Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x08 - "The Sanctuary"

[Agony_Boothb]

People have a hard time realizing that they just plain old don’t like it.

It’s like I always say...it’s ok not to like it. It’s divisive. No question.

But all the gyrating people do trying to rationalize gets tiresome. It’s the writers. It’s the direction. It’s got too much action. Genes vision. Not enough action. Serialized sucks. Filler episodic outings suck. Not enough character development. Too much focus on Burnham. Too tied to canon and Trekkie lore. Not respective enough of canon. Too different from real Trek. Plays it too safe.

Nowhere in there is just a simple “I don’t like it because it’s not my thing. Sorry.” It’s ok to not like it. Nobody has to justify themselves. You’ll be forgiven, I assure you.

I'll add to this the people who dislike discovery but continue to watch it because it is Star Trek only to then bitch about how it's not star trek. No. People have to realise that they don't have to force themselves to sit through something they detest just because it bears the name of their most beloved franchise. Just accept it's not the series for you and move on and leave it the people who do enjoy it.

If radical is too radical, and unchanged is too unchanged, perhaps middle ground is the key. There's a lot of space for creativity between extremes.

Middle ground is fine if people can actually decide what middle ground is. For some people there is absolutely nothing Discovery could do that would appease them. They just keep shifting the goalposts and adhering the show to unrealistic standards that they would never set for any of the series they do like,

 

[Danny99]

People have a hard time realizing that they just plain old don’t like it.

It’s like I always say...it’s ok not to like it. It’s divisive. No question.

But all the gyrating people do trying to rationalize gets tiresome. It’s the writers. It’s the direction. It’s got too much action. Genes vision. Not enough action. Serialized sucks. Filler episodic outings suck. Not enough character development. Too much focus on Burnham. Too tied to canon and Trekkie lore. Not respective enough of canon. Too different from real Trek. Plays it too safe.

Nowhere in there is just a simple “I don’t like it because it’s not my thing. Sorry.” It’s ok to not like it. Nobody has to justify themselves. You’ll be forgiven, I assure you.

Discovery is far from the worst Trek, but it isn't the best either. But as you previously alluded to, that means I just don't like most of Trek and have spent most of my life watching a show that I don't like just to pick on it online. I enjoy watching Discovery, but I'm steering clear of these threads now. I've realized I can't bring up any problems with the show or even say "I would've done this instead" without getting into a fight over it.

 

[PiotrB]

So if the ratings are good people love discovery, if they are bad the haters are gaming the system. Got it.


And again, I gave 8 to this episode.

Do you really think that 22% of the one-star ratings in the attached picture reflect the quality of this episode and that these are ratings without a hidden agenda?

 

[jackoverfull]

Do you really think that 22% of the one-star ratings in the attached picture reflect the quality of this episode and that these are ratings without a hidden motive?

Are we at conspiracy theories with zero proof again? They surely are common in 2020.

 

[PiotrB]

Are we at conspiracy theories with zero proof again? They surely are common in 2020.

You are right in the sense that I was mistaken for a hidden agenda. There are 71 reviews. I looked through 26 one-star reviews and in 10 it is all written directly. Quotes:

• At least Discovery finally dropped the charade. The show is about representation for different gender models and sexualities, people of color and the mentally ill
• What did the they/them pronoun scene have to do with the story?
• somehow gender and identity politics is still a topic worthy of discussion.
• Woke Trek.
• Gene will be turning in his grave, this is supposed to be science fiction adventure not continuing the current support of WOKE minority issues, continuously focusing on "their" problems of how "they" are perceived by other members of the crew
• What a boring, pc loaded failed episode. More whispering, tilted head, "deer-in-the-headlights big eyes" Burnham, filler episode!
• Adding a trans character does not make your show more interesting
• Force fed woke culture is not 'Star Trek'.
• Go woke, go broke.
• I used to watch it because it was good sci fi ,not because it had LBGT representation

In the rest, the standard complaints of bad writing, bad acting, MB is main character etc.
A few of them describe the story as boring because the main plot hasn't been moved much.
One review states that interesting characters like Spock, Pike and Ash Tyler[sic] were replaced by boring Adira.

 

[Jadeb]

Do you really think that 22% of the one-star ratings in the attached picture reflect the quality of this episode and that these are ratings without a hidden agenda?

Are we litigating the entire Internet here? That in no way reflects the typical ratings we see on Trek BBS. If anything, it’s the opposite — you know an episode has gone down poorly when there are more 7s and 8s than 9s and 10s. And that’s fine.

If anything, I think your chart bolsters my point: We’re better off with more thoughtful discussion than less. I’m happy we have more of it here than on many Trek sites, so it bums me out to see people complaining about it.

 

[jackoverfull]

You are right in the sense that I was mistaken for a hidden agenda. There are 71 reviews. I looked through 26 one-star reviews and in 10 it is all written directly. Quotes:

In the rest, the standard complaints of bad writing, bad acting, MB is main character etc.
A few of them describe the story as boring because the main plot hasn't been moved much.
One review states that interesting characters like Spock, Pike and Ash Tyler[sic] were replaced by boring Adira.

I see also a lot of points such as "the tiny ship defeating what's a supposedly very powerful one", "burnham solving a problem after scientists working on it for a century couldn't" and the characters acting erratically in the middle of battle, for example. Did you miss those (and others)?

On the other hand, almost all of the 10/10 reviews are along the lines of "i'm giving 10/10 because *other reviews* are poor". Goes both ways, you see?

 

[SolarisOne]

You are right in the sense that I was mistaken for a hidden agenda. There are 71 reviews. I looked through 26 one-star reviews and in 10 it is all written directly. Quotes:

Pretty much what I expected. The people who exclusively posted comments like that can piss off. Bunch of goddamn rabid dipshits looking for attention.

I don't really care one way or another about the other reviews, positive or negative.

 

[eschaton]

I say this not to antagonize (honestly)....but....

So DSC format and storyline takes risks and does something different, receives complaints. DSC adjusts by returning to more traditional Star Trek formula...and receives complaints.

1. As other people have noted, in some cases different people are criticizing.

2. Just because you criticize something doesn't mean that you aren't enjoying it. I haven't rated a single episode worse than a 6 this season, and I thought Forget Me Not was the best episode of Discovery yet. I don't hate Season 3 - I think that its the most consistent yet. But at the same time, the point of these threads is to discuss strengths and weaknesses. And while I think this season is best on average, it hasn't had the same highs/lows for me of Season 2.

3. It's also worth noting that the criticisms Discovery gets here are like...really, really mild. I mean, look at that shite on IMDB, or even some of the comments on Jammer's review site. The negative posts are full of vitrol. Here people are just saying...what they don't think works. I don't see why this is a bad thing.

It's my opinion that they didn't actually take risks in the first two seasons of Discovery. They had a high caliber actor in Jason Isaacs as Lorca and then turned him into a moustache twirling villain from the mirror universe. Frankly, the only thing good that came out of that was the mirror Georgiou and that is because Michelle Yeoh is acting the hell out of her. The second season, the writers had this idea with the Red Angel and the sphere date, but then we ended up with another cardboard villain in control.

I think there were big risks taken in Discovery's first two seasons. Off the top of my head from the first season alone:

• Having a protagonist-focused series
• Having a serialized Trek series
• Bald Klingons
• The spore drive (and space tardigrades)
• A long-form arc with the MU
• Voq/Tyler
• The captain as a MU double agent

I could go on, but all of these things broke expectations of what a Trek show would be. I had issues with the execution, but besides the bald Klingons, all of these were unique, original, and creative ideas for a Star Trek show that could have been very effective.

I think the inverse of what we got in some ways - with a first season which was a more mundane "back to basics" which set the table and introduced us to the characters - only later building to the big bold galaxy-threatening stakes - would have arguably been more effective. Of course, that's what Enterprise did, and it wasn't that effective.

 

[Noname Given]

no, VR background are the big new thing in Hollywood, mandalorian has been the opener of this little revolution way before covid was discovered. They can be convenient for many kind of shows, but For an SF series they solve a lot of problems, especially in this era of inflated costs.

Sorry to show that you're wrong again but the answer is:

Yes - It is primarily due to covid-19 restrictions.

https://trekmovie.com/2020/10/19/st...-to-create-virtual-sets-like-the-mandalorian/

tar Trek Universe going virtual

The season three premiere of Star Trek: Discovery showcased location shooting in Iceland. Production in the era of COVID makes location shooting like that difficult; however, Kurtzman has a plan to deal with that, as explained in this excerpt from a new interview in IndieWire:

Remarkably, Season 4 will start shooting on November 2. The entire cast recently traveled to Toronto to begin their quarantine before production starts, with full COVID safety protocols in place. The kind of international location shooting we saw in Season 3’s first episode is out, but Kurtzman noted, “it looks like we are going to be getting an AR wall for future seasons of ‘Star Trek’ on multiple shows.”

And here's the full interview from IndyWire That talks about the effect the covid-19 restrictions have had on Star Trek Discovery post production:

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/10/s...-all-post-production-done-at-home-1234593367/

 

[jackoverfull]

And where exactly does it say that they’re getting those because of covid?

Again, they started using it in mandalorian from beginning and it was already pretty obvious that most SF shows would go the same route in 2019.

And I know something about the difficulties covid is bestowing on every production, having worked on sets in multiple projects in 2020 myself. VR screens help little here, as we’re still talking about putting people in the same room anyway (well, I guess they limit the travel needed, but it’s not as if on discovery they ever did that much outside of the studio - and yes, I’m aware of the exceptions, especially in season 3, such as the beautiful landscapes in the first two episodes- and I guess they could film extras separately for scenes in which they are just background, but they could do that with green screens anyway).

 

[Lord Garth]

If someone wants to consider the rating distribution of this episode as an objective evaluation of this episode, as shown in the attached picture, I sympathise.
A weighted average for such a special under-rating will not help, especially since haters have learned how to play the system. Rating plus review is probably more weighted while the algorithm does not assess the quality of the arguments. This is the explanation for the sudden increase in the number of reviews with grade 1.

So if the ratings are good people love discovery, if they are bad the haters are gaming the system. Got it.


And again, I gave 8 to this episode.

This is really simple. Chop out the 1s and the 10s. Then you'll have the real rating. "Sanctuary" is neither a 1 nor a 10. The people who are rating it those are people in the extremes who decided on the rating before they even watched the episode. They're the "STD sucks and I hate it no matter what!" and "DSC rules and I love it no matter what!" people.

Take the average of everyone who rated it from a 2 to a 9, then you have the "real" rating.

 

[jackoverfull]

This is really simple. Chop out the 1s and the 10s. Then you'll have the real rating. "Sanctuary" is neither a 1 nor a 10. The people who are rating it those are people in the extremes who decided on the rating before they even watched the episode. They're the "STD sucks and I hate it no matter what!" and "DSC rules and I love it no matter what!" people.

Take the average of everyone who rated it from a 2 to a 9, then you have the "real" rating.

i quite agree.

 

[PiotrB]

I see also a lot of points such as "the tiny ship defeating what's a supposedly very powerful one", "burnham solving a problem after scientists working on it for a century couldn't" and the characters acting erratically in the middle of battle, for example. Did you miss those (and others)?

Do you really think these are arguments to justify 1? I am seriously asking.
Besides, these are permanent ST tropes (just change Burnham's name to that of a science officer or 7o9 of the given series).

On the other hand, almost all of the 10/10 reviews are along the lines of "i'm giving 10/10 because *other reviews* are poor". Goes both ways, you see?

There are no two sides to it and it is due to simple mathematics.

This is really simple. Chop out the 1s and the 10s. Then you'll have the real rating. "Sanctuary" is neither a 1 nor a 10. The people who are rating it those are people in the extremes who decided on the rating before they even watched the episode. They're the "STD sucks and I hate it no matter what!" and "DSC rules and I love it no matter what!" people.

Take the average of everyone who rated it from a 2 to a 9, then you have the "real" rating.

Unfortunately, only individuals will do so, as the discussions in this forum show when from time to time someone quotes online ratings as evidence of how the DSC is not liked by the people.

 

[jackoverfull]

Do you really think these are arguments to justify 1? I am seriously asking.

No. But there are plenty of reviews ranging from 2 to 5 on that page as well. Mure than ones ranging 6 to 9, actually.

Besides, these are permanent ST tropes (just change Burnham's name to that of a science officer or 7o9 of the given series).

And have been called out when they happened back then.

There are no two sides to it and it is due to simple mathematics.

What? There are *several* posters giving 10/10 reviews writing they did so only to balance the negative reviews. What has "mathematics" do with this?

Unfortunately, only individuals will do so, as the discussions in this forum show when from time to time someone quotes online ratings as evidence of how the DSC is not liked by the people.

Yeah, and someone quoting online rating as evidence that people like discovery never happens. Right.

 

[fireproof78]

Scale down? You actually think that discovery won’t save the federation this year?

Possibly. Don't know yet. But, the whole idea of fighting against time to stop a threat is not quite there. The pacing is much different, slower at times. The characters are more introspective, etc.

By scale down I mean pacing, sense of danger, etc. Burnham has that but as was clearly defined in "Unification III" she is coming from a profound place of deep hurt that's driving her forward.

I'll add to this the people who dislike discovery but continue to watch it because it is Star Trek only to then bitch about how it's not star trek. No. People have to realise that they don't have to force themselves to sit through something they detest just because it bears the name of their most beloved franchise. Just accept it's not the series for you and move on and leave it the people who do enjoy it.

I regret I can only like this once.

And have been called out when they happened back then.

I must have missed that. Because seriously 7 of 9 was the only thing my friends talked about when it was running.

 

[jackoverfull]

The pacing is much different, slower at times. The characters are more introspective, etc.

By scale down I mean pacing, sense of danger, etc

On this I totally agree and appreciate it a lot.

I must have missed that. Because seriously 7 of 9 was the only thing my friends talked about when it was running.

So it seems: Seven's eccessive abilities have been criticised a lot over the years, even more so in the beginning when she was viewed as a "babe to boost audience" (which, to be honest, was the main reason she was dded to the show). Even so, I don't remember her saving the federation on multiple occasions per season or being at the center of almost every crisis in almost every episode.

Also, and perhaps surprisingly, in time the writers managed to develop a nuanced character out of the initial "babe in a catsuit" and that helped a lot…But this is a different topic.

 

[fireproof78]

So it seems: Seven's eccessive abilities have been criticised a lot over the years, even more so in the beginning when she was viewed as a "babe to boost audience" (which, to be honest, was the main reason she was dded to the show). Even so, I don't remember her saving the federation on multiple occasions per season or being at the center of almost every crisis in almost every episode.

That's a fair point though one that I find odd since Discovery was structured with a primary protagonist as Burnham. So, complaining that she is at the center strikes as missing the stated premise of the show. And Seven did solve more problems than seemed reasonable, from my recollection.

 

[jackoverfull]

That's a fair point though one that I find odd since Discovery was structured with a primary protagonist as Burnham. So, complaining that she is at the center strikes as missing the stated premise of the show.

Never complained about that, personally.

I "complained" about the rest of the cast (apart from a few) getting very little interesting screen time, but that was mostly back in season 1, season 2 improved there and season 3 improved even further, IMHO. Personally I don't have a problem with a series having a main protagonist.

And Seven did solve more problems than seemed reasonable, from my recollection.

For sure. And her being the defacto second in command of engineering (poor Carey!) was as bad as making Tilly first officer.

 

[fireproof78]

"complained" about the rest of the cast (apart from a few) getting very little interesting screen time, but that was mostly back in season 1, season 2 improved there and season 3 improved even further, IMHO. Personally I don't have a problem with a series having a main protagonist.

But, if the protagonist is the main focus they are going to solve the problems. That's the nature of protagonists in most media I consume.

For sure. And her being the defacto second in command of engineering (poor Carey!) was as bad as making Tilly first officer.

Well, the writers forgot about Carey for a long time so no surprise there.

And Tilly as first officer has been beaten to death. She was a command track cadet being trained for that role. Assigning her as executive was well within Saru's purview as captain.