Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread

[Tuskin38]

L’ak and Moll’s ship appears to be a Breen ship. Guess they stole it when they ran

https://x.com/gaghyogi49/status/1795907969852330284?s=46&t=GJ4lIGndtLwuph_LJO2AJw

 

[evilchumlee]

This is a good point to note that a lot of people think the post-Endgame issues of Marvel come down in part to stakes issues as well.

In contrast, Marvel has relied on blown-out stakes in recent years in nearly every movie - even in origin stories like Eternals. Not to mention the most successful movie in 2023 - GOTG 3 - was basically just about saving Rocket, with the rest of the heroism more or less incidental.

That could be part of it.

The Post-Endgame Marvel projects just... haven't been consistently good? Some of them seem to be focused on other priorities than just making a good story. There's been a weird amount of identity politics in some of the more recent projects. That's in everything in the 2020's, but it's particularly apparent in Marvel because we can compare them to a time when they didn't have that... Marvel seems a bit more concerned about representation than they are about just making fun movies.

The worst part is... you can do both.

Getting away from that, there does seem to a be split on people who like everything being super interwoven with other projects and those who don't. With Marvel, one of my issues with the more recent stuff is that has been... less connected than previous things. I LOVE that media has made this shift that assumes you have seen everything else and can weave stories through many different projects. That's AMAZING. Marvel now? There's apparently some sort of meta plot with multiverses or something and Kang kinda showed up a few times but also Young Avengers is a thing that might be the meta plot but also Elaine from Seinfeld is doing stuff that might also be a meta plot but nothing actually seems to move anything in any direction?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

This is also one of the biggest issues I have with Discovery, come to think of it. There's no sense of progression at all. It's effectively five standalones, rather than a single long-form arc. Obviously the writers had no idea this would be the final season at the time it was written/shot, but imagine if every season increased the tension/stakes and built on what came before, rather than shaking the etch-a-sketch.

The idea of a Trek series having a locked in single storyline for multiple seasons doesn’t sound appealing. Trek already struggles with trying to one per season as it is.

The closest would be DS9, but that wasn’t a planned out series arc. Nobody had a clue where the show would go when writing “Emissary”. It’s basically a long form jazz session with Piller/Behr/Wolfe/Moore tossing whatever on the wall to see what sticks and see how it all plays out. It’s actually remarkable how well it all holds together for the most part. Bashir being genetically engineered in any other show would be a really terrible and poorly integrated retcon, but they accidentally laid enough groundwork to have it mostly make sense.

 

[NCC-73515]

I agree with you here. If they were going to have a Legacy Character, they would've promoted the Hell out of it by now. So, they won't.

They didn't promote all the surprises in PIC S3 until after they appeared

 

[Commander Troi]

I LOVE that media has made this shift that assumes you have seen everything else and can weave stories through many different projects. That's AMAZING. Marvel now? There's apparently some sort of meta plot with multiverses or something and Kang kinda showed up a few times but also Young Avengers is a thing that might be the meta plot but also Elaine from Seinfeld is doing stuff that might also be a meta plot but nothing actually seems to move anything in any direction?

They're terrified that being connected lost them viewers. I assume there were focus groups, because there are always focus groups.

 

[Lord Garth]

They didn't promote all the surprises in PIC S3 until after they appeared

If it's Riker, that doesn't count. He has to be in every series.

I'm surprised they didn't insert him into TOS-R.

 

[eschaton]

The idea of a Trek series having a locked in single storyline for multiple seasons doesn’t sound appealing. Trek already struggles with trying to one per season as it is.

The closest would be DS9, but that wasn’t a planned out series arc. Nobody had a clue where the show would go when writing “Emissary”. It’s basically a long form jazz session with Piller/Behr/Wolfe/Moore tossing whatever on the wall to see what sticks and see how it all plays out. It’s actually remarkable how well it all holds together for the most part. Bashir being genetically engineered in any other show would be a really terrible and poorly integrated retcon, but they accidentally laid enough groundwork to have it mostly make sense.

I don't agree DS9 wasn't thought out over multiple seasons. They came up with the Dominion by the second season, dropping the first reference in a Ferengi episode, of all things. There were already loose plans for a multi-season Dominion War arc at that time. Michael Dorn coming onto the show actually set back their plans - they had to spend a season working in the Klingons in order to merit Worf's inclusion (the war was originally supposed to end in Season 6).

But yeah, I do agree it was a loose arc, if anything. Most great serialized TV shows that are not based upon something preexisting, like books, actually use looser plotting because it allows the story to drift naturally over time depending on how the characters develop. In the case of DS9, by Season 7, every single episode was predicated on what came earlier. I'm not solely talking about the final run of nine episodes. Everything was, in some sense, a "sequel" to things that had been established about characters earlier in the show's run. Which made it so much more fulfilling.

Discovery just doesn't do this. Yeah, I have a sense of who supporting characters like Saru, Stamets, and Tilly are, but they've scarcely grown as characters over the last three seasons, let alone had adventures that follow up on things that happened earlier. Instead DIS seems to just introduce new characters and let the main cast fade into the background.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's kind of overstated though isn't it?

It is. I'll go into that later, when I get around to it and have more time to address it properly and thoroughly. It's on my list of things to do, as far as here is concerned. I won't just be taking a deep dive, I'll be taking a very deep dive. But I have some other things I want to do first. Plus real life.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't agree DS9 wasn't thought out over multiple seasons. They came up with the Dominion by the second season, dropping the first reference in a Ferengi episode, of all things. There were already loose plans for a multi-season Dominion War arc at that time. Michael Dorn coming onto the show actually set back their plans - they had to spend a season working in the Klingons in order to merit Worf's inclusion (the war was originally supposed to end in Season 6).

But yeah, I do agree it was a loose arc, if anything. Most great serialized TV shows that are not based upon something preexisting, like books, actually use looser plotting because it allows the story to drift naturally over time depending on how the characters develop. In the case of DS9, by Season 7, every single episode was predicated on what came earlier. I'm not solely talking about the final run of nine episodes. Everything was, in some sense, a "sequel" to things that had been established about characters earlier in the show's run. Which made it so much more fulfilling.

Discovery just doesn't do this. Yeah, I have a sense of who supporting characters like Saru, Stamets, and Tilly are, but they've scarcely grown as characters over the last three seasons, let alone had adventures that follow up on things that happened earlier. Instead DIS seems to just introduce new characters and let the main cast fade into the background.

DS9 is a good example of the showrunners planning things on a season by season basis. As far as I know, they never mapped out what the series would be. Everything was being made up along the way, with some ideas persisting (the Dominion) and others ultimately being discarded (Maquis). Nobody knew that DS9 would get a starship when “The Jem’Hadar” was being made. Worf was on nobody’s mind during “The Adversary”. It was actually a great thing that Rick Berman didn’t allow cliffhangers for DS9 because that actually gave the writers a lot more leeway on how they would proceed not just with the season premiere but the season in general.

 

[Cyrus]

and others ultimately being discarded (Maquis).

The Maquis were created for Voyager. I think Jeri Taylor (VOY co-creator) even got a story credit on the DS9 episode that introduced them.

 

[fireproof78]

The Maquis were created for Voyager. I think Jeri Taylor (VOY co-creator) even got a story credit on the DS9 episode that introduced them.

They started on TNG.

 

[Farscape One]

They started on TNG.

Actually, they did start on DS9.

"THE MAQUIS" two parter was produced and aired before TNG's "Preemptive Strike", which was the only TNG episode that had the Maquis. (Or even mentions them by name.)

You might be thinking of TNG's "Journey's End", which was the 20th produced episode of TNG season 7. ("THE MAQUIS, PART I" was also the 20th for DS9 season 2.) While that did air a couple weeks before "THE MAQUIS", that TNG episode did NOT have Maquis in it at all. They weren't even named yet. It did deal with those Indian colonists, which could be argued was a stepping stone which led to the Maquis story. The first time the DMZ gets a mention is earlier in DS9's second season, in "WHISPERS" while O'Brien listens to all of the officers' logs.

And Jeri Taylor did get the co-story credit for both parts of "THE MAQUIS", along with Berman and Piller. James Crocker got it too for the first part, but likely because he was doing the teleplay. And Ira Steven Behr got the co-story and teleplay for part two.

(I've always felt that using DS9 and TNG that year to establish the Maquis truly helped the VOYAGER pilot. All the groundwork was laid out for the Maquis and the pilot could focus on the main story without the need for all that exposition.)

 

[fireproof78]

Actually, they did start on DS9.

Shows what i know.

 

[ananta]

It was actually a great thing that Rick Berman didn’t allow cliffhangers for DS9 because that actually gave the writers a lot more leeway on how they would proceed not just with the season premiere but the season in general.

I loved the way DS9 ended its seasons with more or less a self-contained episode but with a dangling cliffhanger at the time, usually a revelation that whetted our appetite for the next season. “The Adversary”’s “you’re too, late, we’re EVERYWHERE” still gives me the chills. The cool thing was that, unlike TNG’s finales, which had to be picked up right after the last scene of the previous season, DS9 could let months past and start with something completely different and yet connected to what had been set up.

I started rewatching DS9 again and, even by late season one and most of season two (both of which are unfairly dismissed by most fans), the quality of writing is beautiful.

 

[Citiprime]

The idea of a Trek series having a locked in single storyline for multiple seasons doesn’t sound appealing. Trek already struggles with trying to one per season as it is.

Even the MCU wasn't as planned out as people believe and had some ability to shift. For example, Disney/Marvel Studios wasn't able to share the rights to Spider-Man with Sony until Captain America: Civil War. So the entire part of Infinity War and Endgame where part of Tony's guilt and motivation is Peter's death wasn't part of the original plan, because they didn't have the rights to the character and probably hadn't mapped things out that far.

On the other hand, The Lord of the Rings might be the counter example, where a studio committed to doing 3 movies adapted from a source material and was locked in to the idea.

The problem with doing a sort of Babylon 5 planned serialization over multiple years in a Trek series is that whatever idea you have better be gangbusters, because what would scare executives at the studio would be: "well, what if the audience doesn't gravitate towards this?" If you're locked into that idea, you either have to course correct and do something like Discovery's jump to the future in order to totally shift the show's dynamic, or tinker with the original idea and hope people will eventually appreciate it.

From what I remember about DS9, they were largely making it up as they went along, but had some general sense of where they wanted to go. The flexibility allowed the Dominion War story-arc to develop organically over time, where they could see what worked and what didn't work.

 

[eschaton]

DS9 is a good example of the showrunners planning things on a season by season basis. As far as I know, they never mapped out what the series would be. Everything was being made up along the way, with some ideas persisting (the Dominion) and others ultimately being discarded (Maquis). Nobody knew that DS9 would get a starship when “The Jem’Hadar” was being made. Worf was on nobody’s mind during “The Adversary”. It was actually a great thing that Rick Berman didn’t allow cliffhangers for DS9 because that actually gave the writers a lot more leeway on how they would proceed not just with the season premiere but the season in general.

Again, my point is not that there needs to be a full-on masterplan. I don't think most shows start with that, even critical darlings of Peak TV like Breaking Bad and The Wire.

The point is that the narrative as a whole, along with the character arcs should have a feeling of direction, with the writers building each season off of what was established the season before. But in Discovery, every season arc was ultimately disposable, meaning nothing after it was concluded. Hell, character growth across the season could be jettisoned as well, if the writers grew uninterested in it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I’m fine with each season being self contained, but I do agree that character growth could be handled better between seasons. That’s a ding I’ll give DISCO. Stamets for example change a lot as a character, but his changes never felt organic. The prickly guy from S1 changed too drastically into the guy who gives junior officers pep talks. I miss Stamets being an asshole, but I guess Rayner has taken that slot and I’m loving him there’s a win for that new character.

Anyway, about to watch the finale. Crazy to think it’s been 7 years now since the start.

 

[eschaton]

I’m fine with each season being self contained, but I do agree that character growth could be handled better between seasons. That’s a ding I’ll give DISCO. Stamets for example change a lot as a character, but his changes never felt organic. The prickly guy from S1 changed too drastically into the guy who gives junior officers pep talks. I miss Stamets being an asshole, but I guess Rayner has taken that slot and I’m loving him there’s a win for that new character.

IMHO, here are the biggest character misses:

• Nothing is done with Stamets and Culber's relationship to speak of after Season 2. I don't need tedious relationship drama, but they are implied as a boring, static couple from then on.
• Stamets ends Season 3 hating Michael due to her risking Adira's life. He "gets over it" off camera for no reason.
• Adira basically stops being joined, for any story purpose, in Season 4 after Gray gets a body. My remembrance of Forget Me Not is pretty rusty now, but I recall the process they went through unstuck the Tal memories, right? But they just become a generic teenage human character.
• Michael and Book explicitly do not break up at the end of Season 4, despite a huge betrayal of by Book of Michael. Their love is displayed as this unshakable bond. Then they break up between seasons due to not returning one another's text messages.

 

[Firebird]

• Adira basically stops being joined, for any story purpose, in Season 4 after Gray gets a body. My remembrance of Forget Me Not is pretty rusty now, but I recall the process they went through unstuck the Tal memories, right? But they just become a generic teenage human character.

This one right here bugs me the most. The fact that Stamets asks Adira "when did you get so wise" during the finale is a bizarre thing for him to ask. The writing staff really dropped the ball on giving Adira any sort of a meaningful plotline after Gray was put on a bus to Betazed.

 

[Lord Garth]

Hmmm. I'd have to think about how this works with the structure of the series as is, and then compare what you're proposing to the series as it exists. Not a cop-out answer, but I'm going to need some time with this.

I've thought about this, and now I'm ready to respond.

Regarding stakes.

Season 1: If the Klingons win, Earth will be invaded/ravaged/devastated. Plus the whole "all life in the multiverse dying" thing floated by Stamets before they left the MU.

I disregard the whole "all life in the multiverse will die!" as the hyperbole it was. I thought of that for like two seconds and I've re-watched the first season countless times over the years. I keep my eye on the Klingon War. The threat of Earth being invaded works for me.

Season 2: If Control wins, all life in the galaxy will be ended by AI

It needed to be something serious enough to make Discovery leave the 23rd Century, so I was fine with it. In retrospect, the second season might've been a little bit ahead of its time, given how paranoid some people are about AI today.

Season 3: If Osyraa wins...uh...I guess the Federation doesn't get reborn? The Emerald Chain continues to be the major power of the quadrant?

Season 3 was interesting in that the travesty had already happened. The Burn was 120 years prior. The main thrusts of the end of S3 was to show why Burnham should be Captain and come up with a convincing reason for Saru to leave without killing him off or writing him out of the series. It wasn't about an escalating threat.

Season 4: If the DMA isn't turned off by Discovery, Earth gets destroyed inadvertently by Species 10-C

Disregarding Season 3, this was a mental escalation from Season 2, rather than a physical escalation. Control couldn't be reasoned with. Species 10-C could. The Klingons were stopped through the threat of force in S1. Control was stopped by being destroyed in S2. Species 10-C is reasoned with. Violence doesn't save the day, unlike in previous seasons.

Season 5: If the Breen get the progenitor tech...I dunno, I guess Starfleet HQ gets blown up?

No. You're looking at it completely the wrong way. It's not about the Breen. It's about the Progenitors. The Progenitors putting trust in Burnham's wisdom and abiding her decision. And she decides not to share Progenitor technology, knowing how easily it could fall into the wrong hands or how someone could do the wrong thing even with good intentions.

We see Michael grow as a character over time, and the crew work better together as a team. However, the level of threat, if anything, has decreased over time. There's also no evidence of more sophisticated and intelligent antagonists challenging our heroes as they learn from past stumbles. It's all just completely scattershot.

It's not scattershot. I just pointed out the trajectory above. Season 1 and 2 was an example of one way to solve problems. Season 4 and 5 were about a better way to solve problems. Season 3 was a breather where Burnham ascends to the Captaincy to make those choices in Season 4 and 5.

Imagine if, instead, we went from lower-level to more epic. Maybe in Season 1, Michael helps save a major starbase, playing a key role in settling the Klingon War.

That's an interesting idea for an episode, not a season.

Season 2, Michael helps uncover a clandestine effort by an evil AI to undermine Starfleet from the inside.

That works better for a season arc, but then there's no compelling reason to take Discovery out of the 23rd Century. The show stays a prequel, which it shouldn't be.

Season 3, she saves Earth.

Now it's a completely different series. Earth isn't part of the Federation in The Future. If it stays in The Past, then some overly-obsessed Canonistas would ask, "Why didn't we hear about this before?!" Which would lead to more Stupid Prequel Arguments. The best thing DSC ever did was get the Hell out of the 23rd Century. I hate, hate, hate, hate (can't emphasize this enough) Stupid Prequel Arguments and don't miss them in the slightest.

I also like novelty in The Future of Earth not being part of the Federation. I knew they'd have it rejoin eventually, but I liked the idea while it lasted.

Season 4, she saves the Federation as a whole

In a way, she basically already does this.

Season 5, she saves the galaxy. Then there would be a sense of forward movement, and her growing power as the protagonist.

Yes, but it also makes the series super-duper predictable. And what if the series had run seven seasons, instead of five? They didn't know the fifth season would be the last. Do you end with Burnham turning into a God?

No. I'm happy with how Discovery unfolded as was. There are some tweaks I'd make, if I were in charge, but it sounds to me like you'd change the whole thing. I just think adjustments needed to be made. What you propose makes the series look drastically different and makes it stand out a lot less.

I don't want to get into this too much more. I already have one foot mentally out the door. So, I think we should just agree to disagree about the series as a whole. I want to change a few things, you want to change a lot of things. It's fine. It would be pretty boring if we all thought the same.