Discovery is losing me in Season 3, anyone else?

[eschaton]

Totally agree, the multiple season long plots doesn't seem combatable with a 13 episode season. It's even worse in S3 because of a mandatory 2 episode detour in the mirror universe to setup the Section 31 show.

I dunno. I've seen plenty of series which manage to pull of the "season arc" thing fairly well. Stranger Things, The Magicians, Lost in Space, etc. I think it's doable, although for some reason the way Discovery has done it feels very artificial/stilted.

Interestingly, even though I love the Expanse, it has historically done a bad job at this. The first season was supposed to be based on the first book, but it only had 10 episodes, so the book's plot wasn't finished until the fifth episode of Season 2 (which had 13 episodes). Then Book 2 ran from Season 2 episode 6 to Season 3 episode 6. Book 3 was compacted into the final seven episodes at the back half of Season 3. Season 4/5 are 10 episodes and are more self-contained/closely follow the novels, but the new season is suffering from pacing issues (not enough story for all of the characters in the back half of the season).

 

[fireproof78]

There's a lot here that I don't have time for (which is why I've been posting less), but the short of it is: I think the key difference between me and people who don't like the show as much are I think "It would be nice..." whereas they think "We have to have" or "We need to have". What I see is enough that it works for me.

I think that's my big thing too. There seems to be a "It has to be this way/that didn't work for me" attitude for those dissatisfied with Discovery. For my part, Discovery is trying to do things and I'm willing to work with it well enough that I enjoy it, even as I go "It would be nice."

And, more personal pet peeve than anything else for me-saying "have to" or "should" in context of a show is irritating. Have to just seems like a command that we honestly can't command as an audience. But, like I said, that's a weird grammatical pet peeve of mine that likely makes no sense to others.

 

[nic3636]

I dunno. I've seen plenty of series which manage to pull of the "season arc" thing fairly well. Stranger Things, The Magicians, Lost in Space, etc. I think it's doable, although for some reason the way Discovery has done it feels very artificial/stilted.

Interestingly, even though I love the Expanse, it has historically done a bad job at this. The first season was supposed to be based on the first book, but it only had 10 episodes, so the book's plot wasn't finished until the fifth episode of Season 2 (which had 13 episodes). Then Book 2 ran from Season 2 episode 6 to Season 3 episode 6. Book 3 was compacted into the final seven episodes at the back half of Season 3. Season 4/5 are 10 episodes and are more self-contained/closely follow the novels, but the new season is suffering from pacing issues (not enough story for all of the characters in the back half of the season).

That's a fair point. Magicians had 13 episode seasons and Stranger Things has only 8. Maybe it's trying to cram too much in then? Stranger things storytelling was much more focused. Magicians had better acting and more dynamic characters and the storytelling frequently got ridiculous and was all over the place but it was also creative and entertaining enough to compensate.

I don't know how Expanse tracks to the novels but I think they have done a good job with their story arcs. S4 spent too much time on the alien planet and the recent part of the current season has really slowed down, but than that I have no complaints.

 

[NCC-73515]

I'd like to be able to actually talk about the issues I've had with current Trek shows without being lumped in with all the toxic fans.

Good luck XD

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[nic3636]

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

Accept third party cookies

but...they needed kewl graphixs! Also, there was a chance the Viridian might have turned around and attacked Fed HQ even though: 1) it wouldn't have sense given their objectives, 2) their leader was dead, and 3) there was a NiVar fleet in the way.

So let's recap. Osyrra 1) committed grand theft starship and 2) deceived Fed HQ for some unknown reason (made no sense to deceive since they came there to negotiate, but digress). I don't believe they actually killed anyone.

Burnham responds by destroying the Viridian killing everyone on board. Based on the relative size of Discovery turboshafts to the Viridian, I'm guessing there were millions on board. Given the size that's likely to include families and children, but we don't know (but then, Burnham didn't either).

I will say I find the casual disregard for life on the show disturbing. It might make sense if it was the Section 31 show. But the whole premise of this season is how the galaxy is supposedly worse off for not having the high minded ideals of the Federation. Ideals which apparently include "we will slaughter you if there is a chance you might threaten us in the future".

I still think this scene was there because the show wanted some kewl graphix and they weren't thinking too hard about the implications, which is consistent with the lazy writing this season.

 

[eschaton]

That's a fair point. Magicians had 13 episode seasons and Stranger Things has only 8. Maybe it's trying to cram too much in then? Stranger things storytelling was much more focused. Magicians had better acting and more dynamic characters and the storytelling frequently got ridiculous and was all over the place but it was also creative and entertaining enough to compensate.

I mean, there are basically two styles of storytelling for modern serialized genre shows:

• "Slice of the arc" shows, These typically do not have identifiable episodes. Instead, they string together a number of scenes from semi-independent POVs into what can be a random 45+ minutes of the seasonal arc. Occasionally some sort of theme can be seen in a particular episode - particularly near the climax of the story. Stranger Things is one of these sort of series. Game of Thrones, The Expanse, and Altered Carbon are other examples which I can think of off the top of my head.
• Semi-serialized are the other version. These shows do have a coherent seasonal arc, but each episode still can have its own individual focus. These shows tend to be somewhat tighter in terms of narrative, as multiple seemingly unconnected plotlines are hard to integrate into a coherent episode. The Magicians is an excellent example of this. Others include The Mandalorian and The Witcher (somewhat of a hybrid, as the Geralt portion of the plots was episodic, while the Citi/Yennifer portions were arc-based).

Discovery started out attempting to be a "slice of the arc" show in its first season. However, this was more or less abandoned by the second season for semi-serialization with the occasional 2-parter thrown in. You can see the difference because if you think back to Season 1 we had the "check in with the Klingon" moments, and anything similar has now been thrown out the window. We now see everything from the POV of Michael and the others on the Discovery crew.

One of the ways semi-serialization keeps people interested is the characters have identifiable arcs even if the the season-long plots are relatively thin. This is accumulative however, which is why I think Discovery is partially failing here. I mean, if you think back to the first season, the number of genuine character moments was so limited it could be counted on both hands (Stamets and Culber brushing teeth, Michael and Tilly talking about burritos, etc.). Given the characters have so little history which has been established yet on camera, there's just not that much yet to call back to. Add to that that the show seems vaguely embarrassed by a lot of its own past, and it's basically just continually re-forming itself each season, instead of building on what was established before.

 

[nic3636]

I mean, there are basically two styles of storytelling for modern serialized genre shows:

• "Slice of the arc" shows, These typically do not have identifiable episodes. Instead, they string together a number of scenes from semi-independent POVs into what can be a random 45+ minutes of the seasonal arc. Occasionally some sort of theme can be seen in a particular episode - particularly near the climax of the story. Stranger Things is one of these sort of series. Game of Thrones, The Expanse, and Altered Carbon are other examples which I can think of off the top of my head.
• Semi-serialized are the other version. These shows do have a coherent seasonal arc, but each episode still can have its own individual focus. These shows tend to be somewhat tighter in terms of narrative, as multiple seemingly unconnected plotlines are hard to integrate into a coherent episode. The Magicians is an excellent example of this. Others include The Mandalorian and The Witcher (somewhat of a hybrid, as the Geralt portion of the plots was episodic, while the Citi/Yennifer portions were arc-based).

Discovery started out attempting to be a "slice of the arc" show in its first season. However, this was more or less abandoned by the second season for semi-serialization with the occasional 2-parter thrown in. You can see the difference because if you think back to Season 1 we had the "check in with the Klingon" moments, and anything similar has now been thrown out the window. We now see everything from the POV of Michael and the others on the Discovery crew.

One of the ways semi-serialization keeps people interested is the characters have identifiable arcs even if the the season-long plots are relatively thin. This is accumulative however, which is why I think Discovery is partially failing here. I mean, if you think back to the first season, the number of genuine character moments was so limited it could be counted on both hands (Stamets and Culber brushing teeth, Michael and Tilly talking about burritos, etc.). Given the characters have so little history which has been established yet on camera, there's just not that much yet to call back to. Add to that that the show seems vaguely embarrassed by a lot of its own past, and it's basically just continually re-forming itself each season, instead of building on what was established before.

Makes sense. Slice of the Arc seems like a poor fit for Trek where most of the storytelling is going to be from the perspective of a single ship and crew (on Discovery it would be even tougher given all the focus on Burnham). So I guess semi-serialization is the way to go. Maybe the season long plots need to be reduced then so the characters have more room to breathe? I mean, the season went from finding/rebuilding the Federation, to dealing with a reduced Federation, to figuring out what caused the burn, to dealing with the Emerald Chain and Osyrra, to setting up the section 31 show, while at the same time doing world building in the post-burn state. It's like the writers have ADHD. Combine all this with a seeming requirement to neatly resolve all the season long arcs in the finale with a heavy dose of VFX and action, and it's not hard to see why it doesn't work. It's like they are setting themselves up to fail.

It's impressive that despite all this they were able to fit in some decent character arcs (Detmer's PTSD, Adira and Sammets, Georgau's partial redemption, etc.). Despite S3's flaws, it did emphasize character development more than previous seasons, which is a good thing.

 

[nic3636]

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

Accept third party cookies

The person who made that video had another great point. Given that Osyra was dead, why not hail whoever is in charge of the Veridian and convince them to let Discovery go? Based on the rate Discovery's shields were going down they had time to spare and it was at least worth a try. But nope! KILL EM ALL! I suppose when your Michael Burnham and you have saved the universe multiple times over you have earned the right to kill a few thousand people here and there. As long as she doesn't develop an insatiable bloodlust it should be fine.

 

[nic3636]

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

Accept third party cookies

Another big problem I had with this is it runs completely counter to Burnham's character development in S1, where she supposedly learned the folly of making fear-based decisions. All of that was apparently thrown out the window and forgotten:

""How do I defeat fear?" The general's answer: "The only way to defeat fear is to tell it 'no.'" No. We will not take shortcuts on the path to righteousness. No. We will not break the rules that protect us from our basest instincts. No. We will not allow desperation to destroy moral authority."

No matter how you look at it, there is no way this decision was consistent with the high-minded ideals of the Federation.

 

[eschaton]

The person who made that video had another great point. Given that Osyra was dead, why not hail whoever is in charge of the Veridian and convince them to let Discovery go? Based on the rate Discovery's shields were going down they had time to spare and it was at least worth a try. But nope! KILL EM ALL! I suppose when your Michael Burnham and you have saved the universe multiple times over you have earned the right to kill a few thousand people here and there. As long as she doesn't develop an insatiable bloodlust it should be fine.

The very casual response to deaths of enemies is honestly one of the major steps back in the third season. Perhaps it's partially because there were so few hand-to-hand combat scenes in the first season, and most of those from the second season were with Control-possessed individuals - but I don't think Discovery has taken such a lackadaisical approach to the loss of life of "mooks" in the past as it has this season.

 

[fireproof78]

Another big problem I had with this is it runs completely counter to Burnham's character development in S1, where she supposedly learned the folly of making fear-based decisions. All of that was apparently thrown out the window and forgotten:

""How do I defeat fear?" The general's answer: "The only way to defeat fear is to tell it 'no.'" No. We will not take shortcuts on the path to righteousness. No. We will not break the rules that protect us from our basest instincts. No. We will not allow desperation to destroy moral authority."

No matter how you look at it, there is no way this decision was consistent with the high-minded ideals of the Federation.

I wasn't aware that the characters must always be so. I think Burnham chose based on limited information known.

That's my view. Characters don't always make perfect decisions. I would expect them to learn and grow.

 

[nic3636]

I wasn't aware that the characters must always be so. I think Burnham chose based on limited information known.

That's my view. Characters don't always make perfect decisions. I would expect them to learn and grow.

I agree with that in theory, but Burnham is rarely if ever depicted as making a mistake, she's almost always right in the end. I mean shortly after she killed all those people Vance was fawning over how amazing she is and then promoted her, so it certainly wasn't depicted as an imperfect decision in the show. If it was then she wasn't ready for the captain's chair.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with that in theory, but Burnham is rarely if ever depicted as making a mistake, she's almost always right in the end. I mean shortly after she killed all those people Vance was fawning over how amazing she is and then promoted her, so it certainly wasn't depicted as an imperfect decision in the show. If it was then she wasn't ready for the captain's chair.

That doesn't make her right.

Thats up to the audience to deal with, not the show dictating morality.

 

[nic3636]

That doesn't make her right.

Thats up to the audience to deal with, not the show dictating morality.

Not sure I understand this, care to elaborate?

 

[fireproof78]

Not sure I understand this, care to elaborate?

That even if a character in a show succeeds that doesn't make them right.

 

[nic3636]

That even if a character in a show succeeds that doesn't make them right.

Again, agree in theory. I'm not sure how useful it is to analyze this scene as I really believe it's sole purpose was to meet a VFX quota. NuTrek seems to feel obligated to deliver a certain amount of special effects in their season finales, so I don't think the scene was intended to actually have substance.

If it would be great if Michael and Vance reflected on how maybe this wasn't the best choice for her to make and she learns and grows because of it (i.e. character development), but nobody seemed to have a problem with it. It just means the Federation's ideals aren't as lofty as they have been previously portrayed and they is a bit more aggressive when provoked, not unlike the Klingon Empire or the Cardassians.

 

[fireproof78]

just means the Federation's ideals aren't as lofty as they have been previously portrayed and they is a bit more aggressive when provoked, not unlike the Klingon Empire or the Cardassians.

That doesn't strike me as new, especially coming from TOS era. Not saying they were always combative but there was that response in the face of aggression.

I also don't think that Burnham, or any character will learn a lesson once and be done. I expect this to be an ongoing challenge to that idealism.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

I wasn't aware that the characters must always be so. I think Burnham chose based on limited information known.

That's my view. Characters don't always make perfect decisions. I would expect them to learn and grow.

That's the problem. She did learn and grow but blowing up that ship was the opposite of the learning and growing we saw in season 1

 

[fireproof78]

That's the problem. She did learn and grow but blowing up that ship was the opposite of the learning and growing we saw in season 1

I would expect it.