Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x10 - "Terra Firma, Part 2"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I'm finding the opposite. I loved S1 and found S2 strong though a little weaker, and have found S3 all over the place - with Unification III being particularly bad. My partner, who also greatly enjoyed the first two seasons, is actively disliking this one.
I'm very glad that some people are coming around to the series, but I wonder if the change in direction is, rather than "saving" the show, risking driving away established fans to appeal to those who are not. Of those in the latter category, there are plenty who will not give it another chance, so the appeal may be wasted.
It would've been so much better for me if she actually died because she didn't even consider checking if Keyla was dead. I kept expecting her to get back up and shoot Landry in the back until Burnham turned out to be waiting for her around the corner.
The way I remember the episode is in bold.
Spock and McCoy went 5k years in the past and were trapped in the planets previous ice age with someone who was already exiled there.
Where is Mr. A to Z (Atoz) when you need him most. Too bad the sphere data didn't have the design for the atavachron yet.
I think this is how a good number of folks felt about season 1.
TBH, I suspect CBS has had a hard row to hoe bringing in “new fans” to a 50+-year-old franchise on a niche pay service in a highly competitive streaming landscape. That approach might have worked better had All Access had more on offer, but I’m guessing the calculus, for now, is how to get as many existing fans to watch as possible. “Safe” is probably, well, the safest bet.
Last edited:
I strongly suspect that safe will be their course, whether it is the best story choice or not. So, Trek's relevance will be relegated back to nostalgia targeting without any largely movement in new directions.
You know if each atom of Georgiou's body has a different "quantum signature" the moment she came in "our universe" as is said in the series and TNG as well. The longer she stays, the more she eats and eliminates, which means replacing atoms from her body (from the MU) with atoms from our universe. In fact since she's been in our universe for nearly two years, it's likely that more than half of the atoms of her body are from our universe... Just sayin'...
And you're not the first.
To be fair to the Discovery creatives, “new” doesn’t last forever. Season one stuck to tried-and-true Trek tropes, giving us Klingons, Harry Mudd and the MU. A lot of what was “new” then — serialization, a little more “adult” content, more diversity — is still with us; it’s just not new any more.
I heard that in Matt Decker''s voice.
I heard that in Matt Decker''s voice.
All of us, at times, when posting on TrekBBS:
That's pretty much his jam.A shellshocked Matt Decker?
this is all good and right with today’s physics, but in Star Trek the universe works at a subatomic level and who knows if whatever is there gets replaced during someone’s body functions?
That is a fair point and I appreciate the new that has come, aside from the walking back of the Klingons. Just add more diversity to the Empire.
But, here's the thing with Trek-it is occupying a role as nostalgia and not doing much else. Which is fine, but it is disappointing when Trek could do more.
I've liked bits of every season.
I liked where I thought the show was going in the first half of season one. I could get around the amount of times we saw Klingons in Enterprise and have the Battle of the Binary Stars be the disastrous contact that set relations with them askew. I wasn't a fan of relating Burnham to Spock and Sarek's family and shoehorning her into that when it really didn't add anything. I definitely didn't feel that we needed to spend several episodes in the mirror universe and then rush into a finale to button up the Klingon conflict.
In the second season, I liked the mystery of the Red Angel and with bringing Pike over. I was less impressed with Control and the need to go back into Section 31.
For the record, I don't need everything to fit into canon to a tee, just in the broader strokes, but I never saw the need to place it in the timeframe between Enterprise and TOS when you had any time in the future to tell whatever story they wanted to. I'll never understand that decision. Discovery could've reached out to new and old fans without having to be at the behest of canon to appease the fans that were militant about it. But in a show carrying the name Star Trek, you also can't expect people not to be upset when you try and shoehorn your characters into the franchise they feel strongly about.
The biggest flaw I have seen in Discovery is the need to rush through the season and have a resolution that ties everything up and in that rush, it never reaches the best conclusion it could. Take this season: I don't need to see a resolution to The Burn or the Emerald Chain in totality. I'd hope to see building blocks to that point, but I don't need it to be all wrapped up.
Of course all of this is my opinion. I've been criticized in the past because I would have preferred the writers had gone different directions, that I should just admit that I "don't like Discovery," which isn't the case at all.
Discovery could have gone in a ton of directions and I think the 32nd century move and the Burn were poor choices.
I love Discovery but there is always something I think they could do better.
Control and Section 31 were the worst things to happen to DSC - period. Neither should ever have been introduced into the series.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
