Discovery is losing me in Season 3, anyone else?

[fireproof78]

It would have been a great two-parter in a 26-episode, mostly episodic season of Trek. But given the limited number of episodes and the way it more or less sidelined the major plot arc of the season for two weeks, it seemed needlessly self-indulgent.

As I had said before, my preferred way of dealing with this would be if it was made the "prequel" of the Section 31 series. Essentially Georgiou could have stayed behind in the 23rd century with Ash, then gone to the Guardian of Forever by herself. Then the arc within the MU could have been done basically identically (they have the sets, and all the actors after all). The only thing that would have been left out I suppose is the sense of closure between Georgiou and PU Michael, but I could have lived with that.

It probably was self indulgent and I wouldn't have changed it.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

After all, it's clear from the beginning of the series who is billed as stars and who as co-stars.

They are not even co-stars, but unlike O’Brien on TNG, they’re there all the time. I can’t imagine that none of the writers are interested in stories giving them more to do. The billing normally changes based on function within storylines, but here it seems like there is a blocking decree maintaining that 13 episodes are better served by guest stars than actors who have been there from the beginning. If acting is the problem, recasting or swapping out a character is always an option.

on the level of Troi, whose character development was about knowing she liked chocolate.

Sure, not counting the relationship with her mother, memories of her father (including their shared love of westerns), her past and present relationship with Riker, her desire to acquire command skills following “Disaster”… Entire episodes would focus on her, like “Night Terrors”, “The Child”…

the actor or actress playing them is promoted to main credits.

It doesn’t work that way. The writers must experiment with the characters, see what they like and the billing would change accordingly. But here, for some reason, those same characters and actors must remain on the show, but always be kept in the background with a line or two thrown in.

 

[nic3636]

Complaining about the lack of character development of the bridge crew is incomprehensible. After all, it's clear from the beginning of the series who is billed as stars and who as co-stars. Even so, the most popular characters in this group (Detmer and Owosekun) got TNG-style character development at least on the level of Troi, whose character development was about knowing she liked chocolate. More neither of these characters will get until the actor or actress playing them is promoted to main credits.

I don't think that's fair at all. Troi got a lot of character development. Boris listed some examples and there are many more. Historically Trek has made an effort to develop the main bridge crew and senior staff, making sure they all had clearly defined roles and speaking lines. Even when Enterprise brought on the MACOs they made an effort to give them speaking lines.

On Discovery I have no idea what most of the bridge crew does or even what their names are. Part of it is the Burnham centric style of the show (the more minutes Burnham gets, the less there is for everyone else) but it's more than that. The season is only 13 episodes, there are other non-bridge characters to service, and there was a lot ground to cover with the serialized plot arc and the S31 show setup. I do think it's weird that we have seen the same people for three seasons now and still know very little about them to the point that it's noteworthy when one of them gets a speaking line and that we count one line how Owo can hold her breath as actual character development.

 

[fireproof78]

I see a lot of people complain that they’re dying to see more of the bridge crew and have their roles expanded. But I never recall people during TNG’s days crying out for us to learn more about Ensign Gates, Ensign Ragar, or whatever other extras populated the bridge.

Maybe it would be good to learn more about these characters, and maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe they’re simply not interesting enough or connected enough to the plot? I’ll never forget the disastrous Nicki and Paolo in Lost—why force background characters centre stage when there’s no need to and the plot doesn’t warrant it?

Here's my observation over the last 3 years of Discovery and the common threads of criticisms. It seems that the bridge crew is wanted for more development for two reasons. One, complete and total distaste for the mains on this show, from Burnham (and various rude and inappropriate sarcastic nicknames that get bandied about) to Saru for failing to live up to fan expectations in his development. Tilly sometimes escapes more often than her co-stars, but rarely. Georgiou never does save for fawning over Michelle Yeoh. So, the Bridge Crew becomes the object of desire, the "grass is always greener" type attitude common with dissatisfaction in a product.

The second one is the assumption that Star Trek is an ensemble show and it must always be so. It fails to recall your noted extras, as well as how TOS presented itself. The Bridge crew extras on TOS were relatively consistent yet barely got lines. So, DSC is engaging in more TOS style than seems to be comfortable with those expecting TNG style.

Just my observations. No doubt I'll be told how horribly wrong I am and that since these actors are always on the set they must receive development. If that's the case then I want Mr. Lesley to get his own spin off.

 

[eschaton]

This is an old discussion, but IMHO the reasons people want more of the bridge crew in Discovery, and not the rando extras from TNG/DS9/VOY, basically breaks down to two things:

1. Berman Trek designed the extras to be as visually boring as possible. They were just generic humans. Discovery gave many of the extras distinctive looks (Airiam's augmentation, Detmer's bionic eye, to a lesser extent Owo's hairdo). Notice that people aren't chomping at the bit to have (relatively) boring Bryce and Rhys fleshed out.
2. My general impression is even going back to the first season, when they were all just bridge furniture who occasionally sharted out lines like "shields at 14%!" is the directors treated the bridge crew as if they mattered, even if it was not the intention of the writers. The camera would linger on their faces, giving us "reaction shots." This implied to the viewers they were meant to be characters in some manner, rather than merely decoration.

Basically, the visual cues suggested they matter, even though I don't think that was the intention of the writers at all.

 

[fireproof78]

Notice that people aren't chomping at the bit to have (relatively) boring Bryce and Rhys fleshed out.

Because I liked what we got? I liked Rhys from the word go.

My general impression is even going back to the first season, when they were all just bridge furniture who occasionally sharted out lines like "shields at 14%!" is the directors treated the bridge crew as if they mattered, even if it was not the intention of the writers. The camera would linger on their faces, giving us "reaction shots." This implied to the viewers they were meant to be characters in some manner, rather than merely decoration.

So, they're treated as human?

Historically Trek has made an effort to develop the main bridge crew and senior staff, making sure they all had clearly defined roles and speaking lines. Even when Enterprise brought on the MACOs they made an effort to give them speaking lines.

In the Berman era. TOS didn't do as much, and did pretty similar to what DSC did early on.

 

[Jadeb]

I think it also may be how the show constantly wants us to feel deeply ... for a select group of people. Those others? They’re here to look concerned and join in the group hugs, so it’s OK they’re non-entities. It makes for an odd disconnect in a show as concerned about inclusion as Discovery is. All people matter, but some matter more than others.

 

[nic3636]

Here's my observation over the last 3 years of Discovery and the common threads of criticisms. It seems that the bridge crew is wanted for more development for two reasons. One, complete and total distaste for the mains on this show, from Burnham (and various rude and inappropriate sarcastic nicknames that get bandied about) to Saru for failing to live up to fan expectations in his development. Tilly sometimes escapes more often than her co-stars, but rarely. Georgiou never does save for fawning over Michelle Yeoh. So, the Bridge Crew becomes the object of desire, the "grass is always greener" type attitude common with dissatisfaction in a product.

The second one is the assumption that Star Trek is an ensemble show and it must always be so. It fails to recall your noted extras, as well as how TOS presented itself. The Bridge crew extras on TOS were relatively consistent yet barely got lines. So, DSC is engaging in more TOS style than seems to be comfortable with those expecting TNG style.

Just my observations. No doubt I'll be told how horribly wrong I am and that since these actors are always on the set they must receive development. If that's the case then I want Mr. Lesley to get his own spin off.

I don't think anything you said is unfair except I disagree with the comparison to TOS. Even in TOS you had 5 bridge crew members who all had clearly defined roles and speaking lines. Yes, every series also had a bunch of no-name crew members who would walk around in the background and maybe get hit by an exploding console, but that's not really the point here.

Trek has previously been about a bunch of professionals on a ship in the future working together to solve problems. Prior series have spent time fleshing out the nature of the workplace (e.g. the org chart of crew and hierarchy with everyone having clearly defined roles, starship operations and protocol, etc.) and it makes sense to do that on the bridge where most of action is. Discovery isn't interested in this stuff. The bridge scenes are mostly fast moving camera angles and speedy dialogue that's over in the blink of an eye. It's part of a broader pivot away from sci-fi concepts and some of the more technical aspects of the franchise which some (myself included) find unappealing.

 

[nic3636]

Just adding, I think also the Burnham superhero style of the show reduces the likelihood of the bridge crew collaborating to solve a problem, because Burnham mostly has to solve problems by herself. Like for example, when Burnham was in the data core room she was just telling the computer to do a bunch of things. That could have just as easily been a bridge scene with the bridge crew silently following the commands. So because they don't matter as much they don't get as many speaking lines and therefore aren't developed as much either.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think that is how it has been presented thus far. I keep going back to TOS because that's what I see. Kirk was the spearhead, even when confabing, he was the one moving things forward.

And, I'm at the point where people are pretty much just saying "I want more Bridge crew" just because. It doesn't relate to the plot, it doesn't moving the world or the story forward. So, I think it is just preference that I don't personally need from this show.

Discovery isn't interested in this stuff.

Nope, it is not.

I think it also may be how the show constantly wants us to feel deeply ... for a select group of people. Those others? They’re here to look concerned and join in the group hugs, so it’s OK they’re non-entities. It makes for an odd disconnect in a show as concerned about inclusion as Discovery is. All people matter, but some matter more than others.

Sounds like real life to me. I care about them because they are people. I don't need lines to care.

 

[Jadeb]

I don't think that is how it has been presented thus far. I keep going back to TOS because that's what I see. Kirk was the spearhead, even when confabing, he was the one moving things forward.

TOS had a logic — Kirk was captain, Spock was first officer, McCoy was CMO. TNG followed that, save the teenage wunderkind who got a lot of flack. Only DS9 really broke with that tradition, but it embraced the ensemble approach so that everyone got some time. In comparison, Discovery’s selection of favored characters seems arbitrary. Personally, I don’t care, but I get that it doesn’t seem very logical to some folks, because it isn’t.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

One, complete and total distaste for the mains on this show, from Burnham (and various rude and inappropriate sarcastic nicknames that get bandied about) to Saru for failing to live up to fan expectations in his development. Tilly sometimes escapes more often than her co-stars, but rarely. Georgiou never does save for fawning over Michelle Yeoh. So, the Bridge Crew becomes the object of desire, the "grass is always greener" type attitude common with dissatisfaction in a product.

Yes, let’s make sure to lump this together with “rude and inappropriate sarcastic nicknames”. Not even the main characters are sufficiently developed, because there just isn’t time to do so when you absolutely need to have a world-ending plot every season. Alex Kurtzman says in the new art-of book that they’re trying to approach the series like movies, and it shows. Does Burnham like chocolate? How does she take her coffee? What does she do with her time off? What are Culber’s goals in life? No time for that.

The point isn’t that “grass is always greener”, but rather that a showrunner interested in character development would also introduce a parsimonious approach where plot follows from the characters you have, where world-ending swings are much less likely and any guest characters will just have to fit into it. If you’re keeping a set of characters around, either use them or replace them with others.

And TOS isn’t a great comparison because we learn bits about Uhura at the start: she gets entire singing scenes, she has a sense of humor (in response to Vulcan not having a moon). Sulu is interested in botany and fencing. Scotty has his engines; later in the series we learn he’d start a bar fight over an insult to the ship, but not the captain. Janice Rand? “Charlie X” is as much about her.

DSC characters are sort of like Lt. Leslie, but then again he wasn’t around as much or even necessarily the same character and therefore wouldn’t have been noticed or missed.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, let’s make sure to lump this together with “rude and inappropriate sarcastic nicknames”. Not even the main characters are sufficiently developed, because there just isn’t time to do so when you absolutely need to have a world-ending plot every season. Alex Kurtzman says in the new art-of book that they’re trying to approach the series like movies, and it shows. Does Burnham like chocolate? How does she take her coffee? What does she do with her time off? What are Culber’s goals in life? No time for that.

I wasn't aware those things were important in this particular story. Duly noted.

If you’re keeping a set of characters around, either use them or replace them with others.

I think you and I simply have a different approach to characters. I don't think this is a good rule and would not apply it to any show at all. Characters don't need to be used.

TOS had a logic — Kirk was captain, Spock was first officer, McCoy was CMO. TNG followed that, save the teenage wunderkind who got a lot of flack. Only DS9 really broke with that tradition, but it embraced the ensemble approach so that everyone got some time. In comparison, Discovery’s selection of favored characters seems arbitrary. Personally, I don’t care, but I get that it doesn’t seem very logical to some folks, because it isn’t.

DSC's logic has had to be reshaped so I am hoping Season 4 finally find its footing. Burnham was central moving figure and that's the dramatic conceit. Mileage will vary as to its effectiveness.

Apparently knowing Burnham's favorite hobbies is of keen interest. I hope that a short Trek identifies them soon.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

So the story isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about the crew of the starship Discovery and only by extension the missions they naturally face on a science vessel… of discovery and the way those missions happen to change them over time?

 

[Lord Garth]

They've started to give Detmer more to do, as evidenced by the first half of the third season. They could've done more with it and should've, but it's a start.

Owosekun done some stuff that's come in handy every now and then. Works in small doses. Better than if she had this amazing thing every episode. So that works. IMO.

The whole idea of the Mirror Universe episodes being a detour: Yes and No at the same time. The portion of the two-parter in the Mirror Universe -- or Mirror Universe 2.0 -- was surrounded by figuring out the mystery of The Burn.

I'm not really convinced the third season is something to be watched on its own. I feel like Season 3 will ultimately be seen as "Out of Season 2, into Season 4". It was very much a transitional season, ending with Burnham as Captain

Other than the command structure of Discovery shifting around, what's actually changed other than Starfleet knows what caused The Burn? That would be like us now knowing about something that happened in 1900. That's great, but what does it have to do with now?

So I think the immediate storyline of Season 3 ended, but the overall situation is another story.

For the traditional crew compliment...

Captain --> Burnham
First Officer --> Tilly
Security Officer --> To be added in Season 4? (I don't get why they got rid of Nhan)
Science Officer --> ?
Doctor --> Culber
Spore Drive --> Stamets
Engineer --> Reno (though she's going to be skimpy in Season 4)
Guide Extraordinaire --> Book
Up-and-Coming (since that's no longer Tilly) --> Adira
Helm --> Detmer
Navigation --> Owosekun

All you really need to do is fill in who the Science and Security Officers are.

Big Three (yes there's a Big Three) are: Burnham, Tilly, and Saru. Not sure how Saru fits in now, but we'll find out. So the Captain, First Officer, and I don't know. But during the third season it was Captain (Saru), First Officer (Tilly), and Science Officer (Burnham). Not that unusual of a focus for a Star Trek series.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But the question is, what will be the overarching mystery to be solved over the course of 13 or so episodes of S4 in such a way as to culminate in near-devastation of Earth, the galaxy or the universe and be averted at the very last minute, having taken away time from the little things in terms of character development? What is Reno thinking when she’s not making the odd sarcastic comment? (And how does she take her tea?)

 

[PiotrB]

They are not even co-stars

Sure, not counting the relationship with her mother, memories of her father (including their shared love of westerns), her past and present relationship with Riker, her desire to acquire command skills following “Disaster”… Entire episodes would focus on her, like “Night Terrors”, “The Child”…

I don't think that's fair at all. Troi got a lot of character development. Boris listed some examples and there are many more.

I wrote 'TNG-style character development' for a reason. Information that a character likes chocolate, plays the clarinet, has a dead father or doesn't get along with his mother is not character development. It's just random information covering up the lack of real character development. The definition makes it clear that changes in the way characters are characterized during the narrative are character development.
In the case of DSC all the main characters are developed in this way though Burnham the most for obvious reasons.
In addition to this we have TNG style development which applies to the main characters as well as Detmer and Owosekun. Yes, we don't have the episode when Owosekun visits her luddite family and we can thank providence that we got to know this information without the honour we experienced getting to know Mayweather's family.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Oh, great, they’re actually supposed to be “co-starring”?

It's just random information covering up the lack of real character development.

No, it’s what makes them closer to real people and furthers the illusion which allows the viewer to identify with them and participate in the story. Remove that and they’re reduced to thematic arcs at best, one-dimensional participants in plot points at worst.

 

[Lord Garth]

But the question is, what will be the overarching mystery to be solved over the course of 13 or so episodes of S4 in such a way as to culminate in near-devastation of Earth, the galaxy or the universe and be averted at the very last minute, having taken away time from the little things in terms of character development?

That's probably what's not going to happen.

What is Reno thinking when she’s not making the odd sarcastic comment? (And how does she take her tea?)

Reno is a straight shooter. She says what's on her mind right then and there. There's nothing to wonder about.

 

[Lord Garth]

The overall message I'm getting here is "If it's not like DS9, it sucks." Out of the three '90s 24th Century series, DS9 is my favorite. But that doesn't mean I think all subsequent Star Trek should be just like DS9. DSC is closer in that it's not in the TOS/TNG/VOY/Early-ENT "Planet of the Week" mold. But I'm not looking for or expecting DSC to be 1:1 totally just like DS9. If it hasn't been like that three seasons in, it's not going to be. So expecting that is unrealistic at this point.