Why the hate for Disco?

[Vger23]

I'll say one thing about it. It's not a boring show. Whether by accident or design it's possibly the most varied of all the Trek shows on a season to season basis.

I think this defines the entire reason I like the show. Yes, it can be uneven and unfocused at times. Yes, it has some inherent flaws that are a result of its troubled initial production history and losing the original vision that Fuller had in mind (and make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Fuller).

But, it takes risks and it's controversial. And I like that about it. I was SOOOOOO F-ING TIRED of "play it safe, formulaic, Star Trek" that even I...a lifelong and proud fan of the franchise, was pretty much done with Star Trek in the late 90's and early 2000's. I was just hungry for something different from the franchise. Hell, it's ok if DSC (or even PIC) is flawed and if it's not exactly what I wanted. Because it's not the same old stale mediocrity we'd been fed for almost 2 straight decades. And the shows are dynamic. They move and have energy and color to them. That's also exciting.

I'll be curious to see if SNW continues to be unique or if (as I fear) it will fall back into the old-school franchise tropes.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I think this defines the entire reason I like the show. Yes, it can be uneven and unfocused at times. Yes, it has some inherent flaws that are a result of its troubled initial production history and losing the original vision that Fuller had in mind (and make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Fuller).

With you. I didn't mean any of the above as a criticism.

But, it takes risks and it's controversial. And I like that about it. I was SOOOOOO F-ING TIRED of "play it safe, formulaic, Star Trek" that even I...a lifelong and proud fan of the franchise, was pretty much done with Star Trek in the late 90's and early 2000's. I was just hungry for something different from the franchise. Hell, it's ok if DSC (or even PIC) is flawed and if it's not exactly what I wanted. Because it's not the same old stale mediocrity we'd been fed for almost 2 straight decades. And the shows are dynamic. They move and have energy and color to them. That's also exciting.

Yeah, I have no problem with any of this either. I like that we are getting long serialised seasons and that Discovery is as you say so dynamic, energetic and colourful. My wife's parents have just invested in a huge 4K TV and I signed in to my Netflix on it the other day and stuck on the big Season 2 battle between Control and the Federation fleet... it looks fabulous. Truly like a movie.

I'll be curious to see if SNW continues to be unique or if (as I fear) it will fall back into the old-school franchise tropes.

I think there's room for a modern take on the old-school, especially as we are really having our cake and eating it these days with Trek. I think part of the staleness of the Berman years comes from the fact that 3 out of 4 of his shows were trying to do basically the same thing. These days we get a bit of octane from Discovery, something more sedate from Picard and something less reverential and po-faced in Lower Decks.

 

[Bad Robot]

I am new here, just out of interest what were the tag lines of the other series?

In S4 she will in all likelihood be sat in the captain's chair. Which I presume means she will now be allowed to be that independent woman? I personally liked that we saw how she got there. The back story of the mutiny, the red suit, the jump to the future and then taking her seat in the chair. We see how she earned it. I have spent far too long on another thread talking about how flawless and presumptiously high minded Picard and Janeway are....and yet when we see flaws and some back story to a captain it is also criticised. Her story is not how I would have done it, but I feel for the writers, they can't keep everyone happy.

I should have said logline. That would be any single-sentence summery of the show's basic premise that you can come up with. Not being able to sum up your premise in a straightforward logline at least in theory means you're going to have some real trouble trying to pitch your premise.

She takes criticism because they don't seem to know what they're doing with her. If the show had an identifiable premise it would be easier to map whatever should be her redemption arc. Since only S1 was the Klingon war, I assume she completed it somewhere in there. But the story and themes weren't coherent enough to identify when/how it happened.

 

[Lord Garth]

I should have said logline. That would be any single-sentence summery of the show's basic premise that you can come up with. Not being able to sum up your premise in a straightforward logline at least in theory means you're going to have some real trouble trying to pitch your premise.

Real Simple: The adventures of Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery as they travel through time, space, and dimension with their Spore Drive.

You're welcome. Now this is the part where you move the goalposts. So go ahead, and let's get this over with.

 

[Vger23]

With you. I didn't mean any of the above as a criticism.



Yeah, I have no problem with any of this either. I like that we are getting long serialised seasons and that Discovery is as you say so dynamic, energetic and colourful. My wife's parents have just invested in a huge 4K TV and I signed in to my Netflix on it the other day and stuck on the big Season 2 battle between Control and the Federation fleet... it looks fabulous. Truly like a movie.



I think there's room for a modern take on the old-school, especially as we are really having our cake and eating it these days with Trek. I think part of the staleness of the Berman years comes from the fact that 3 out of 4 of his shows were trying to do basically the same thing. These days we get a bit of octane from Discovery, something more sedate from Picard and something less reverential and po-faced in Lower Decks.

Agreed on all counts. I really appreciate your last point, which is this new era of Trek is not only dedicated to being differentiated from what came before, but also from whatever current series are in the works. A little bit of something for everyone!

 

[MacLeod]

They could easily have gotten around some of the continuity issues in DSC by just saying that this is set in an alternate timeline rather than trying to set it in the Prime timeline. As for Burnham if I had to use the same story they used i.e her being a mutineer etc.. I would have told the story in flashback. Sure there is nothing wrong with a redemption story but as with many things it's in the execution of that story that's why I think the flashback method would have been better we could have gotten to know her first and then learn why she is in the position she is, which might have made her more sympathetic., first impressions count.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know how else to make her more sympathetic. She freaks out at Klingons and the trauma she experienced.

 

[eschaton]

Now that I think of it, I’m not sure I’ve ever really loved a “10-hour movie” season. The serialized shows I’ve genuinely loved, like Mad Men, weren’t that compartmentalized.

Twin Peaks: The Return probably comes closest, but that’s more of a multi-hour sensory experience than a true arc-dominant season with a tidy resolution.

I like the first four seasons or so of Game of Thrones. Along with The Expanse.

But what they have in common is they're really, really closely based upon an established series of novels. The authors already did all the hard work by developing a long-form plot arc that worked. Hell, if they worked like most authors, they probably wrote a shitty first draft first, and then wound back and added foreshadowing and the like in once they were sure of the final destination.

Basically, I think a lot of the issue with serialized drama is it's often an asspull. You might have thought of what you think is an incredible ending, but by the time you're doing the final draft the first three episodes have already been filmed and you're much more boxed in than an author in terms of what you can accomplish.

 

[eschaton]

I think the prominence of Burnham is very different. With both Picard and Data, there's at least a clear understanding of why they became the most popular out of TNG's ensemble cast. Burnham is the least essential crewmember from a "traditional" standpoint, she literally serves no function on the ship. She's the main character because Fuller wanted a non-traditional Trek show (hey, I approve), but he got fired. Nobody still involved with the show knows what to do with her.

To be fair Stamets, Culber and Tilly all present similar problems. But every season Burnham is inexplicably Destiny's Child, even though the reasons for it will be completely different from last season. This is a fundamental flaw of her character, that we still don't even know what she does, yet every season they have to come up with a new reason why she's Destiny's Child.

But everything's not about her; STD in general suffers from lack of a coherent premise. After three seasons the Wikipedia intro reads "It begins a decade before [TOS] and follows the crew of the USS Discovery." That's as close to a coherent tagline as this show is ever going to get.

As I've said before, in some sense Discovery was a "zombie" show. If it wasn't Star Trek, the moment Fuller flamed out due to his issues (drugs, mental illness, whatever) they would have just written off the initial investment as a loss and moved on. But CBS wanted All Access to succeed, and All Access needed Star Trek shows, so they went forward despite no one really having a coherent vision for the show.

Honestly, despite the many flaws of the series, it turned out better than many of these sort of production clusterfucks typically do.

 

[MacLeod]

As I've said before, in some sense Discovery was a "zombie" show. If it wasn't Star Trek, the moment Fuller flamed out due to his issues (drugs, mental illness, whatever) they would have just written off the initial investment as a loss and moved on. But CBS wanted All Access to succeed, and All Access needed Star Trek shows, so they went forward despite no one really having a coherent vision for the show.

Honestly, despite the many flaws of the series, it turned out better than many of these sort of production clusterfucks typically do.

It also doesn't hurt if you have a baked in audience who will likely tune in at the start to check out a new product from one of their favourite franchises. You've then got to keep them there by having them engage with at least some aspects of the show and fans will generally stick it out longer than a more casual viewer to see if it improves or at least remains consistent if it starts to get too bad they may eventually bail as well.

I like the first four seasons or so of Game of Thrones. Along with The Expanse.

But what they have in common is they're really, really closely based upon an established series of novels. The authors already did all the hard work by developing a long-form plot arc that worked. Hell, if they worked like most authors, they probably wrote a shitty first draft first, and then wound back and added foreshadowing and the like in once they were sure of the final destination.

Basically, I think a lot of the issue with serialized drama is it's often an asspull. You might have thought of what you think is an incredible ending, but by the time you're doing the final draft the first three episodes have already been filmed and you're much more boxed in than an author in terms of what you can accomplish.

What doesn't always help in more heavily serialised shows is having multiple writers, take a look at B5 for example which was largely written by one person JMS. Not saying having multiple writers can't work but it perhaps doesn't always work as well.

 

[fireproof78]

if it starts to get too bad they may eventually bail as well.

One would definitely hop that would happen. Otherwise the studio will assume it is doing well enough and keep producing it.

 

[MacLeod]

One would definitely hop that would happen. Otherwise the studio will assume it is doing well enough and keep producing it.

Now don't be bringing in any of that common sense nonsense that's not how things work in the corporate world they would determine they need to double down on what they were doing that lost them there audience because obviously they didn't go far enough and turned viewers off because of that.

 

[fireproof78]

Now don't be bringing in any of that common sense nonsense that's not how things work in the corporate world they would determine they need to double down on what they were doing that lost them there audience because obviously they didn't go far enough and turned viewers off because of that.

Sorry, sorry. That's was the old retail manager in me talking. What was I thinking?

 

[MacLeod]

Sorry, sorry. That's was the old retail manager in me talking. What was I thinking?

Ah I see your error you were thinking.

Perhaps it's the cynic in me but there seems to be an inverse relationship the higher up someone gets in an organisation the less common sense they seem to have.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

I mean, it seems pretty clear she is on a voyage of self-discovery

But she doesnt ever grow or move along on her Voyage. It looks like she might do at points in the season but it always brings her back to square one. They spent season 3 verbally pointing out her flaws but then validating them and I really dont see any deep self discovery I just see them throw Mother/brother/father/secret Klingon spy lover/evil genocidal mentor at her from time to time for emotional moments that dont actually grow her character in any deep way

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Basically, I think a lot of the issue with serialized drama is it's often an asspull. You might have thought of what you think is an incredible ending, but by the time you're doing the final draft the first three episodes have already been filmed and you're much more boxed in than an author in terms of what you can accomplish.

The "Lost" effect has been very detrimental to TV. Everything now seems to need twists and go nowhere misdirects and yes not knowing where you want to end when you start

 

[eschaton]

What doesn't always help in more heavily serialised shows is having multiple writers, take a look at B5 for example which was largely written by one person JMS. Not saying having multiple writers can't work but it perhaps doesn't always work as well.

I think having a large writer's room can help as long as there's 1-2 showrunners who clearly lead the room and are guiding the overall plot across multiple seasons.

I honestly can't think of a single show which has had "serial showrunners" like Discovery and hasn't been at least a bit messy though.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Not sci-fi obviously but I watched an amazing Conan O'Brien round table on YouTube with most of the original Simpsons writers and it was real interesting to hear how different writers naturally filled different aspects of the show. One writer in particular was praised with always making sure that the family remained human and Homer despite his flaws remained a good man at heart, something it lacks now.

Sorry not Trek but does show how a writing team can work when the pieces come together

 

[fireproof78]

But she doesnt ever grow or move along on her Voyage. It looks like she might do at points in the season but it always brings her back to square one. They spent season 3 verbally pointing out her flaws but then validating them and I really dont see any deep self discovery I just see them throw Mother/brother/father/secret Klingon spy lover/evil genocidal mentor at her from time to time for emotional moments that dont actually grow her character in any deep way

I don't see them validating them. Her holding on to Georgiou for so long is a complete mistake, and leads to her keeping the Mirror Georgiou over for too long. I think she has to let go of that past guilt, and part of that is symbolically letting her go, and both of them admitting those true emotions.

I don't know if it is especially deep but I don't think there is a lack of growth, or movement or validating flaws.

 

[Garblovian Greg]

New guy here. And first post.

I LIKE Discovery, but some things do annoy me about it.
Let me start by saying I'm old enough to vaguely remember seeing some of the last episodes of the original Star Trek when they were in their first rerun cycle. Not quite old enough to have seen them premiere on TV, but by 1971 I was definitely watching. I would have been six years old. So...I'm not the youngest guy here.

Our culture has changed a lot since then. A LOT has changed since then. And my attitudes are a product of the times I grew up in.

Discovery is very "progressive" which translates to "liberal". It makes heavy use of the cards found in the deck of today's "social justice warriors". The series is NEARLY hostile toward white human males. Aside from Anson Mount's portrayal of Captain Christopher Pike (Fantastic work, and I'm glad he's getting his own new ST series because of it!), white human males in Discovery are either of low rank or are villainous to one degree or another.
But I'd have to say....I personally thought that Lorca was a really GOOD Captain, his origins in the Terran Empire universe and his agenda to get Georgiou notwithstanding.

The series heavily pushes homosexuality and the notion of gender fluidity and even takes a poke at gender naming. (Male, female, he, she, it, other...) To a person of my generation I find these things to be anywhere from somewhat unsettling to positively triggering!

I'll be the first to say that "You like what you like, you like who you like, and you are free to live and think as you please" but that doesn't mean you have to shove it down my throat by making HALF the cast neither straight nor definitively gendered!

Taken individually, I find that all of the cast members that represent these "alternative lifestyles" are engaging, charming, and endearing. I LIKE them. I just don't need to actually SEE Stametz kissing Culber! And to be totally fair about it, I'm not a fan of kissing scenes even among straight white couples. I don't watch any Star Trek series out of any interest in the crew's romantic interests or sexual proclivities.

So it's not that I object to these alternative lifestyles....but they're really trying to hammer the viewership with it, and that's the part I have a bit of a problem with. Can you turn it down, maybe?

Initially I did not like the "new" Klingons, but they're a total species reboot, apparently. I got used to them, and it was soon revealed that they have a strong culture and values. I ended up really liking the Klingons after a while. I hope they make a reappearance, since they have not been heard of since Discovery jumped forward in time.

Finally the Orions got some exposure as something other than merely green slaves and sex toys. (But they certainly were shown as that, too!) Osyraa was an interesting character, and very well played. Her combination of psychological traits made her very interesting to watch. Highly competent as a leader and a manager...and utterly a psychopath as well. Imagine Hannibal Lecter with less of a sense of decorum...or restraint. Great character!

I'm guessing the Andorians are the series token aliens. They seem to have no value. I say this because when Bernham and Booker were on the run, they vaporized a lot of Andorians and yet nobody seemed to notice. "You killed 20 Andorians. Nobody cares. Move along."

Philippa Georgiou: Hands down the best and most amazing character ever to appear in this or maybe any other Star Trek series. I hope that she reappears. When you have access to the Guardian of Forever, and time travel by other means as well, you can't ever rule out the possibility of seeing someone again. The Guardian is the plot hole everybody wants to have handy.