• 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 is losing me in Season 3, anyone else?

I do think, though, that for a long time Trek was the benchmark for television science fiction in the U.S. TOS was leagues and leagues ahead of anything else of its time, even into the '80s. TNG, after a rocky start, was miles ahead of a whole raft of lesser genre shows it inspired. Now Trek has lost its crown. The decline started long ago, back during the Berman era, but the prestige of the Trek brand (and the lack of serious competition) carried the franchise for a while. Today, the difference is pretty stark. Discovery isn't the best show on TV. It's not in the top tier of shows. It's not even in the top tier of genre shows, I'd say. There are plenty of shows of its caliber I don't watch, because they don't have the luxury of Star Trek in their name. And I do find that a little disappointing. Fair? Maybe not. But disappointing nonetheless. It's tough to be judged by old glories.

This is about where I am. I watch Discovery, and I usually enjoy the experience. But there are lots of shows which I have seen in the last 10 years I have enjoyed more.

I do have to say I think the weekly release thing hurts Discovery, because people tend to pick apart each episode - and build up expectations for the season finale. In contrast a lot of shows constructed for binging can have individual episodes which kinda suck, but there's simply no time for "dissecting each episode" takes.
 
I don't know if there's any point in replying with this, but the first five pages or so of this thread were exactly what I needed in this mood. I'm obviously not happy that this has happened, but I'm still glad how I'm not the only one to have felt quite fatigued during and after this season. I didn't quite feel the same excitement and catharsis that accompanied the previous two for me, and I've struggled for quite a while how to put it in words, but seeing the replies in the first half of this thread helped me organize my thoughts.

There are two reasons, really, and I'm glad that the others have touched upon both. First, there's how the writers seem to consistently bow down to the loudest of criticism from the internet, constantly retooling and backpedaling, which of course risks that they'll lose what made Discovery unique in the process, and I'm already dreading what good elements will be toned down next season when they inevitably throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are playing it increasingly safe, the "dangerous, wild, post-apocalyptic frontier" quality of the new setting evaporated instantly upon rejoining the Federation, even though the HQ was implied to be a bit of an ivory tower at a disconnect with what's really out there... but now, every factor's currently in place that would allow Discovery to be just sent out on basically a 5-year mission of disconnected planet-of-the-week adventures, and this really worries me. They could've done much more interesting things with the setting, but in the end, we have a Federation that feels exactly the same, just smaller. It didn't bother me much when the focus was on the different independent planets, on Georgiou or on Su'Kal, but in retrospect it does seem uninspired with the possible exception of who exactly Kovich is. I seem to be in the minority though with my opinion that they managed to stick the landing with the Burn, but even then, with the dilithium planet being secured by the Federation, another obstacle was removed from the way of rebuilding everything exactly the way that it was, which would be yet another missed opportunity if they decided to go that way for the sake of playing it safe. Long story short, despite the numerous episodes I've highly enjoyed by themselves, this season was the weakest of three for me and I'm no longer as optimistic for the future as I was after the first two seasons.

As for the second reason, at first I thought there was no point at all in touching upon it, as it felt like merely woe-is-me whining about online discussions not being about what I'd like, but I was quite relieved to find I'm not alone in noticing how discussions of Discovery have become overwhelmingly negative over the course of the last year. Everywhere I go, there's either the constant, merciless nitpicking about every single thing imaginable or the complete culture war special, full with all the usual grievances about how [insert bogeyman here] has ruined one's childhood. Of course, they both have been a part of the experience from the beginning, but the volume now seems much larger, the criticism much harsher, the language much coarser and the tempers much shorter, probably because of the pandemic, but still. It kind of seems to have drowned out everything else by now. I don't even remember the last time Discovery was discussed in positive terms. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but it does often feel that way.

Thank you for writing that. It gave me a lot to think about and really just calms the waters a bit. I have taken to avoiding Disco threads of late as its just the same thing over and over again. In the earlest days of the show, it was attacked so much, and unfairly in a lot of cases I joined the cheer squad for it. I still like it quite a bit. I do have some high hopes for Season 4. Paradise has some real talent and if the show can stabilize around her writing, I think it will be ok

Or it could tank. Having Saru on his own personal journey could be interesting.

I will admit it: I'm tired of Burnham. I suffer from severe Burnham Fatigue, and the only prescription is less Burnham. As much as I like SMG's acting, the character was always more 2nd tier material. She's not a Xon but she's not a Spock, either.

I know personally of more than one very long term Star Trek fan (none of them on this forum) who gave up on Discovery this year because of the crying and the emotional overload. It's not what they wanted.
 
This is about where I am. I watch Discovery, and I usually enjoy the experience. But there are lots of shows which I have seen in the last 10 years I have enjoyed more.

I do have to say I think the weekly release thing hurts Discovery, because people tend to pick apart each episode - and build up expectations for the season finale. In contrast a lot of shows constructed for binging can have individual episodes which kinda suck, but there's simply no time for "dissecting each episode" takes.

I've come to hate the concept of "season finales." They turn serialized storytelling into season-long episodes. You might as well have a laugh with Kirk on the bridge at the end.

The notion that we must have a season-long arc that is resolved neatly at the end is one of the major problems with Discovery's approach, IMO. That's how we got the aquabomb.
 
The Expanse started out from day one as a modern show with leads who were black, Asian or female and has always had a pretty 50/50 cast gender wise. Add to that the fact that it's universe has from the start portrayed non conventional or non heterosexual relationships as a normal thing devoid of issues by the shows time so doesn't have the baggage of once being a show about big manly American men like Kirk saving the day and banging all the green babes so most of the toxic fans will hopefully stay away to begin with.

It's a very different sort of show, but I recently binged Syfy's other recent standout series (the Magicians). It's pretty notable to me how well the show does inclusiveness, with numerous queer characters (although no trans characters unless you count the Fairy queen) and even a deaf recurring character. It also manages to have season arcs which involve saving the earth/multiverse from destruction without seeming tired and repetitive - I think in part because of the strong focus on character arcs across the series as well. The last season was a bit inferior, insofar as it was more a series of "mini arcs" - but still it worked white well.

Edit: I should note that one of the two showrunners of The Magicians is actually leading the writers' room for Strange New Worlds, which I consider a very, very, very good sign!
 
The Expanse started out from day one as a modern show with leads who were black, Asian or female and has always had a pretty 50/50 cast gender wise. Add to that the fact that it's universe has from the start portrayed non conventional or non heterosexual relationships as a normal thing devoid of issues by the shows time so doesn't have the baggage of once being a show about big manly American men like Kirk saving the day and banging all the green babes so most of the toxic fans will hopefully stay away to begin with.

I'm an American stereotypical hetreosexual male who loves that Kirk is a big manly man, saves the day with a fucking swagger, and bangs chicks. Kirk is a righteous dude.

But that doesn't...in ANY WAY...make me hate Burnham or Janeway or Kira or any number of great Trek female characters (nor Stamets, nor Culber, nor Adira, etc).

I don't think just because I'm a straight white male with a competitive streak means that I will be toxic about Burnham or a LBGTQ+ character.
 
I'm an American stereotypical hetreosexual male who loves that Kirk is a big manly man, saves the day with a fucking swagger, and bangs chicks. Kirk is a righteous dude.

But that doesn't...in ANY WAY...make me hate Burnham or Janeway or Kira or any number of great Trek female characters (nor Stamets, nor Culber, nor Adira, etc).

I don't think just because I'm a straight white male with a competitive streak means that I will be toxic about Burnham or a LBGTQ+ character.

I find the whole "white/male identity politics in media" thing to be personally head-scratching, because even as a child, I didn't idolize characters or identify with them.

Characters are there to be entertaining, not to be inspirational.
 
I find the whole "white/male identity politics in media" thing to be personally head-scratching, because even as a child, I didn't idolize characters or identify with them.

Characters are there to be entertaining, not to be inspirational.

I think what I'm trying to say is that despite the fact that I did/do identify strongly with stereotypical hetro male "hero" characters like Kirk and Riker...I also love Burnham and Kira (Kira is my 3rd favorite character in the whole franchise). Culber is my second-favorite DSC character.

You can like and identify with white hetro male stereotypes and NOT have it be at the expense of liking other characters who are not those things as well. Just because I like Kirk and Riker doesn't automatically mean I'm going to take a homophobic, sexist, misogynistic approach to other characters. That's kinda bullshit to assume that (I'm not saying for a min anyone here has done that....I'm just making a broad point that not all hetro white manly-males are going to hate Burnham or criticize Adira or whatever).

On the flip side, I expect to be able to say that Janeway is my least-favorite captain and not have it be "ohhhhhh suuurrrrreeeee....that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she happens to be a woman, would it???" as the only defense / reaction / response to that opinion.

I think we have to be really careful to assigning the title of "bigot" or "sexist" too quickly based on someone's opinion of a character. Assholes are assholes. They come in all flavors and exist across ALL boundaries, unfortunately.
 
I think what I'm trying to say is that despite the fact that I did/do identify strongly with stereotypical hetro male "hero" characters like Kirk and Riker...I also love Burnham and Kira (Kira is my 3rd favorite character in the whole franchise). Culber is my second-favorite DSC character.

You can like and identify with white hetro male stereotypes and NOT have it be at the expense of liking other characters who are not those things as well. Just because I like Kirk and Riker doesn't automatically mean I'm going to take a homophobic, sexist, misogynistic approach to other characters. That's kinda bullshit to assume that (I'm not saying for a min anyone here has done that....I'm just making a broad point that not all hetro white manly-males are going to hate Burnham or criticize Adira or whatever).

On the flip side, I expect to be able to say that Janeway is my least-favorite captain and not have it be "ohhhhhh suuurrrrreeeee....that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she happens to be a woman, would it???" as the only defense / reaction / response to that opinion.

I think we have to be really careful to assigning the title of "bigot" or "sexist" too quickly based on someone's opinion of a character. Assholes are assholes. They come in all flavors and exist across ALL boundaries, unfortunately.

The one thing I will say however in terms of IDpol is some of the #girlboss defenses for Georgiou really grated on me. She displayed unconscionably bad behavior in the first season and the whole "isn't it delicious to see such a strong female character?" arguments (even coming from the writers) were just head-scratching. A brutal dictator doesn't suddenly become a compelling character we should emphasize with because she is a female POC. I think Dicovery pulled a rabbit out of the hat this season by actually redeeming her enough in her swan song to make her worthwhile as a character. But before that? I just didn't get the appeal.
 
I think what I'm trying to say is that despite the fact that I did/do identify strongly with stereotypical hetro male "hero" characters like Kirk and Riker...I also love Burnham and Kira (Kira is my 3rd favorite character in the whole franchise). Culber is my second-favorite DSC character.

You can like and identify with white hetro male stereotypes and NOT have it be at the expense of liking other characters who are not those things as well. Just because I like Kirk and Riker doesn't automatically mean I'm going to take a homophobic, sexist, misogynistic approach to other characters. That's kinda bullshit to assume that (I'm not saying for a min anyone here has done that....I'm just making a broad point that not all hetro white manly-males are going to hate Burnham or criticize Adira or whatever).

On the flip side, I expect to be able to say that Janeway is my least-favorite captain and not have it be "ohhhhhh suuurrrrreeeee....that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she happens to be a woman, would it???" as the only defense / reaction / response to that opinion.

I think we have to be really careful to assigning the title of "bigot" or "sexist" too quickly based on someone's opinion of a character. Assholes are assholes. They come in all flavors and exist across ALL boundaries, unfortunately.
I am afraid that seems to be accurate. I am a WASP, through and through, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying heroes of all stripes in stories. Kirk and Pike are probably my favorite captains, and Spock is my favorite character, but (as is well posted) I love Burnham and Torres and Ro, among other characters. The idea that because I'm White and identify with a male hero means that's the only thing I like is an inaccurate assumption, at best.

Characters are interesting to me because of personality, not race, creed, sexuality, etc. In fact, if I had the option, sexuality would simply be not a part of characters. That's how little it interests me.
The one thing I will say however in terms of IDpol is some of the #girlboss defenses for Georgiou really grated on me. She displayed unconscionably bad behavior in the first season and the whole "isn't it delicious to see such a strong female character?" arguments (even coming from the writers) were just head-scratching. A brutal dictator doesn't suddenly become a compelling character we should emphasize with because she is a female POC. I think Dicovery pulled a rabbit out of the hat this season by actually redeeming her enough in her swan song to make her worthwhile as a character. But before that? I just didn't get the appeal.
The only appeal to me was the potential for that character to become better. I certainly didn't find her heroic or that we should agree with her, despite people insisting that she had leadership qualities.
 
The only appeal to me was the potential for that character to become better. I certainly didn't find her heroic or that we should agree with her, despite people insisting that she had leadership qualities.

I found myself almost in Burnham's shoes with regard to Georgiou. I loved PU Captain Georgiou so much that I really wanted there to be a redemption arc for MU Georgiou. It's one of the reasons I loved the return to the MU in season 3.
 
It's a very different sort of show, but I recently binged Syfy's other recent standout series (the Magicians). It's pretty notable to me how well the show does inclusiveness, with numerous queer characters (although no trans characters unless you count the Fairy queen) and even a deaf recurring character. It also manages to have season arcs which involve saving the earth/multiverse from destruction without seeming tired and repetitive - I think in part because of the strong focus on character arcs across the series as well. The last season was a bit inferior, insofar as it was more a series of "mini arcs" - but still it worked white well.

Edit: I should note that one of the two showrunners of The Magicians is actually leading the writers' room for Strange New Worlds, which I consider a very, very, very good sign!

I also enjoyed Magicians (totally different show of course like you said) but I'm not sure that having writers from that show on Strange New Worlds is a good sign as what works in the fantasy genre doesn't always translate into science fiction. The fantasy genre inherently gives you a lot of liberties with the plot because everything that happens can be explained away with magic. You can apply the same thing in science fiction, but only up to a certain point.

That's one of the problems I have with Discovery, the showrunner (Paradise) is from the fantasy genre and it reflects in the writing, she's been better with character development but she's not very strong when it comes to science fiction concepts. Most of the sci-fi concepts like programmable matter and personal transporters were mostly there for VFX and didn't have much substance, the burn was caused by emotions, the galactic landscape is not very developed, and there really hasn't been anything technical to chew on or think about.

Also, a lot of the plot points either don't make sense or aren't adequately explained. She kind of treats science like magic and we are just supposed to accept that something happened because it happened. Now again, that does happen in science fiction but on Discovery it's excessive. Maybe the intention is to have Discovery be less of a sci fi show but that's a negative for me.
 
The notion that we must have a season-long arc that is resolved neatly at the end ...
Both STD seasons one and two end on open cliff hanger, season three stands alone in that things are (for the most part) tied up.
 
I found myself almost in Burnham's shoes with regard to Georgiou. I loved PU Captain Georgiou so much that I really wanted there to be a redemption arc for MU Georgiou. It's one of the reasons I loved the return to the MU in season 3.

I also liked the MU arc in S3, but I wish they started her redemption earlier. At the beginning of S3 it seemed like her only purpose was to make snarky comments. It was OK here and there but made her character one dimensional and got boring after a while. It was a waste of Michelle Yeoh's talents. But, her redemption arc was also a redemption for the writers, so that was good.
 
I found myself almost in Burnham's shoes with regard to Georgiou. I loved PU Captain Georgiou so much that I really wanted there to be a redemption arc for MU Georgiou. It's one of the reasons I loved the return to the MU in season 3.
I was of a similar mindset. Georgiou was basically a personification of Burnham's guilt to me in Season 1 and 2 with Burnham basically sitting there going "I know you can be better!"
 
Both STD seasons one and two end on open cliff hanger, season three stands alone in that things are (for the most part) tied up.

They didn't really end on cliffhangers though. In S1 they saw the Enterprise at the end which I wouldn't consider a cliffhanger. Maybe S2 was a little bit of a cliffhanger cause you didn't know anything about the future world they jumped into, but they fully resolved all the ongoing plots of the season by the end.

I agree with the other post that the format of the season long arc that is fully resolved at the end isn't working. Maybe do 2 half season arcs or 2-3 episode mini arcs instead?
 
I also enjoyed Magicians (totally different show of course like you said) but I'm not sure that having writers from that show on Strange New Worlds is a good sign as what works in the fantasy genre doesn't always translate into science fiction. The fantasy genre inherently gives you a lot of liberties with the plot because everything that happens can be explained away with magic. You can apply the same thing in science fiction, but only up to a certain point.

I consider it a good sign that Henry Alonso Meyers is coming onto Strange New Worlds because the character writing on The Magicians is some of the best I've seen in forever. I mean the show literally made me cry a bit at times - which is a rarity (only a few Trek episodes, like The Visitor, do this for me).

The actual fantasy elements of the show are pretty hokey, but they decided to lean heavily into the "only a show" aspect by having things like musical episodes, lots of lampshade hanging, and sometimes implicit breaking of the fourth wall. This was the right call given the material they had and the limited budget to work with. It was never going to feel like a hyperreal fantasy setting like Game of Thrones or The Witcher (or even Harry Potter) so better to just embrace the inherent "showness" of the depiction.

That's one of the problems I have with Discovery, the showrunner (Paradise) is from the fantasy genre and it reflects in the writing, she's been better with character development but she's not very strong when it comes to science fiction concepts. Most of the sci-fi concepts like programmable matter and personal transporters were mostly there for VFX and didn't have much substance, the burn was caused by emotions, the galactic landscape is not very developed, and there really hasn't been anything technical to chew on or think about.

I don't think this is a fair categorization of Michelle Paradise. Yes, her only genre-adjacent experience up until Trek was on a CW vampire drama. But we don't know - for example - what her own personal reading history was, other than she appears to be an Ursula K. LeGuin fan.

Plus, Trek has had strong showrunners before with no SF experience. Michael Piller didn't like SF, and I don't think Ira Steven Behr was mostly known as a producer for Fame before coming onto DS9.

I do agree though with your identification of a central problem in Season 3's writing. I just am not sure that she is personally to blame for this.

Also, a lot of the plot points either don't make sense or aren't adequately explained. She kind of treats science like magic and we are just supposed to accept that something happened because it happened. Now again, that does happen in science fiction but on Discovery it's excessive. Maybe the intention is to have Discovery be less of a sci fi show but that's a negative for me.

Honestly, I found the series much more grounded in science fiction this season than during Season 2. Berg and Harberts really seemed to like psuedo-spiritualist woo to be put into series, and that stuff pretty quickly melted away once they were gone.

Conceptually speaking, Season 3 was quite boring. But the underlying plot points of the season were pretty much standard Trek. We had bringing two squabbling factions to the conference table (People of Earth) a failing holodeck (Su'Kal), helping a primitive planet (Sanctuary), attending a trial (Unification III). All of this is bog-standard Trek - and completely recognizable as such.
 
Conceptually speaking, Season 3 was quite boring. But the underlying plot points of the season were pretty much standard Trek. We had bringing two squabbling factions to the conference table (People of Earth) a failing holodeck (Su'Kal), helping a primitive planet (Sanctuary), attending a trial (Unification III). All of this is bog-standard Trek - and completely recognizable as such.
Definitely so which is why I think Discovery is eschewing it's more risky elements in favor of Trek tropes. The saving grace for me in Season 3 is already being invested in the characters, Vance as a great addition, and the cause of the Burn not being expected but something quite unusual.
 
I'm an American stereotypical hetreosexual male who loves that Kirk is a big manly man, saves the day with a fucking swagger, and bangs chicks. Kirk is a righteous dude.

But that doesn't...in ANY WAY...make me hate Burnham or Janeway or Kira or any number of great Trek female characters (nor Stamets, nor Culber, nor Adira, etc).

I don't think just because I'm a straight white male with a competitive streak means that I will be toxic about Burnham or a LBGTQ+ character.
Sorry if implied all straight men think that way I didn't mean that but that is the issue for the toxic fans
 
Definitely so which is why I think Discovery is eschewing it's more risky elements in favor of Trek tropes. The saving grace for me in Season 3 is already being invested in the characters, Vance as a great addition, and the cause of the Burn not being expected but something quite unusual.

I dunno. Season 1 gave us Klingons, the Mirror Universe, Harry Mudd and a lift of Devil in the Dark. That's all well-trodden Trek territory. They took some design risks, but the first season didn't deliver the innovation I was hoping for in terms of storytelling.

I think the Klingon war could have played out much more satisfactorily if the season had ended with the return from the MU to a situation that was much more dire than when they left. Let the finale hang on a cliffhanger of a major storyline, rather than tying it up with the silly aquabomb plot.
 
I dunno. Season 1 gave us Klingons, the Mirror Universe, Harry Mudd and a lift of Devil in the Dark. That's all well-trodden Trek territory. They took some design risks, but the first season didn't deliver the innovation I was hoping for in terms of storytelling.

I think the Klingon war could have played out much more satisfactorily if the season had ended with the return from the MU to a situation that was much more dire than when they left. Let the finale hang on a cliffhanger of a major storyline, rather than tying it up with the silly aquabomb plot.
I think the difference is that things didn't feel safe in Season 1. Things feel very safe by the end of Season 3.

I agree that the Klingon War could have been wrapped up far, far, better.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top