because they made any sense.
I thought it made sense...I thought it was reflective of Burnham recognizing both her own blind spot with Klingons (trust) and with Georgiou (vulnerability).
I know I sound repetitive because I am basically filleting this dead horse but I see more reflected from beginning to end in Burnham specific, even if the actual journey was very sporadic.
I know I sound repetitive because I am basically filleting this dead horse but I see more reflected from beginning to end in Burnham specific, even if the actual journey was very sporadic.
Those were extenuating circumstances.
Jadzia was killed because Terry Farrell wanted off the show. Otherwise, they wouldn't have killed her off.
Sisko vanished in the last episode of the series. Everyone knew DS9 wasn't going on to make movies. So this was the last we were ever going to see the DS9 characters (Worf doesn't count, he's really a TNG character who DS9 borrowed).
At least we agree about this.
Breaking Bad had it the other way around. The biggest non-spoiler when talking about any character in that show was "He dies!" The real spoiler was revealing if someone actually survives.
Last edited:
...
Yes, this basically. I can understand why Burnham made the decisions she did, but that it worked out in her favor was dumb luck because it required everyone else to go along. It's not like dealing with orbital calculations where if you do everything just right, you will succeed. It's making a gamble that Starfleet will back down, Georgiou will back down, L'Rell can be trusted, and the Council will listen to L'Rell.
Then again, the first season basically denied any independent agency to anyone other than Michael, so I suppose it makes sense thematically.
I mean, I guess, but good grief that feels like most fiction to me. I guess in this for instance we are dissecting that dumb luck.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but in my mind triumph in fiction is all the more compelling when you actually get to see that the character is competent in some manner, rather than just lucky.
Let me give you an example from early Game of Thrones, which was quite well written (unlike the later seasons). Tyrion Lannister is a smart person, in the books and on the show. We don't just know it because people say he's smart, or because he interjects random useless facts. We know this because he outwits his antagonists. A great early example is, when he's trying to figure out who is leaking secrets from the Small Council after becoming Hand of the King, he tells a different lie to each of the three main suspects, and then can entrap the actual leaker when the one lie in particular gets back to him. This was straight from the books - D&D never would have thought of it without GRRM - but it helps showcase quite well how someone who is intelligent can use an understanding of human nature to move a situation to their own advantage.
I think Burnham is competent but mired by her own self-loathing and doubt.
I did my best to follow the GOT reference but that series never appealed to me, so you'll forgive me if the significance is lost. But, if I follow, it's basically he identified a way to trap the leaker, which is fine enough.
I think Burnham utilized her knowledge of both Sarek and the Klingons without letting her personal hurts get in the way at the end. Now, did some things go lucky? Yeah, a bit, but even that was unpacked in Season 2 with L'Rell having to sort out the consequences with the Council.
In essence, yes.
Similar threads
