no, this would be if you said that in discovery there is a lot o “bad acting”. Interestingly enough, this is not a criticism you see a lot (and for good reasons: the actors are invariably quite good).
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x08 - "The Sanctuary"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
And, interestingly enough, is an objection often inferred at shatner’s acting in tos. I like it, but can see why some doesn’t.
No, it wouldn’t. It could be either but you’d need to change it to not liking the story. The point still holds; it’s about preference not quality in a lot of cases. Liking something or not is separate from good or bad.
Agreed. If you're willing to put up with his occasionally annoying jokes and sarcasm (e.g., singing songs about having to go to loo, etc), JP Is actually a fun fellow to listen to
.He's one of the few YouTube promoters who broadcasts episode recap for ''The Orville,'' that's why I listen to him quite regularly. Although TBH I don't listen to his ''Disco" reviews that much. My go-to reviews for ''Disco" are Ketwowski and Jessie Gender
yet, from the writing point of view there are some choices that are quite jarring to me.
Just from recent episodes...
-Why the andorian in this episode sits down for a secret-confessing (of a jarringly obvious secret) with Tilly, a character that he almost never ever talked with before on screen? Detmer, Booker or even Saru would have made more sense.
-Why, a few episodes ago, stamets is suddenly an old friend of Burnham, a person he barely had any screen time with in the past two seasons, and comes up with a very contrived reason to have her accompany Adira, again someone who Burnham never had any dealings with?
-Why nobody thought about doing some simple triangolation in over a century when a couple of guys with little resources could easily do it in a year?
-Tal’s story is a total mess however you look at it.
-Why was Aditya Sahil introduced as if he was of importance (in a beautiful scene) and then forgotten for, so far, the remainder of the series?
-Why no one of her superior officers has any issue with Tilly being suddenly first officer?
-Why introduce Adira and Gray (to great public fanfare), do one episode about them and then they’re basically there with little to do?
-What the heck was Adira doing in the inspector squad at 16, not even being an earth native?!
-Titan. Enough said.
And this is only stuff from this season, without even considering the very dull and predictable choices such as the location of the federation quarters (I called that here weeks in advance) or Nhan leaving.
I have no issue with you finding those things jarring. That’s your view. What it isn’t is a list that indicates poor writing. You listed things you don’t like, you don’t (and nor should you have to when taking of preferences) analytically deconstruct the scenes and judge them against accepted screenwriting standards, explaining why the actual writing of the scenes is done poorly and which rules or techniques they break or miss.
I think the things we let go on shows we like are similar to things we don’t let go in shows we don’t like. That’s fine, that’s all part of our subjective enjoyment. However, if that list was taken as genuine examples of objectively bad writing, Trek would be done for long ago. For example, if introducing characters to not use them again is jarring, you’ll feel like you’re watching TNG, TOS and DN9 during an earthquake.
I think the things we let go on shows we like are similar to things we don’t let go in shows we don’t like. That’s fine, that’s all part of our subjective enjoyment. However, if that list was taken as genuine examples of objectively bad writing, Trek would be done for long ago. For example, if introducing characters to not use them again is jarring, you’ll feel like you’re watching TNG, TOS and DN9 during an earthquake.
I have no interest in writing an essay at this time.
Why if something points out things he doesn't fing sensible he's labeled as not liking the show? I gave this episode an 8 and there has been only a single episode this season I didn't really like.
But here we're talking of two different things completely: Discovery is supposed to be an heavily serialised show, the ones you mention weren't. Yet, even in those, if there were episodes in which a character was played up at the beginning of an episode and then totally ignored afterwards it would have been equally jarring. Which is something Discovery did, by the way, by having Senna Tal's importance being underlined when they met Vance and then have them vanish for the rest of the episode itself.
And nobody asked you to. I am certainly not eager to read it. I used it as an example of what it isn’t. Which, in this case, was anything to do with the subject at hand.
I can only speak for myself and say I didn’t. I made a general point that we - we - let things go in shows we like that we don’t let go in things we don’t. I’ve no idea, or interest frankly, in whether or not you like the show. Again, I’m talking about bad writing vs subjective dislike.
Leaving aside the validity of the premise, so what? There’s nothing to say that all characters you meet in the story of a serialised show - heavily or otherwise - needs to be used more than once. There’s also nothing precluding it in episodic TV. There’s also as many recurring characters in things like TOS or TNG, so if you’re trying to make a point here I fail to see what it is. Can you clarify? Or don’t, it doesn’t really have anything to do with bad writing vs preference. Sahil was brought up at the beginning of the episode and rounded it out beautifully. Him not appearing in later episodes isn’t any more jarring to me than the many, many examples in TOS, DS9, TNG, and others. It’s certainly not a coherent example of bad writing. Edit: And, obviously, you don’t have to give examples of it. I’m explaining why I said the thing you replied to about writing.
Last edited:
While I have issues with this episode, I don't think they come down to "the writing." I would say the biggest issues in this episode were related to casting. A stronger actress for Osyraa (I'm sure Mary Chieffo would come back for the role) would have made a major difference. I think there must have been better casting choices for Book's "brother" as well (I wonder if they came up with the "adoptive brother" thing because they couldn't find a black actor they liked?). I also think some of the FVX choices were kinda meh (sea locusts just flittered around and looked pretty- didn't seem intimidating, and the scale of Osyraa's ship from ground/surface was all wrong). In addition, while I know it would have pushed up the budget, they should have given more of a sense of scale here. It made it look like the planet had just one small settlement, since all we saw was empty forest, one living room, and a couple henchmen. None of those come down to the writing.
In general though, I would say there is a writing issue this season, but it's different from the previous seasons. In the first, and to a lesser extent the second seasons, there were issues with scripting - weird long monologues, dumping loads of exposition, and generally speaking conversations only existed to move forward the plot. Now the dialogue is much more natural and engaging, and the writers are not afraid to include dialogue which furthers our understanding of the characters and their relationships.
However, the story concepts are things we have seen many, many times before. When you look at the core narrative arc of each of the episodes (save the season premier, which felt like Star Wars) every one is some sort of trope which has been done numerous times by Trek in the past. Seasons 1 and 2 actually had more high-concept sci-fi than this, even if they were dodgier on the execution. That the stories are so pedestrian is particularly notable because this is supposed to be the 32nd century. We are boldly going where we have been before, more or less. That doesn't mean the episodes are bad by any means, but it means if they want to surpass merely "okay to pretty good" they need to get the execution down perfectly. And in some cases (like this episode) they just don't.
In general though, I would say there is a writing issue this season, but it's different from the previous seasons. In the first, and to a lesser extent the second seasons, there were issues with scripting - weird long monologues, dumping loads of exposition, and generally speaking conversations only existed to move forward the plot. Now the dialogue is much more natural and engaging, and the writers are not afraid to include dialogue which furthers our understanding of the characters and their relationships.
However, the story concepts are things we have seen many, many times before. When you look at the core narrative arc of each of the episodes (save the season premier, which felt like Star Wars) every one is some sort of trope which has been done numerous times by Trek in the past. Seasons 1 and 2 actually had more high-concept sci-fi than this, even if they were dodgier on the execution. That the stories are so pedestrian is particularly notable because this is supposed to be the 32nd century. We are boldly going where we have been before, more or less. That doesn't mean the episodes are bad by any means, but it means if they want to surpass merely "okay to pretty good" they need to get the execution down perfectly. And in some cases (like this episode) they just don't.
more like used...see the concept of chekov’s Gun: usually if you introduce something or someone in a story you have to use it somehow, otherwise it just bloats the story and confuses the audience.
This is, by the way, the original reason Obi-Wan Kenobi was killed off in the first Star Wars: he had no use after rescuing the princess. It’s also a soar spot for much of the TOS and TNG cast once they transitioned in the movies, most notably Takei, but also Nimoy in Generations: their characters were often there just as a cameo but could have been replaced by anyone.
Or a better makeup, perhaps.
Agreed...But this has been another issue with most of Discovery and Picard: the CGI often feels rushed. Which, considering the extremely tight deadlines they usually are under, probably often is.
Agreed with most of your assessment, in any case.
But how does this relate to Sahil? He was used as intended, set up and informed the story. He was introduced and used. He may or may not be used again, but he has served his purpose.
I guess...But the idea was that they would search for the federation *together*...And he’s never mentioned again!
Yeah, Discovery seems like it's been plagued by...poor coordination between the VFX team and the writer's room? Or just showrunners who don't give a shit and let VFX do whatever they want? Regardless, it's weird how many times the script has directly said something, and then the visuals go off and do something else. I realize this happens far more in TV than in film since directors are hired guns and EPs are typically jumped-up writers who aren't necessarily visual thinkers, but it's very notable with Discovery.
i think the main culprit here are the wrecking deadlines they are under. The last picard episode’s VFXs were finished around a couple of days before airing (which is probably why we got that horrible fleet sequence) and CGI work on the discovery s3 hadn’t started then...and the season was supposed to start within weeks!
Basically: if something doesn’t work there isn’t time to correct it, so they go with what they have.
Last edited:
Following in a long, proud tradition. IIRC, the final prints of TMP were delivered to theaters with the film still wet from the finishing process after the final VFX composites and editing were completed in the 11th hour.
Last-minute rushes like that seem to be the rule and rarely the exception.
Last-minute rushes like that seem to be the rule and rarely the exception.
no doubts! Same goes for Star Trek V also Star Trek 2009 was supposed to be Star Trek 2008 for a reason...
This is a strange take on the situation. She made him acting communications officer in charge of looking for her ship. There wasn’t an implication that he’d go with her or something like that. Not by him being part of the cast anyway.
Doesn’t matter, I guess I’m just okay with how that played out. I actually think his inclusion was some of the best writing I’ve seen in Trek. I suppose that’s why I took particular exception to that.
To quote Burnham directly: “if there are others out there we’ll find them”, cut to the three of them, one by one, “*we* will” (emphasis not mine).
And yes, it was a fantastic scene.
Is there anything that precedes that. You know, like the thing I said that told him he’d be looking for the starship? Because that would make you look a little less than honest. And yes, ‘we’ isn’t anything to do with him coming with them. It’s that they’ll play their part as a collective. Surely this is self evident. Surely, to goodness, you didn’t take this is ‘it’s me and you, Sahil, we are off to the stars together’. Not with her just having told him what he’d be doing. Surely?
Not sure what you are implying here.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll