'Discovery' lacked discovery

[Crazy Eddie]

Wouldn't that emotional connection depend on the personal investment in the characters?

Yes, but the only characters in Discovery we were invested in were Burnham, Saru, Tyler and Lorca (and to a lesser extent, Stamets and Tilly). Of these, only Lorca is really deeply invested in the Klingon War, the rest are more engaged in day-to-day shipboard operations or the task of trying to work out the spore drive. As it stands, the ethical and social dilemmas surrounding Burnham's fall from grace -- and, relatedly, the implications of using the Tardigrade to run the spore drive -- VASTLY eclipsed the relevance of the Klingon War itself.

I think it's worth remembering here that Discovery isn't actually about the Klingon War. Discovery is about Burnham and Saru and the crew of the Discovery. The war serves as a plot device to add a sense of urgency to the development of the spore drive while also raising the stakes for the usual Alien of the Week plot device (it's always the same alien, and their encounters are part of a wider conflict). If they had written the war out of Discovery, then the central storylines could have been exactly the same, except the stakes would be a lot lower for the characters and for the viewers.

 

[eschaton]

Wouldn't that emotional connection depend on the personal investment in the characters?

Obviously some people did get emotionally invested in Burnham. But I think there is a direct tension between presenting a character as "the hero" and being relateable. 99% of us are not heroes, and of the 1% who are, none are the archetypes presented in media. We see little of ourselves in a character who almost always makes the right decision and saves the day.

Hell, let's wind the story way, way back. There are plenty of legends, going back to Gilgamesh, of heroic characters. But if you look at the foundation of modern literature - something like Shakespeare - you don't see heroes. You see these complicated characters who often do exactly the wrong thing, and come to ruin at the end. Macbeth and Hamlet are characters who continue to resonate in modern fiction. Classical heroes - except insofar as they are bound up in religion - not so much.

 

[eschaton]

Yes, but the only characters in Discovery we were invested in were Burnham, Saru, Tyler and Lorca (and to a lesser extent, Stamets and Tilly). Of these, only Lorca is really deeply invested in the Klingon War, the rest are more engaged in day-to-day shipboard operations or the task of trying to work out the spore drive. As it stands, the ethical and social dilemmas surrounding Burnham's fall from grace -- and, relatedly, the implications of using the Tardigrade to run the spore drive -- VASTLY eclipsed the relevance of the Klingon War itself.

I think it's worth remembering here that Discovery isn't actually about the Klingon War. Discovery is about Burnham and Saru and the crew of the Discovery. The war serves as a plot device to add a sense of urgency to the development of the spore drive while also raising the stakes for the usual Alien of the Week plot device (it's always the same alien, and their encounters are part of a wider conflict). If they had written the war out of Discovery, then the central storylines could have been exactly the same, except the stakes would be a lot lower for the characters and for the viewers.

I partially disagree here. The central plot arc of the season is (or should have been) Burnham redeeming herself after causing the death of her commanding officer and mentor Georgiou. I think the Klingon War was needed to some extent as a backdrop in order to explain why she was recalled into service in Starfleet. She certainly didn't need to be blamed (correctly or incorrectly) for the war starting however, and the war could have been presented as a much more limited series of skirmishes than the show portrayed.

 

[Rrune]

I still think discovery fits just fine largely because Star Trek has been as much about the "human adventure" as it is the space adventure.

At least, that guy Gene Rodden...something, thought so.

About that . . .

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

—The original Star Trek series

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before!

—Star Trek: The Next Generation​

These happened with Gene Roddenberry on board.

It is not surprising that people expect more of that from a Star Trek show titled Discovery, which has been confirmed by Bryan Fuller's explanation.

"Isn't just" is what I said. That means discovering new civilizations is included. Among other things.

No, the way you worded it makes it sound as if someone suggested that "discovery" means "just discovering aliens." And you said it after an example about space fungus.

 

[Lord Garth]

No, the way you worded it makes it sound as if someone suggested that "discovery" means "just discovering aliens." And you said it after an example about space fungus.

I also said it would be nice if they discovered something mysterious. And that they might end up in a different time and place. If you bother look beyond my first sentence. But you know what? Think whatever you want.

 

[Rrune]

I also said it would be nice if they discovered something mysterious. And that they might end up in a different time and place. If you bother look beyond my first sentence.

That's fine but that's not the part I wanted to address. You started by saying, "They could discover Space Fungus and it would be a discovery." Okay, that's a fair point, and you could debate if the kind of discoveries you see on the show meant to be centred around a war theme are enough. You then followed with, "Discovery isn't just discovering aliens with Snickers Bars on their foreheads who will open fire or need to be taught the 'right' way of doing things." But where was it suggested that "discovery" meant that to make an argument against it? Bryan Fuller's explanation clarifies what they originally meant by the word "discovery" in the show's title.

 

[fireproof78]

It is not surprising that people expect more of that from a Star Trek show titled Discovery, which has been confirmed by Bryan Fuller's explanation.

I didn't say it was surprising. Just that "self-discovery" is just as valid as alien world discovery.

And, expecting something doesn't always work out. I expect a lot things. Doesn't mean that I can't be ok with what was delivered.

Obviously some people did get emotionally invested in Burnham. But I think there is a direct tension between presenting a character as "the hero" and being relateable. 99% of us are not heroes, and of the 1% who are, none are the archetypes presented in media. We see little of ourselves in a character who almost always makes the right decision and saves the day.

Hell, let's wind the story way, way back. There are plenty of legends, going back to Gilgamesh, of heroic characters. But if you look at the foundation of modern literature - something like Shakespeare - you don't see heroes. You see these complicated characters who often do exactly the wrong thing, and come to ruin at the end. Macbeth and Hamlet are characters who continue to resonate in modern fiction. Classical heroes - except insofar as they are bound up in religion - not so much.

I genuinely have no idea what "heroes" you were reading about. Gilgamesh was flawed, almost all Greek heroes were tragic in some way, having "hubris" and foibles and relatable failings.

I don't consider Burnham "heroic." She is perfectly relatable to me as a person, not as a "hero."

 

[Refuge]

It is not surprising that people expect more of that from a Star Trek show titled Discovery, which has been confirmed by Bryan Fuller's explanation.

I did and I think most of us did but it has been 'reworked' to mean something else now.

 

[Tenacity]

I think it's worth remembering here that Discovery isn't actually about the Klingon War

I think your overall theory is flawed. It would be more a case of Discovery being multifaceted, with the Klingon war being only one of the major pieces. Burnham, the other characters and the lead in to the mirror universe arc being some of the other pieces.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I know I come late to the party, but I just finished this Star Trek thing and wish to express my deepest disappointment that it lacked any trek on actual stars until ENT: The Cogenitor. So much wait and suspense, and when it finally did actual trek on an actual star, is was just background to the story lasting for two minutes? A wallpaper. No gaseous life forms based on nuclear reactions, no trekking, just wandering aimlessly through some yellow-orange haze as Dwayne Pride is babbling about Shakespeare and how the folks at home wouldn't believe he saw yellow haze with his own eyes.

Even Sauron turning the light switch on random stars with DIY missiles was more compelling story about stars than this.

Totally got cheated on that title.

 

[fireproof78]

I did and I think most of us did but it has been 'reworked' to mean something else now.

Perhaps we need a poll to find out what the "most" expected.

 

[gblews]

I don't argue I just don't think Discovery has been about discovering at all.

Well, season 1 certainly wasn't.

In the Vulcan Hello after Burnham has been thrown into the brig, the crewman who is injured on the bridge and is ordered to sick bay by Georgiou, sadly laments the fact that Starfleet is about exploration and should not be at war. Similar sentiments are expressed by Stammets about the Disc and his research in the same episode.

So in case anyone missed any of the interviews or articles in the run up to the premiere, they actually put it into the very first episode.

I interpreted the crewman's dialogue as an acknowledgement by the staff that they are aware of what Trek has been in the past and a set up for this particular version of Trek (season 1 at least). It was like saying, "look folks, we know what Trek has been, we're not doing this out of ignorance or arrogance, but come go with us while we tell this story". Frankly, I think it's funny that they maybe felt compelled to do this, but then we are talking about Trek fans and, oh yeah, this thread. So, not arguing either, just explaining season 1 to you.

According to the original press release, "The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new c"ivilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966."

I interpreted this as the production staff saying, "we're going to have more than one season".

 

[Refuge]

I interpreted it to mean what it said "The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966."

 

[fireproof78]

I interpreted it to mean what it said "The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966."

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I interpreted this as the production staff saying, "we're going to have more than one season".

Yes. The best way to get viewers on board is to make a first season that has nothing to do with the premise of the show...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes. The best way to get viewers on board is to make a first season that has nothing to do with the premise of the show...

As several people have pointed out now, "Premise" is not the same thing as "Title".

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

No gaseous life forms based on nuclear reactions, no trekking, just wandering aimlessly through some yellow-orange haze as Dwayne Pride is babbling about Shakespeare and how the folks at home wouldn't believe he saw yellow haze with his own eyes.

In fairness, I like Bakula as Dwayne Pride a million times more than him as Archer. But then, they had me a "New Orleans".

 

[Smoked Salmon]

As several people have pointed out now, "Premise" is not the same thing as "Title".

Well, I'll tell you what, why not call it "Star Trek: Hair Salon" then?

 

[Phaser Two]

Star Trek: Two Shocking Twists That Everyone Doped Out and Sarek/Amanda Are Good

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek: Two Shocking Twists That Everyone Doped Out and Sarek/Amanda Are Good