• 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!

Discovery ending with Season 5

My thoughts about the actual topic itself: While I think five seasons is a good run, more than ever, I think DSC should've run seven. That it ran less than seven is giving conservatives too much of a field day. My thoughts on this have been completely reenforced by what I've seen.

As far as depictions of the future: times change. We can't compare 250 years from now or 1,150 years from now to Today. Today is still pretty backwards, thanks in no small part to the Culture War. So I hope to Hell that how things are in 2023 isn't how they are in 2256 or 3188.
 
I daresay five seasons will be the best any of the current series will manage. None have been breakout hits and long runs aren't really the norm for streaming.
 
Speaking of Mary Sue and "author's idealized self-insertion".
Michael Burnham is a self-insertion. In her own Holo-novel!

EjBSEplWsAA5j6R


I hope Discovery gets a "These Are the Voyages"/"Hollow Pursuit" treatment.

Burnham modified one of Barclay's programs.

The adopted sister of Spock? Really?
All the praises she gets? "That Hope Is You"?
Come on! Her adventures are a Holo-novel. That's the only plausible explanation. :rofl:
 
But on another note, here's an interesting video about Netflix and the streaming model in general. It's only 15 minutes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Citation needed.



Per Wikipedia: A Mary Sue is a character archetype in fiction, usually a young woman, who is often portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, gifted with unique talents or powers, liked or respected by most other characters, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and/or generally lacking meaningful character flaws.[1][2][3][4][5] Usually female and almost always the main character, a Mary Sue is often an author's idealized self-insertion, and may serve as a form of wish-fulfillment. Mary Sue stories are often written by adolescent authors.[6]

Michael Burnham is not "inexplicably" competent -- like every Star Trek protagonist (except Dal from Star Trek: Prodigy), she is a graduate of an extremely prestigious institution of tertiary education (the Vulcan Science Academy for her, Starfleet Academy for all the others), and has already had a long career in Starfleet when the series begins.

Michael is not competent across all domains. She is a competent science officer and pilot, but she is not an engineer or doctor.

Michael is a gifted leader, but she does not have special powers.

Michael starts off resented by most of the other characters and only gradually earns back their respect. Even as a captain, there are characters who have serious problems with her leadership style and choices.

Michael is attractive to the level that most Star Trek characters are attractive; she is not a supermodel or unusually attractive within the world of the show.

Michael is clearly not innately virtuous, given her actions in the series premiere.

Michael has meaningful character flaws throughout the series, including arrogance, aggression stemming from trauma, early difficulty respecting other people's emotions due to her Vulcan upbringing, refusal to acknowledge the limitations of her own power to protect others (another manifestation of arrogance).

In short, Michael meets none of the traits necessary to constitute a Mary Sue... except that she is a female protagonist.



Which is not the case with Michael. She can be a selfish asshole and she made horrible choices that got people killed out of arrogance and trauma.

You could argue actually that Kes embodies more of those traits when you go through them - although I would never have described her as being one.

Now what is different about Kes to Burnham...
 
You could argue actually that Kes embodies more of those traits when you go through them - although I would never have described her as being one.

Now what is different about Kes to Burnham...

"Fury" has entered the chat ...
 
"Fury" has entered the chat ...
A single episode long after her initial departure from the series doesn't discount how she was written in those first few years - target of multiple people's affections, universally loved by the crew, commented on her exceptional intelligence and ability to retain knowledge, develops super powers.

Would fit the description - although I still wouldn't call either of them a Mary Sue
 
Speaking of Mary Sue and "author's idealized self-insertion".
Michael Burnham is a self-insertion. In her own Holo-novel!

EjBSEplWsAA5j6R


I hope Discovery gets a "These Are the Voyages"/"Hollow Pursuit" treatment.

Burnham modified one of Barclay's programs.

The adopted sister of Spock? Really?
All the praises she gets? "That Hope Is You"?
Come on! Her adventures are a Holo-novel. That's the only plausible explanation. :rofl:
Yes they should retcon out the entire series because you personally didn't like it, that's a totally reasonable thing to do
 
Still not sure what happened. Women seem to be women, and men seem to be men. Yet, they seem to want women to do the things men mostly do, and are more suited for. Do women of the future have denser muscular structure than men, while still being smaller in size? Where are all the men? Are they doing the jobs that women usually do? Who is having all the babies? Test tubes maybe?

Knock this shit off. Warning for trolling.
 
My thoughts about the actual topic itself: While I think five seasons is a good run, more than ever, I think DSC should've run seven. That it ran less than seven is giving conservatives too much of a field day. My thoughts on this have been completely reenforced by what I've seen.

I disagree. I think DSC jumped the shark with a fourth season. The way they handled the show (i.e. fast forwarding into the future because the ten-years-before-TOS premise wasn't working, to find a mystery they had to solve to reunite the former Federation worlds) was good, but once the mystery was solved, there really wasn't any more story they needed to tell, IMHO.

Same with PIC. There's no reason why they'd need to continue on with a fourth season, as we're getting Picard and his former crew's denouement now. Any fourth season would just be a restructuring like they already did after the second season. You might as well just make a new show.

With SNW, I also see that show lasting no more than three seasons. I mean they've already started killing off or removing 'old' characters and added the main character from TOS, so by season 3 I fully expect to see the entire TOS crew on that ship.
 
With SNW, I also see that show lasting no more than three seasons. I mean they've already started killing off or removing 'old' characters and added the main character from TOS, so by season 3 I fully expect to see the entire TOS crew on that ship.
I mean, eventually, but they've already cast a new character, and are bringing back Hemmer's actor, so it's not like there is a huge change to the crew right now.
 
I disagree. I think DSC jumped the shark with a fourth season. The way they handled the show (i.e. fast forwarding into the future because the ten-years-before-TOS premise wasn't working, to find a mystery they had to solve to reunite the former Federation worlds) was good, but once the mystery was solved, there really wasn't any more story they needed to tell, IMHO.
I freely admit that my reasons are more politically motivated than anything else. I just want certain people to be denied the "Happy Day" they crave so much. Because they crave it a little too much, so I think they need to be denied that. But anyway...

The fourth season is my favorite season of DSC, but the way it ends, I think the series could've stopped right there and I'd have been fine with it.

I wish they'd put out DSC Season 5 this year. I'm in the mode of, "My Trek is ending, have it at with Your Trek". I don't like dragging things out. Though, I understand why Paramount+ is doing it. If I were them, I'd do it too.
 
I freely admit that my reasons are more politically motivated than anything else. I just want certain people to be denied the "Happy Day" they crave so much. Because they crave it a little too much, so I think they need to be denied that. But anyway...

The fourth season is my favorite season of DSC, but the way it ends, I think the series could've stopped right there and I'd have been fine with it.

I wish they'd put out DSC Season 5 this year. I'm in the mode of, "My Trek is ending, have it at with Your Trek". I don't like dragging things out. Though, I understand why Paramount+ is doing it. If I were them, I'd do it too.

The very fact that they view it as valuable to prolong the show by pushing it back speaks to me as evidence that they still regard it more highly than what you'll typically find when a series is canceled.

It pays to be Star Trek, ha.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top