Misses the point.
Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Overall I’d give it a B-. It had so many positives but so many negatives. It gave us some great characters but struggled to find an identity. Started out trying to be the grim dark Trek with a morally questionable Captain then decided he was only morally questionable because he came from the eeeeeville universe. They gave us the mystery of the burn then revealed it was caused by an emotional child. They kept giving us gripping situations, half the time whiffing on the payoff but doing it with enough style you kind of liked it anyway?
Overall I consider it a success but can’t help but feel with a consistent identity and more sensical payoffs it could have been a straight A.
Overall I consider it a success but can’t help but feel with a consistent identity and more sensical payoffs it could have been a straight A.
A "B" is pretty damn good for having so many negatives.
Despite the negative comments I had heard about "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", I was determined to watch the show. Eleven years had passed since the cancellation of "ENTERPRISE" and my curiosity had to be appeased. Like "DEEP SPACE NINE" and "VOYAGER" before it, "DISCOVERY" made history by its casting. The series featured the second female lead. However, it also featured the first woman of color as the lead. "DISCOVERY" also made history by featuring a biracial, LGBTQ couple as part of the cast.
I watched the first season of "DISCOVERY". And I loved it. The series started out in serialized form from Day One by following the narrative formula of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" - a multiple episodes arc within one season. Most of the characters struck me as ambiguous, including the leading lady. I also loved how that first season set up the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. I do wish that leading character Michael Burnham had served as Discovery’s commanding officer from the beginning. Instead, her rank as a Starfleet Commander underwent changes, due to her role in the Federation-Klingon War. However, if Burnham had started out as Discovery's captain, I wonder if I would have enjoyed her Season One arc as much as I did. The casting of Martin-Green as the series' star proved to be controversial on many levels. Certain fans resented her position as the show's lead. They especially resented the revelation of her character, Burnham, as Spock's adoptive sister. These fans accused the showrunner of forgetting that the half-Vulcan/half-Human officer had never mentioned an adoptive sister in previous TREK productions. Yet, they had forgotten Spock's penchant for never discussing his family, unless circumstances forced him to do so.
Despite the hullaballoo over Burnham's character and the series' serialized arc, "DISCOVERY"'s Season Two featured another season-long arc - the Federation's conflict with a a rogue artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this season featured Captain Christopher Pike as Discovery's temporary captain and the unnecessarily long presence of Spock, thanks to some contrived writing. Although many fans and critics enjoyed Anson Mount's portrayal of Pike, I found his performance dull and pretentious. Pike seemed to reek of what many regarded as the traditional Star Trek leading man, but without any real spark. Matters grew worse when the showrunner made the decision to send Discovery and the series into a new direction - namely 900 years in the future. Why? I had already written about that decision in another post. Needless to say, this decision changed the series' style and tone, making it difficult for me to enjoy the rest of the show's run. I tried to stick with "DISCOVERY" during its third and fourth season . . . and gave up. The only good that came from this period was Burnham's promotion to captain.
I watched the first season of "DISCOVERY". And I loved it. The series started out in serialized form from Day One by following the narrative formula of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" - a multiple episodes arc within one season. Most of the characters struck me as ambiguous, including the leading lady. I also loved how that first season set up the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. I do wish that leading character Michael Burnham had served as Discovery’s commanding officer from the beginning. Instead, her rank as a Starfleet Commander underwent changes, due to her role in the Federation-Klingon War. However, if Burnham had started out as Discovery's captain, I wonder if I would have enjoyed her Season One arc as much as I did. The casting of Martin-Green as the series' star proved to be controversial on many levels. Certain fans resented her position as the show's lead. They especially resented the revelation of her character, Burnham, as Spock's adoptive sister. These fans accused the showrunner of forgetting that the half-Vulcan/half-Human officer had never mentioned an adoptive sister in previous TREK productions. Yet, they had forgotten Spock's penchant for never discussing his family, unless circumstances forced him to do so.
Despite the hullaballoo over Burnham's character and the series' serialized arc, "DISCOVERY"'s Season Two featured another season-long arc - the Federation's conflict with a a rogue artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this season featured Captain Christopher Pike as Discovery's temporary captain and the unnecessarily long presence of Spock, thanks to some contrived writing. Although many fans and critics enjoyed Anson Mount's portrayal of Pike, I found his performance dull and pretentious. Pike seemed to reek of what many regarded as the traditional Star Trek leading man, but without any real spark. Matters grew worse when the showrunner made the decision to send Discovery and the series into a new direction - namely 900 years in the future. Why? I had already written about that decision in another post. Needless to say, this decision changed the series' style and tone, making it difficult for me to enjoy the rest of the show's run. I tried to stick with "DISCOVERY" during its third and fourth season . . . and gave up. The only good that came from this period was Burnham's promotion to captain.
R.I.P.
(Rest In Paramount+)
(Rest In Paramount+)
My postmortem thoughts on Discovery?
'Well, I guess that means they're done making it'.
Perhaps not the most profound observation ever. But still.
(To be fair, I can't judge, since I haven't seen the series in full yet (only the first two or three seasons) and it may be some years before I see the final seasons.)
'Well, I guess that means they're done making it'.
Perhaps not the most profound observation ever. But still.
(To be fair, I can't judge, since I haven't seen the series in full yet (only the first two or three seasons) and it may be some years before I see the final seasons.)
B-.
I'll take a thing with lots of highs and lots of lows any day over a thing that's just consistently medium.
Discovery is dead! Long Live Discovery!
I wish I shared that, shall we say, optimistic outlook on Discovery.
I found out to have a few, sparse highs that were drowned out in a vast ocean of lows.
If I had to give it a letter grade, overall... D. Season 1? As strong of an F as one can possibly give. It got better as it went, but really never broached out of a solid "C" even at its absolute strongest point.
my TLDR was "good ideas, poor execution".
After the first season, they should have abandoned the whole attempt to recreate TOS by having a core of 3 (Burnham, Stamets and Saru) and expanded it to a more TNG like ensemble.
The Burn was boring, rebuilding after an apocalypse has been done to death and the jump to the 32nd century seems to have done nothing except rename a few things (turn comm badges into tricorders and such) and an excuse to just change costumes and set designs a bit. And they kinda just ignored the whole, "federation fell apart" by the start of season 4, felt like a redo of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda at one stage.
Seasons 4 and 5 had great execution, in fact I'd say i like season 4 the best because it finally felt like Disco found it's footing, season 5 felt like it finished only halfway through it's story.
I think the biggest issue in the end with discovery was that they went for obvious story lines and elements in general. Like season 1, the one that stands out to me the most was the abrupt 180 Lorca did as soon as they crossed the mirror universe, the story felt like it was gearing up to a, "holy shit, they may think Lorca _is_ from the mirror universe but he's really from the prime universe with enough war injuries and PTSD to pass as his mirror self" before turning him into a generic moustache twirling villain with second hand CTE. Things like that.
After the first season, they should have abandoned the whole attempt to recreate TOS by having a core of 3 (Burnham, Stamets and Saru) and expanded it to a more TNG like ensemble.
The Burn was boring, rebuilding after an apocalypse has been done to death and the jump to the 32nd century seems to have done nothing except rename a few things (turn comm badges into tricorders and such) and an excuse to just change costumes and set designs a bit. And they kinda just ignored the whole, "federation fell apart" by the start of season 4, felt like a redo of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda at one stage.
Seasons 4 and 5 had great execution, in fact I'd say i like season 4 the best because it finally felt like Disco found it's footing, season 5 felt like it finished only halfway through it's story.
I think the biggest issue in the end with discovery was that they went for obvious story lines and elements in general. Like season 1, the one that stands out to me the most was the abrupt 180 Lorca did as soon as they crossed the mirror universe, the story felt like it was gearing up to a, "holy shit, they may think Lorca _is_ from the mirror universe but he's really from the prime universe with enough war injuries and PTSD to pass as his mirror self" before turning him into a generic moustache twirling villain with second hand CTE. Things like that.
The show kind of NOT being Andromeda is where some of it fell flat.
The most interesting part of the time jump was rebuilding the Federation... aaannnddd it all happened off screen in the span of like, a year.
It's echoing one of Discovery's (many) problems. The show would come up with an interesting premise or character... and then promptly ignore that and focus on something terrible.
"Ok writing team, so we created a world where the Federation fell apart but now some explorers from the golden age of Starfleet arrive and inspire everyone and rebuild the Federation. Let's get some story ideas."
"Sad baby blows up the galaxy."
"BRILLIANT"
Sorry for the double post but I happened upon this and I wanted to expand. I'm almost more angry at Discovery because there was actually quite a bit that could have been interesting... but it consistently went the other way or the interesting part happened off screen.
Klingon War? Cool. Sounds awesome... aaaaaand Discovery time jumps from like, right at the start to the very end. No war for you.
Mysterious, god-like entity intervening in various point of time? Who else but Burnham Christ?
A setting of essentially "space post-apocalypse", our main character cut off from any of her support structure and has to survive in this new and unfamiliar world? *SKKKIIIIIIP
The Federation fell apart, but there is now one hope to bring them back together... oh. It just. Happened off screen. Everything is fine now.
"We're 1000 years in the future, every must be so totally different and alien how could we ever fit in?" Fits in immediately, "OMG THE COMMUNICATORS ARE TRICORDERS TOO!!!! SCIENCE BITCH!!!"
Klingon War? Cool. Sounds awesome... aaaaaand Discovery time jumps from like, right at the start to the very end. No war for you.
Mysterious, god-like entity intervening in various point of time? Who else but Burnham Christ?
A setting of essentially "space post-apocalypse", our main character cut off from any of her support structure and has to survive in this new and unfamiliar world? *SKKKIIIIIIP
The Federation fell apart, but there is now one hope to bring them back together... oh. It just. Happened off screen. Everything is fine now.
"We're 1000 years in the future, every must be so totally different and alien how could we ever fit in?" Fits in immediately, "OMG THE COMMUNICATORS ARE TRICORDERS TOO!!!! SCIENCE BITCH!!!"
Star Trek Discovery is the reset button of Voyager just over a season 
I do miss this part. That was the one plot point I wished had had the full season exploration.
There was a lot of cool ideas that just screeched by at light speed. It was quite unfortunate.
Perhaps the Klingon war will get more screen time in SNW flashback episodes, and the true rebuilding of the Federation will be explored in SFA?
Maybe they've rebuilt the foundations of the UFP but the full structure will take more time, and eventually include the Orions and the Breen? We still haven't seen the 32nd century Klingons, I would like to know what became of their empire.
(I do vaguely remember that Daniels mentioned that in the 26th century, there was an alliance formed which included Xindi, Humans, Klingons and Vulcans. Which I guess might mean they're all part of the UFP by then)
Perhaps the Klingon war will get more screen time in SNW flashback episodes, and the true rebuilding of the Federation will be explored in SFA?
Maybe they've rebuilt the foundations of the UFP but the full structure will take more time, and eventually include the Orions and the Breen? We still haven't seen the 32nd century Klingons, I would like to know what became of their empire.
(I do vaguely remember that Daniels mentioned that in the 26th century, there was an alliance formed which included Xindi, Humans, Klingons and Vulcans. Which I guess might mean they're all part of the UFP by then)
Klingons were part of the Federation by the 26th century. Xindi as well.
I think the Breen joining the Federation is a stretch given what we learned in S5. The Emerald Chain is also probably a no-go, they seem fairly powerful in their own right and they definitely do have an actual, functioning government.
Then again, they were also powerful when the galaxy was fragmented and most states were single planet.
So, this might belong in the "Controversial Opinion Thread" but I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't mind cool ideas going by if the product continues to entertain. Now, obviously, with any series, that's an individual attitude thing, but I still enjoy Discovery, while also considering what other ideas were postulated. So, rather than leave me angry, it leaves me speculative.
But, I'm also the weird guy who doesn't really get angry or disappointed with many fictional series. I'll usually shrug and move on because it wasn't for me. I use to get angry and that was just not worth it.
We already got some of that.
I think there is potential in a short series featuring M'Benga and some others for "Tales from the Klingon Front" style stories.
Yeah, it would be a stretch with the Emerald chain and Breen, but maybe a Worf-like character could emerge from either faction.
It would be nice to get a 32nd century galaxy map in the form of a new Star Trek: Star Charts. I have no idea how much of the place is explored.
That's kind of what I was hoping could be expanded upon. I don't know about an entire series, but another storyline within SNW could be interesting. There are a lot of veterans on Enterprise.
Well. It happened. Went out with a whimper. Mayve have even dragged down Prodigy with it.
It's not a crime to not watch all of Discovery.
No, you can judge. It's really disingenuous to say that someone can't pass judgement without having first seen it all. Like every artistic work deserves our full consideration? 65 hours of your time? Nah.
It's not a crime to not watch all of Discovery.
It's Ok to not watch things you don't like.
Even Star Trek things.
Been working for me for the past 30 years. Not sure why this is hard.
Even Star Trek things.
Been working for me for the past 30 years. Not sure why this is hard.
