Discovery is losing me in Season 3, anyone else?

[fireproof78]

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the approach. I just don't think SMG is strong enough to excel in a role like that, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but ultimately the show is going to be limited by her acting ability. If it was Michelle Y in that role, totally different story.

We will get to find out soon enough if Michelle can do it.

I personally thought Georgiou's character came off as too one dimensional early in the season but I did quite enjoy her two parter for that exact reason.

I thought she was more 2 dimensional with the potential to grow more. And that's exactly what happened. And it's awesome. The sheer amount of shade thrown at that character and Burnham daring to ally herself with someone like Georgiou was ridiculous. I was glad for that two-parter because it showed exactly that the character was capable of growth, which is the whole freaking point of Star Trek.

 

[Camren]

Saru and Tilly have had major arcs in each season. Pike and Spock featured prominently in S2, as did Hugh Culber with his return arc. Georgiou has featured prominently, particularly this past season.

It's ok to not like Burnham, but to claim that the Discovery universe is entirely dedicated to her is disingenuous. She's the main character, but the focus on her isn't abnormal. If someone doesn't resonate with the character, it's going to feel more excessive. But, ultimately, it's really not.

Also, this isn't TNG with 28 episodes per season where you could do the obligatory character stuff with the minor cast members

• Worf and Alexander or Worf and Klingon culture
• Troi and her powers or Troi and her mother
• Beverly and .....whatever
• Q shows up again

There isn't time to tell an arc-based story with only 13 episodes and pause to give Lt. Bryce an entire episode where he is trying to get over not being able to see his mother again or something. It just doesn't work that way.

Well that's certainly one of the problems I have with this show - I don't like the arc-based, season-long storylines focussing mainly on one character. That might work well in something like 24 but not Star Trek.

One of the reasons that these season-long arcs are risky is because they revolve around one main theme, and if that story is told poorly then the entire season is just a waste. Season 3 for me suffered because the overriding story of the entire season (the Burn, and rebuilding the Federation) was told poorly. And at the centre of it all is one main character, and again if that character is interesting and likeable and the actor has the gravitas to carry the series like Kiefer Sutherland did for 24, it can help to minimise the effect of a weak plot. Unfortunately Michael Burnham is not interesting or likeable and her Mary Sue persona is just not something I like to see in Star Trek, a series that emphasises the value of teamwork and not just one superstar crewmember.

I also don't rate the lead actress. For a series to be carried by a single person it really needs that actor to have some real depth and quality to their performance and I don't see that in Martin-Green.

 

[fireproof78]

That might work well in something like 24 but not Star Trek.

Star Trek is not one storytelling platform.

 

[Vger23]

and her Mary Sue persona is just not something I like to see

And just like that...it’s tune-out time.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's all so repetitive and goes around in so many circles, I could cut-and-paste posts and it wouldn't make a difference... in fact, I actually did at one point in this thread without saying so. It saved me some time. That's how silly it's gotten.

 

[SJGardner]

I don't know if there's any point in replying with this, but the first five pages or so of this thread were exactly what I needed in this mood. I'm obviously not happy that this has happened, but I'm still glad how I'm not the only one to have felt quite fatigued during and after this season. I didn't quite feel the same excitement and catharsis that accompanied the previous two for me, and I've struggled for quite a while how to put it in words, but seeing the replies in the first half of this thread helped me organize my thoughts.

There are two reasons, really, and I'm glad that the others have touched upon both. First, there's how the writers seem to consistently bow down to the loudest of criticism from the internet, constantly retooling and backpedaling, which of course risks that they'll lose what made Discovery unique in the process, and I'm already dreading what good elements will be toned down next season when they inevitably throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are playing it increasingly safe, the "dangerous, wild, post-apocalyptic frontier" quality of the new setting evaporated instantly upon rejoining the Federation, even though the HQ was implied to be a bit of an ivory tower at a disconnect with what's really out there... but now, every factor's currently in place that would allow Discovery to be just sent out on basically a 5-year mission of disconnected planet-of-the-week adventures, and this really worries me. They could've done much more interesting things with the setting, but in the end, we have a Federation that feels exactly the same, just smaller. It didn't bother me much when the focus was on the different independent planets, on Georgiou or on Su'Kal, but in retrospect it does seem uninspired with the possible exception of who exactly Kovich is. I seem to be in the minority though with my opinion that they managed to stick the landing with the Burn, but even then, with the dilithium planet being secured by the Federation, another obstacle was removed from the way of rebuilding everything exactly the way that it was, which would be yet another missed opportunity if they decided to go that way for the sake of playing it safe. Long story short, despite the numerous episodes I've highly enjoyed by themselves, this season was the weakest of three for me and I'm no longer as optimistic for the future as I was after the first two seasons.

As for the second reason, at first I thought there was no point at all in touching upon it, as it felt like merely woe-is-me whining about online discussions not being about what I'd like, but I was quite relieved to find I'm not alone in noticing how discussions of Discovery have become overwhelmingly negative over the course of the last year. Everywhere I go, there's either the constant, merciless nitpicking about every single thing imaginable or the complete culture war special, full with all the usual grievances about how [insert bogeyman here] has ruined one's childhood. Of course, they both have been a part of the experience from the beginning, but the volume now seems much larger, the criticism much harsher, the language much coarser and the tempers much shorter, probably because of the pandemic, but still. It kind of seems to have drowned out everything else by now. I don't even remember the last time Discovery was discussed in positive terms. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but it does often feel that way.

 

[fireproof78]

As for the second reason, at first I thought there was no point at all in touching upon it, as it felt like merely woe-is-me whining about online discussions not being about what I'd like, but I was quite relieved to find I'm not alone in noticing how discussions of Discovery have become overwhelmingly negative over the course of the last year. Everywhere I go, there's either the constant, merciless nitpicking about every single thing imaginable or the complete culture war special, full with all the usual grievances about how [insert bogeyman here] has ruined one's childhood. Of course, they both have been a part of the experience from the beginning, but the volume now seems much larger, the criticism much harsher, the language much coarser and the tempers much shorter, probably because of the pandemic, but still. It kind of seems to have drowned out everything else by now. I don't even remember the last time Discovery was discussed in positive terms. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but it does often feel that way.

I have felt the same way, though I am certain that it is less the pandemic and more the nature of how newer productions of Trek are treated. I am more convinced that people's tolerances for poor quality, either perceived or real, are treated with far more personally. That the writers are doing this deliberately to insult the fan base and such things should not be tolerated. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but I can't help but see a repeated pattern that the writers are held to a standard that feels impossible and that no amount of willingness to work within what is given will ever happen. In other words, things that will be written off as just production errors are signs of completely and total indifference, incompetency or outright hatred for Trek as a product.

Now, less I seem hyperdefensive for Discovery this is not to say that Discovery is above criticism. But, at some point in time that criticism continues on to the point of simply unwilling to see the positive. And if I sound overly positive its because I've been on the internet long enough to see the constant hatred towards various franchises that it isn't worth it to me. If I have a problem with a show I will say my piece and move on to what I like.

I could go on but I doubt this point will get past the black and white thinking.

 

[nic3636]

I think part of it is that the nitpicking style of criticism has always been a part of Trek (I do it a fair amount myself). Trek fans were notorious for picking TNG apart back in the 90s (and I mean absolutely shredding apart everything), and in retrospect that show was the gold standard of Trek. In that sense not much has changed. Trek and science fiction in general tends to attract a certain personality type who are very analytical and like things to hang together and make sense within the established rules of the setting to stay immersed in the show.

Also, we live in the golden age of television so standards are way higher now. After watching shows like BSG, Expanse, Firefly, Mandalorian, etc., I am definitely more critical of a show like Discovery (which, if I'm trying to be objective, is of average quality). Now, maybe judging Discovery against the best shows in the history of science fiction is unfair, but the fact that these shows exists and have nearly universal acclaim means that it's not an impossible standard (though there are people who complain about those shows too so maybe for some it is an impossible standard).

 

[fireproof78]

I guess that's where I just fail at the analytical side. I did serious analysis for years. It's too much any more. So, analysis is more light for me, and there is no comparison game either. I will take Discovery as it is, not judge it against shows that I haven't seen (the Expanse), shows that barely hold my interest (Mandalorian) or shows that made me actively want to slit my writs (BSG).

So, if I come across as more lenient with Discovery it's because judgmental and analytical pretty much ruined a part of my fan experience in college and I want it to be fun again.

 

[PiotrB]

After watching shows like BSG, Expanse, Firefly, Mandalorian, etc., I am definitely more critical of a show like Discovery (which, if I'm trying to be objective, is of average quality).

You can say that but it is not true. Discovery is judged by its anti-fans (people who watch but clearly at least dislike the series, its formula or its main character) to a much higher standard than those mentioned because they are essentially indifferent to those shows. For example if Expanse was rated like Discovery there would be a lot of posts about fillers in this season, about the creators forgetting about the lack of gravity on the ships or even about Naomi's walk in the void which Burnham has been reminded of until now even though the scene was in the first or second episode of season 1.

 

[SJGardner]

What I feel to be the biggest problem with these analytical types is that they tend to think they make up the vast majority of the fandom, when it's far from true. They're certainly the loudest part of it, which is unsurprising, considering they're the ones liable to spend several hours a day nitpicking at the series. But in addition to that, they also tend to believe they're the main or even the only target audience of the franchise, and believe these gives them to right to act as self-appointed custodians of it, expecting and often flat-out demanding it to cater specifically to them.

Also, like I indicated, I am aware that this kind of nitpicking has always been a part of the fandom from day one and I've been in quite a few heated discussions about Discovery myself. But during the past year, it has seemingly become much more intense and extensive. Even on this site which is far less toxic than a huge part of the internet, it often seems as though any and all positive discussion of the series has ceased, and the people who do enjoy it for what it is are either stuck defending it from the constant barrage of criticism or have just backed away from discussing it entirely due to fatigue.

What I often find the most infuriating is that Discovery has consistently been held to completely different standards than any other Star Trek series before, and they've become increasingly stringent over the years. Discovery has always been treated far more harshly for the same kinds of mistakes or screw-ups that were usually given a pass in Berman Era Trek. I'm not saying people didn't criticize or nitpick those; after all, the Turbolift Funhouse is not much different from the deep chasm under the lowermost deck of the Enterprise-E in Nemesis. But mistakes in the Berman Era were never consistently held up as immersion-breaking fundamental errors that make it impossible to enjoy the show the same way Discovery is being dissected. The Enterprise-D firing phasers from its torpedo launcher? A funny error, it gets pointed out, maybe earns a few laughs, and people keep watching the episode. Discovery fires photon torpedoes from the tips of its nacelles? Yet another sign that the creative staff of the show doesn't care and that this show has fundamental flaws that keep it stuck in mediocrity.

And I guess the constant comparisons to other shows are also a part of it. Just yet another impossible standard to meet in my view. We could enjoy TNG on its own merits and declare it some sort of industry standard or even peak TV without actually comparing it to anything outside it, but suddenly Discovery is expected to be better than any prestige drama, streaming series or 2000s cult TV in the genre one can think of. And they're never used as simple comparisons, they're only ever used as cudgels to bludgeon Discovery with. Once again, of course there were comparisons in the previous years as well, and I'm actually glad that it's at least not all about The Orville now, but reading the comments this year, there's seemingly nothing Discovery has ever done that another series hasn't done better. There exists an unfavorable comparison for everything, characters, dialogue, writing, storylines, acting, pacing, editing, production design, SFX, you name it. An even if it's true... why can't we judge the show on its own merits or at most in comparison to the rest of the franchise if all other Star Trek was allowed that luxury before it?

 

[eschaton]

You can say that but it is not true. Discovery is judged by its anti-fans (people who watch but clearly at least dislike the series, its formula or its main character) to a much higher standard than those mentioned because they are essentially indifferent to those shows. For example if Expanse was rated like Discovery there would be a lot of posts about fillers in this season, about the creators forgetting about the lack of gravity on the ships or even about Naomi's walk in the void which Burnham has been reminded of until now even though the scene was in the first or second episode of season 1.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I mean, consider Game of Thrones, where the fandom went from super-fans who thought it was one of the best shows ever in the first four seasons, to basically hate watching by the last two seasons. It's still the same show, but the discourse completely flipped to nitpicking about every single aspect of the show.

Regarding the gravity situation on the Expanse, the whole "mag boots" thing is a complete contrivance for the purposes of filming. But in general ships in The Expanse have their decks configured so that while under acceleration the decks are aligned to drive, meaning g-force is pushing them towards the floor. Further, the within-universe fusion drive used (the Epstein Drive) is used constantly during travel (and ships flip around and decelerate when they get closer to their destination) meaning unless ships are just sitting dead in space, there is gravity. This was actually not a conceit developed for the show, like mag boots - it's explained in detail in the novels.

I don't even get your point regarding Naomi's trip through hard vacuum. I just watched a video by someone with a scientific background saying basically that this was - exactly - what happens to a body in space. There could be some quibbles regarding Naomi's ability to aim the jump perfectly, but otherwise (right down to the duration before she loses consciousness) it's spot-on.

That is not to say that the Expanse has always gotten science right. One thing in Season 1 which really made me groan was the whole "water shortage" plot involving Ceres and the belt more broadly. Ceres is like 30% water ice - enough that the Belters would never run out. More importantly, just as is done in space travel now, they would just recycle and filter people's pee and the like, so it's not like there would be waste water from colonies which

 

[eschaton]

What I often find the most infuriating is that Discovery has consistently been held to completely different standards than any other Star Trek series before, and they've become increasingly stringent over the years. Discovery has always been treated far more harshly for the same kinds of mistakes or screw-ups that were usually given a pass in Berman Era Trek. I'm not saying people didn't criticize or nitpick those; after all, the Turbolift Funhouse is not much different from the deep chasm under the lowermost deck of the Enterprise-E in Nemesis. But mistakes in the Berman Era were never consistently held up as immersion-breaking fundamental errors that make it impossible to enjoy the show the same way Discovery is being dissected. The Enterprise-D firing phasers from its torpedo launcher? A funny error, it gets pointed out, maybe earns a few laughs, and people keep watching the episode. Discovery fires photon torpedoes from the tips of its nacelles? Yet another sign that the creative staff of the show doesn't care and that this show has fundamental flaws that keep it stuck in mediocrity.

Many older fans (particularly those who were active on the early internet) have indicated that reaction to new Trek series was always hostile initially. TOS fans flipped out about TNG when it came on. People flipped out on DS9 when it was first on because Sisko hated Picard and it wasn't on a starship. Voyager and Enterprise hatred is still well recorded on places like TrekBBS if you go through the archives - Berman & Braga was used as a swear at the time!

My point is, none of this is particularly new - other than the nature of the internet has changed as it has grown, allowing the weaponizing of grievance in a way that was not the case before.

And I guess the constant comparisons to other shows are also a part of it. Just yet another impossible standard to meet in my view. We could enjoy TNG on its own merits and declare it some sort of industry standard or even peak TV without actually comparing it to anything outside it, but suddenly Discovery is expected to be better than any prestige drama, streaming series or 2000s cult TV in the genre one can think of. And they're never used as simple comparisons, they're only ever used as cudgels to bludgeon Discovery with. Once again, of course there were comparisons in the previous years as well, and I'm actually glad that it's at least not all about The Orville now, but reading the comments this year, there's seemingly nothing Discovery has ever done that another series hasn't done better. There exists an unfavorable comparison for everything, characters, dialogue, writing, storylines, acting, pacing, editing, production design, SFX, you name it. An even if it's true... why can't we judge the show on its own merits or at most in comparison to the rest of the franchise if all other Star Trek was allowed that luxury before it?

I do think that Discovery was especially hurt when it first came out because it was the only Trek series since Enterprise. It was the only game in town if you wanted moar Trek. Now there are two other series in active production, and a number of others which will be in production soon after the airing of Season 4, which perhaps will allow expectations for the series to be lowered.

 

[PiotrB]

I don't even get your point regarding Naomi's trip through hard vacuum. I just watched a video by someone with a scientific background saying basically that this was - exactly - what happens to a body in space. There could be some quibbles regarding Naomi's ability to aim the jump perfectly, but otherwise (right down to the duration before she loses consciousness) it's spot-on.

I just pointed out this scene as a funny illustration of the double standards of Discovery anti-fans because the day before on Twitter I read a thread about Discovery criticising the unscientificness of Discovery and a similar Burnham scene from I think the second episode was cited as an example. On top of that there were the standard accusations of being Mary-Sue etc. The Expanse scene itself I didn't criticise although it has its problems. Not least the instant death of Cyn when you compare it to Naomi's time of exposure to the vacuum. But that would be exactly the nitpicking that is practiced against Discovery.

 

[Vger23]

You can say that but it is not true. Discovery is judged by its anti-fans (people who watch but clearly at least dislike the series, its formula or its main character) to a much higher standard than those mentioned because they are essentially indifferent to those shows. For example if Expanse was rated like Discovery there would be a lot of posts about fillers in this season, about the creators forgetting about the lack of gravity on the ships or even about Naomi's walk in the void which Burnham has been reminded of until now even though the scene was in the first or second episode of season 1.

If Expanse was judged like DSC, everyone would be bitching about how much of a Mary Sue James Holden is and how he single-handedly saves the solar system 3 times per season and is the sole prophet of these long-dead aliens, etc. But, of course, you don't see that.

So yeah, Trek fans love to hate the franchise. People can claim objectivity all they want, but it just isn't so. Fan expectations are heavily skewed and biased based on 50 years of conditioning and an overwhelming sense of entitlement and/or the attitude that "if it's not like TNG, it's not Star Trek," which of course is precisely what sunk the franchise in the late 90's/early 2000's. Even people who TRY to appear objective (whether it's genuinely trying to be so, or more to what I believe, trying to boost the credibility of their complaints by saying something positive every now and then) they typically fail because the post they make is generally "Yeah...I'm objective....Book's cat is awesome and I like how the helm console on the ship looks....so not a totally bad episode. But, now to the negative <insert 5 paragraphs filled with bitching about inanities here>")

 

[eschaton]

Not least the instant death of Cyn when you compare it to Naomi's time of exposure to the vacuum.

The excuse I've heard for Cyn's death is essentially unlike Naomi, he didn't exhale before the airlock opened. His lungs ruptured, and he died. Which is true - you would have irreversible lung trauma if you didn't first exhale before decompression. But an "old head" like Cyn would know to do that.

In the books, he died by getting sucked into space. Which is more understandable. I can see why they didn't want to do this from a cinematography standpoint though, as seeing an old guy flailing in space while Naomi continues her trip would hurt the impact of that final scene.

If Expanse was judged like DSC, everyone would be bitching about how much of a Mary Sue James Holden is and how he single-handedly saves the solar system 3 times per season and is the sole prophet of these long-dead aliens, etc. But, of course, you don't see that.

James Holden is very much a Gary Stu type character. He has the same sort of messiah complex that Michael Burnham has, without having any notable flaws other than just wanting to help people too much.

That said, my experience with Expanse fandom is most people do not like James Holden that much. He's considered to be a boring character, and a weak link in the ensemble. And The Expanse is absolutely an ensemble show, not a "lead-dominated show" like Discovery. Hell, in Season 5, he's spent the majority of the season sitting onboard the Roci doing nothing while Amos and Naomi have actually interesting things happen to them.

 

[Vger23]

James Holden is very much a Gary Stu type character. He has the same sort of messiah complex that Michael Burnham has, without having any notable flaws other than just wanting to help people too much.

That said, my experience with Expanse fandom is most people do not like James Holden that much. He's considered to be a boring character, and a weak link in the ensemble. And The Expanse is absolutely an ensemble show, not a "lead-dominated show" like Discovery. Hell, in Season 5, he's spent the majority of the season sitting onboard the Roci doing nothing while Amos and Naomi have actually interesting things happen to them.

I like Holden, and I like Burnham. Becuase...you know...I don't have a problem with fictional characters being written as heroes. I don't watch shows to imagine it's "real life." I watch shows for the exact opposite, actually.

And the difference is that people don't spew hate at The Expanse because one character is a Mary Sue. SW and ST don't have that luxury, because fanboi anger and entitlement are far, far deeper and more engrained in those franchises.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

James Holden is very much a Gary Stu type character. He has the same sort of messiah complex that Michael Burnham has, without having any notable flaws other than just wanting to help people too much.

That said, my experience with Expanse fandom is most people do not like James Holden that much. He's considered to be a boring character, and a weak link in the ensemble. And The Expanse is absolutely an ensemble show, not a "lead-dominated show" like Discovery. Hell, in Season 5, he's spent the majority of the season sitting onboard the Roci doing nothing while Amos and Naomi have actually interesting things happen to them.

Holden is boring to the point that it kinda becomes a running joke what a square he is and in the book he is painted as innocent and naive to the point of stupidity. I do find the constant ability for a mercenary ship to end up at the heart of everything a bit of a push and prefer when the books focus on bigger players.
The show will miss Alex as him and Amos are way ahead of the other 2

 

[Jadeb]

Also, we live in the golden age of television so standards are way higher now. After watching shows like BSG, Expanse, Firefly, Mandalorian, etc., I am definitely more critical of a show like Discovery (which, if I'm trying to be objective, is of average quality). Now, maybe judging Discovery against the best shows in the history of science fiction is unfair, but the fact that these shows exists and have nearly universal acclaim means that it's not an impossible standard (though there are people who complain about those shows too so maybe for some it is an impossible standard).

What I often find the most infuriating is that Discovery has consistently been held to completely different standards than any other Star Trek series before, and they've become increasingly stringent over the years.

Fandom already had its hard-to-please nitpickers, but now we also have a toxic bunch who won't be happy unless we have a square-jawed white dude as our hero. I don't pay any attention to those people, but it adds to the overall negativity.

I do think, though, that for a long time Trek was the benchmark for television science fiction in the U.S. TOS was leagues and leagues ahead of anything else of its time, even into the '80s. TNG, after a rocky start, was miles ahead of a whole raft of lesser genre shows it inspired. Now Trek has lost its crown. The decline started long ago, back during the Berman era, but the prestige of the Trek brand (and the lack of serious competition) carried the franchise for a while. Today, the difference is pretty stark. Discovery isn't the best show on TV. It's not in the top tier of shows. It's not even in the top tier of genre shows, I'd say. There are plenty of shows of its caliber I don't watch, because they don't have the luxury of Star Trek in their name. And I do find that a little disappointing. Fair? Maybe not. But disappointing nonetheless. It's tough to be judged by old glories.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

I like Holden, and I like Burnham. Becuase...you know...I don't have a problem with fictional characters being written as heroes. I don't watch shows to imagine it's "real life." I watch shows for the exact opposite, actually.

And the difference is that people don't spew hate at The Expanse because one character is a Mary Sue. SW and ST don't have that luxury, because fanboi anger and entitlement are far, far deeper and more engrained in those franchises.

The Expanse started out from day one as a modern show with leads who were black, Asian or female and has always had a pretty 50/50 cast gender wise. Add to that the fact that it's universe has from the start portrayed non conventional or non heterosexual relationships as a normal thing devoid of issues by the shows time so doesn't have the baggage of once being a show about big manly American men like Kirk saving the day and banging all the green babes so most of the toxic fans will hopefully stay away to begin with.