• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Did Picard finally ''right the ship'' with Picard season 3?

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of that changes the fact that they are literally billed as the most minor characters in the episodes. That is, they get end credit "co-star" listing. Which at that status, the show has already done more with the characters than it was ever obligated to. Comparing them to Andrew Robinson as Garak is a complete non-starter, he was always listed as "Guest Star" and sometimes even "Special Guest Star." That alone makes his role more significant. I ask again, don't you even television?

And that photo you linked is not an official cast photo, rather just a photo that was taken when everyone was on set. Here's an example of an official cast photo, taken from season 3.

More complaints about extras and minor characters not getting development? Yet not an issue when TNG and VOY has bridge crew extras in dozens of episodes who don't even have a name or barely speak. It's like the equivalent of them saying " TNG is horrible because we don't know anything about that ensign at helm that has been in more than 50 episodes. What does she like to do for fun? She sure isn't as developed as Kirk was"
 
Detmer and Owosekun are not extras because they had speaking roles in many episodes. Unlike, say, Ayala on VOYAGER who only got to have one line at the end of the series, and he appeared about as often as Morn did in DS9. (Basically, well over 100 episodes.)

I can agree that they are minor characters, considering how they are shown.


I think part of the issue is we are used to having most of the leads being a bridge character. It's quite jarring to go from that to DISCO having just Burnham, Saru, and glorified extras as the bridge crew.
 
I think part of the issue is we are used to having most of the leads being a bridge character. It's quite jarring to go from that to DISCO having just Burnham, Saru, and glorified extras as the bridge crew.

I don't understand what's jarring about it to be honest. The show has many other main and recurring characters it is spending time with. I don't understand this focus with having to know more about the bridge characters.
 
Think of it like this.

You watch TNG, and all the leads are bridge crew except Beverly, for obvious reasons. Later after Wesley is gone, it's still most of the bridge crew, or rather most of the primary manned posts.

VOYAGER, same thing... each main post is a lead character. (Helm, ops, tactical, captain, XO.) Same with ENTERPRISE.

On those shows, any time those leads were elsewhere and someone else was manning their post, virtually every instance was with an extra with no name. Or any dialogue.


Now comes DISCO, where you have the only bridge leads being the captain and XO, and everyone else has a name and dialogue. But they are not really given much, despite them already having a big leg up on previous shows. I think it's not unreasonable to expect a little more knowledge or depth to named characters, particularly when they appear in virtually EVERY episode. If you aren't going to bother developing them, why even bother giving them names and dialogue?
 
More complaints about extras and minor characters not getting development? Yet not an issue when TNG and VOY has bridge crew extras in dozens of episodes who don't even have a name or barely speak. It's like the equivalent of them saying " TNG is horrible because we don't know anything about that ensign at helm that has been in more than 50 episodes. What does she like to do for fun? She sure isn't as developed as Kirk was"
You guys want to get caught up on these distinctions on whether they're starring roles or part of the main cast and count the number of lines these actresses had. You know for characters that people want to write off as glorified extras, the official websites of Star Trek and Paramount+ seem to feel differently. And the fact that people have to basically write-off characters and actors that have been highlighted in the promotion of Discovery to defend the dumb choices made for that series speaks volumes for how much the writing failed in making an impact with these characters.

Did the nameless TNG ensign at the helm get spotlighted in promotions like this?

From StarTrek.com:
Emily Coutts made her mark on season one of Star Trek: Discovery with her role as Keyla Detmer, cutting quite a striking figure thanks to the helmsman’s unique eyepiece and severe haircut. She was equally striking as First Officer Detmer on the I.S.S. Shenzhou during the show’s time in the Mirror Universe. Viewers mostly glimpsed Detmer in the heat of the moment, initiating the spore drive, for example, or guiding the ship out of a gravity well. Coutts is currently shooting season two of Discovery, but during her time at Star Trek Las Vegas in August, the actress sat down with StarTrek.com to chat about her career, her experience so far on Discovery and her upcoming projects.​

From Paramount+:
There are no small parts on the U.S.S. Discovery.

As we've come to know Star Trek: Discovery's main cast over the course of Season 1—everyone from first officer-turned-mutineer Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) to the cautious Kelpien Saru (Doug Jones) to the mysterious Captain Lorca (Jason Isaacs)—you may have noticed a number of other Starfleet officers who comprise the bridge crew. Each day this week, we'll introduce you to a new member of the Star Trek: Discovery bridge. Today, we're chatting with Emily Coutts, who plays Lieutenant Keyla Detmer.​

My original point was that characters like Detmer and Owo wouldn't be afterthoughts if Discovery's writing wasn't so dumb. A better show with better writing could have used the time that these characters have been on-screen to make them memorable, to make them where people on a website don't have to pretend they're nothing characters and were always intended to be in order to defend Discovery.

Both Rom (Max Grodénchik) and Leeta (Chase Masterson) on Deep Space Nine were not main characters or significant recurring characters, appeared occasionally (and in fewer total episodes than either Detmer or Owo), and yet the depth of the characterization for them, where you gave a shit about what happened to them and knew who they were and what they were about is light-years different than what we've seen from the writing team at Discovery.

And when people want to argue that its unfair that Picard season 3 gets away with things that Discovery would get raked over the coals for, the primary difference is the depth of characterization where we care what happens. What I would argue is that the characters connected to the audience where when things people consider dumb happened (e.g., Borg DNA, long lost unknown family, etc,) the characterizations were able to pull the audience through that because they gave a shit what happened to these people. They cared about Riker's and Troi's relationship. They cared about Picard's connection to Jack. They cared about Data's future and for frickin' Spot (i.e., if you want an argument, let's argue whether the writing has been better for Spot or Detmer). The writing was able to build that with the audience in ways that Discovery has failed in doing.
 
But what does "after the early episodes" mean? After the early episodes were written or produced? The season 3 writers room was composed of the season 2 writers so it doesn't follow that the writers room was working on season 3 while the same people were working on and writing season 2.

At least the first two episodes (which he co-wrote with Goldsman and Monfette).

Terry's task was to "help" Goldsman with Season 2. He was not the boss. That changed in season 3 where he even directed the last two episodes and oversaw the entire post production.
 
He co-wrote the first two episodes with Goldsman and Monfette. After that I would assume that Goldsman took over as sole showrunner.

Terry's task was to "help" Goldsman with Season 2. He was not the boss. That changed in season 3 where he even directed the last two episodes and oversaw the entire post production.
The work of the team varies greatly between which boss is calling the shots.
 
Think of it like this.

You watch TNG, and all the leads are bridge crew except Beverly, for obvious reasons. Later after Wesley is gone, it's still most of the bridge crew, or rather most of the primary manned posts.

VOYAGER, same thing... each main post is a lead character. (Helm, ops, tactical, captain, XO.) Same with ENTERPRISE.

On those shows, any time those leads were elsewhere and someone else was manning their post, virtually every instance was with an extra with no name. Or any dialogue.


Now comes DISCO, where you have the only bridge leads being the captain and XO, and everyone else has a name and dialogue. But they are not really given much, despite them already having a big leg up on previous shows. I think it's not unreasonable to expect a little more knowledge or depth to named characters, particularly when they appear in virtually EVERY episode. If you aren't going to bother developing them, why even bother giving them names and dialogue?

There are helms people who were on the bridge, had lines, and were in dozens of episodes post season 4 of TNG. There are also randos behind Worf all the time..we don't even know what they do. So do you think it would be better if Owo, Detmer and the others had no names and dialogue like the randos behind Worf than having names and lines because we see them at their job, but they are not main characters of a 13 episode show. I think them having no names and dialogue would be worse. It's just such a weird nitpick to me.

And I do think it's unreasonable to expect more knowledge to them because they are not main characters and the show has other characters it's focusing on...and because this is a different show from Voyager, Enterprise, and TNG. It's like people are focusing on them just because they are on the bridge. That doesn't make them important to the stories Discovery has been telling. I'm sure if there were 26 episodes a season we could have a "Detmer's Day" episode to see what she does when she's off duty..but do people actually really care that much? Would knowing more about Rheys or Nilsson make the show better?
 
I have to believe, given the name-dropping of legacy characters that was going-on and how it kinda fits the tone of how Easter eggs were included in season 3, Matalas was responsible for this:
pic-202-skull-01.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have to believe, given the name-dropping of legacy characters that was going-on and how it kinda fits the tone of how Easter eggs were included in season 3, Matalas was responsible for this:
1200
Image is not working, unless Matalas is responsible for my inability to see images.
If you aren't going to bother developing them, why even bother giving them names and dialogue?
Because they are still people, but they are the people you pass by at work, rather than linger with and get to know. There's a difference with all of that.

I get the expectations but I don't think it makes the show lesser just because they are undeveloped because they are secondary characters. I love Detmer, as well as Bryce but that doesn't make them important enough to develop in the show. Just like I love R5-D4 over R2-D2.
 
nother pet peeve of mine is when a few examples are found where something that is viewed positively purportedly did the same thing as whatever is being discussed. What bothers me about it is that it's as if past mistakes are license for current and future mistakes, instead of an example to be avoided and learn from.
Here's my view on past mistakes: one, the current people writing the shows didn't make them, so they didn't necessarily learn from them. Not saying they can't; only that they might not see the need to do so, if they are aware at all.

The second part if of my view is that it isn't a license for future mistakes, but I won't use the mistakes to weaponize against current shows either. It's still a part of Trek's tapestry and so becomes part of my own expectations of Star Trek, i.e. mistakes are a part of the show, and don't make it lesser because they occur.

Finally, the quote some French captain, "It's possible to make no mistakes and still loose." So, to me, making mistakes sometimes shows more effort rather than polishing it to the point of sterile product.
 
At least the first two episodes (which he co-wrote with Goldsman and Monfette).

Terry's task was to "help" Goldsman with Season 2. He was not the boss. That changed in season 3 where he even directed the last two episodes and oversaw the entire post production.

He was credited as co-showrunner for season 2 and has said most the story ideas were his. He has said Akiva was his partner in developing the season. He may not have been the boss but I still can't believe he didn't have a big role in season 2 despite since he worked for the show for almost 2 years before season 2 started filming. He came on shortly after season 1 started filming - his own words. He also hired the director for 2.3 and 2.4 - his words - so he was involved in production in early season 2 at least...well past the writing stage. He also talked about working with the season 2 composer to tell him what he wanted in some season 2 episodes. I think, based on interviews and comments, he left during the production of season 2 but he has talked about being in the the writer's room and developing the season 2 plot points.

He was not just a "helper." Someone who is simply a helper does not get the majority of their story ideas in the season. If he left after the first 2 season 2 episodes were written how was he developing season 3 without a writer's room since the season 3 writers were still working on season 2? The writers have talked about how collaborative the writing for season 3 was. Also from his comments on working on the production side fo things when season 2 started filming implies that he left halfway through the filming of the season to prepare for season 3 filming.
 
What I think - people hate season 2, like season 3, and want Terry to helm a Legacy show so are trying really hard to minimize his involvement with season 2 despite his own statements.
 
There are helms people who were on the bridge, had lines, and were in dozens of episodes post season 4 of TNG. There are also randos behind Worf all the time..we don't even know what they do. So do you think it would be better if Owo, Detmer and the others had no names and dialogue like the randos behind Worf than having names and lines because we see them at their job, but they are not main characters of a 13 episode show. I think them having no names and dialogue would be worse. It's just such a weird nitpick to me.

And I do think it's unreasonable to expect more knowledge to them because they are not main characters and the show has other characters it's focusing on...and because this is a different show from Voyager, Enterprise, and TNG. It's like people are focusing on them just because they are on the bridge. That doesn't make them important to the stories Discovery has been telling. I'm sure if there were 26 episodes a season we could have a "Detmer's Day" episode to see what she does when she's off duty..but do people actually really care that much? Would knowing more about Rheys or Nilsson make the show better?

You don't have to do have entire episodes devoted to Detmer or Owo to develop them. Just more scenes with substance. I know an entire episode centered on either won't happen because seasons are so short now. Not to mention they are too entrenched in a season long arc.

And since these shows are streaming and not beholden to a specific minute count due to broadcast restrictions, you can have a few extra minutes to bring some more life to them.

DS9 managed to do this with almost 2 dozen recurring characters AND under the broadcast time constraint. Granted, 26 episodes a year does help with this, but why can't DISCO do the same with only 3 or 4 characters under no time constraint on a streaming platform?
 
Last edited:
It's alt-universe's Picard's Confederacy trophy room, with the heads of Gul Dukat, Chancellor Martok, and Sarek.

https://trekmovie.com/2022/03/15/ge...eline-skull-collection-from-star-trek-picard/
Thank you.
What I think - people hate season 2, like season 3, and want Terry to helm a Legacy show so are trying really hard to minimize his involvement with season 2 despite his own statements.
Well, to quote Picard (again :rolleyes:): "If we're going to be damned let us be damned for who really are!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top