Exactly. TOS had the room and the format to center episodes on other characters, but chose not to. People don't seem to mind though.
Spoilers If you could change one thing about Discovery
- Thread starter Soong-type Android
- Start date
Exactly. TOS had the room and the format to center episodes on other characters, but chose not to. People don't seem to mind though.
How much TV really is free? Even if you're still watching cable, you have to pay for cable anyway.
DS9 is the only true ensemble of the franchise. TOS is Kirk, Spock, McCoy. TNG is Picard and Data. Voyager is Janeway, Seven of Nine and the Doctor. Enterprise is Archer, T'Pol and Trip.
True, but after making her Spock's foster sister and responsible for starting and ending the war with the Klingons which was the major plot of season 1, also making her and her mother be the time travelling red angle and responsible for the major plot of season 2 seems just poor writing. Why can't there be a season where the main plot isn't the result of anything directly or indirectly caused by this one character and she's just a participant in the events where things just happen to her like everyone else? It would make for a better series.
Yep
Agree, but I'm not so sure that was driven by "criticism" as much as it was a purposeful shift in tonality that was designed in. They always said that S1 was meant to be darker so we could voyage out into what we are more familiar with. Also- I was under the distinct impression that the Klingon designs (ships and makeup) were really Fuller's baby, and the showrunners saw S2 as an opportunity to clean it up a bit.
Again, just not sure that "criticism" was what really drove these changes.
Yeah. I'm still kind of unsure how to feel about all that. I wish they had just maintained faith in the direction they were going and stuck it out. Right now, I'm feeling kind of stung.
Most TOS movies had Kirk and co saving Earth; no one else in Starfleet had the brains to figure out a solution to V'Ger, the whale probe, host the Klingons for peace talks and save the Federation from itself? Why not just sack the rest of the fleet or confine them to border patrol duty.
Last edited:
What TV show anywhere doesn't treat their lead character as the most important person ever? Just look at the other Treks:
Kirk is Starfleet's most legendary.
Picard is one of the most celebrated living individuals of his era.
Sisko has an entire religion devoted to him.
Janeway singlehandedly saved or defeated many races including the Borg (to which she did both).
Archer founded the Federation.
Compared to these folks, Burnham is a screwup since she is the first mutineer, started a war and yet folks complain about her 'undue' influence.
Last edited:
That's why I think it was done so well - because it really addressed all the major gripes (why do Klingons look so off? Oh well, they look like Klingons now. Why doesn't anything look like TOS? Or, here's Pike, and the Enterprise, and they look like a modern incarnation of Trek). Like, really most of the complaints were addressed, but all in a subtle, understated way, that never distracted from the main storyline.
They did all that in a matter that could be seen as a completely logical progression of the show itself. Like - if season 1 had gone off like gangbusters with fans - they'd probably would have continued to use the hairless look, and new spaceships. But since there were lots of gripes - they changed it. But these changes were so minor (really - beards and cameos), they never felt like purposefull reboots or anything. They weren't. They were just refinements.
That whole ending OTOH was SO on the nose about "restoring canon", "going to the future like fandom wanted", "explain why Spock never talked about his sister/the spore drive" - it made me quite aware of how directly they actually acted on criticism. I think there should be a bit more of a protective layer between fan feedback and the writers - they sure as hell should have somebody informing them, and incorporating feedback. But they also should make a bigger point on standing for their creation - even if it isn't actually their own creation, but only one they inherited from another guy (Fuller).
They are at least presented as a mysterious phenomenon that appear out of nowhere which Kirk has to deal with. If it was on Discovery, V'Ger and the whale probe would be personally connected to Burnham in some way.
Haha yeah, Burnham would solve the crisis by actually singing whale songs.
Agreed. But Star Trek has typically had a dynamic of a core cast of lead characters, whereas on Discovery the dynamic is from the perspective of it being one character's story and then there are characters that orbit around her.
This is the best suggestion I've seen yet.
I agree. Well said.
Show of hands--who here remembers the part where V'Ger calls out Spock while he's on Vulcan?
Those other characters had their own stories too. They got more than a lot of other Trek characters.
Last edited:
Times change and people change with them. As long as it's for the better. In fall 1989, I was about to start fifth grade, we had a new Vice Principal in our school, and she was a woman. Today, no one would think twice of that but, 30 years ago, it seemed weird to me. But only for about a day. Afterwards, I thought nothing of it. 10-year-olds have a much easier time adjusting to progress than adults seem to.
Last edited:
Funny you should mention that, I work in the education system in Australia and these days it's unusual to find a school where the leadership isn't largely composed of women.
Kids are funny that way.
Of all the complaints I read about Burnham being the focus of the show, this is the one that makes me laugh hardest.
If the show was the story of Starfleet, or Earth in the 23rd century, or the story of the Federation, etc, the argument that too many of the stories revolve around Burnham might hold some water. But we have been told and have observed, that the show is Burnham's journey. So why wouldn't the season arc as well as a good portion of the individual stories tend to have Burnham as a major component?
I have more respect for the opinions of people who simply state that they don't like SMG, or her acting, or the fact that she is a woman, or a POC, or the "lower decks" format.
But the belief that the reason DSC's format needs to change is because no other Trek show has featured (at the most) 1-2 main protagonists who were at the heart of all the important stories, is provable bunk.
Also demonstrating the common argument that it is only bad if DSC/Kurtzman do it.
I agree with your overall point, but to follow your line of argument here, why is the show called “Discovery” and not “The Burnham Diaries”?
I suppose the best comparison would be Deep Space Nine - much of which revolves around (the) Sisko, since he was half prophet alien the whole time and the entirety of DS9 depended on Sisko being born to Joseph, etc.
However, DS9 wasn’t 100% Siskocentric. Nor is DSC 100% Burnhamcentric, but the percentage of focus is higher for Michael than it was for Benjamin. Michael seems more integral to the dsc universe than Sisko did to the events of ds9.
Looking at this another way, we could argue that a reduced focus on Michael would give some of the other characters (many of whom I find more interesting - and I’m not knocking Burnham here, she just doesn’t speak to me) more of a chance to shine.
