Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 5x04 - "Face the Strange"

[fireproof78]

I'd prefer positivity and people moving on or reconciling.

And not all writers recognize the value of characters they've written and can be surprised by some characters popularity. It is dangerous to assume writers view characters as audience members do.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I'd prefer positivity and people moving on or reconciling.

Okay. But those people have to have suffering to move on from or reconcile over.

And not all writers recognize the value of characters they've written and can be surprised by some characters popularity.

Of course. But a good writer, who wants to make money, will capitalize on it.

It is dangerous to assume writers view characters as audience members do.

I don't know anyone who assumes that. I'm sure the DSC writers didn't initially view some of these characters as viable. But if we're going to label something as dangerous, ignoring all critiques is probably the most dangerous thing they can do of all.

 

[Mr Awe]

A much better version of Shaw who never outgrew being an asshole, with Rayner learning from his mistakes. I never felt for a moment he needed to be in therapy since BoBW like Shaw.

Not even when he was willing to sacrifice a town of innocents to catch the bad guys?! A 30% chance of wiping out the village was an unwarranted risk. Shaw was an asshole but he didn't risk others like that.

 

[fireproof78]

Okay. But those people have to have suffering to move on from or reconcile over.

Maybe. Star Trek, historically, moves on without much in the way of that stuff. It's not great at it.

Of course. But a good writer, who wants to make money, will capitalize on it.

Again, maybe. Writers do not view characters the same way as audience members, nor do they always know how to capitalize on popularity, or even if they want to explore those characters. They may just want to discard them because it's not part of their story.

I don't know anyone who assumes that. I'm sure the DSC writers didn't initially view some of these characters as viable. But if we're going to label something as dangerous, ignoring all critiques is probably the most dangerous thing they can do of all.

Who said anything about ignoring all critique? Assumption at best.

My point is, as noted above, writers regard characters differently, as I have no doubt you know. But, to capitalize on such success isn't easy. Two, it isn't always beneficial because they reason audience members might grab on to characters might not be what is actually explored in a work. "I want to know more about X character" does not translate in to what is actually explored.

And finally, I don't think any of these characters that you have expressed interest in are part of the main cast in the way the writers want. So, yeah, they're not going to focus on them.

 

[Mr Awe]

Okay. Let's define "nitpick": From the Oxford English Dictionary -
look for and criticize small or insignificant faults or errors
Is the relationship between Book and Burnham small? No. The way it's handled is intrinsic to their character growth. And to have them break up off-screen, then get back together again with nary a cross word between them is absolutely more than a nit to pick. It's the same problem I (and MANY others) had with the Seven / Raffi relationship on PIC, and to a lesser extent the Gray / Adira relationship (Though I didn't complain as much because I was glad to see Gray gone).
It represents a problem some of these writers seem to have: They do not know how to write real relationships, with real problems that come up without either side being a "villain". SNW has handled it pretty well, with Pike / Batel, and also Spock / Chapel / T'Pring. But Picard and Discovery both really, REALLY struggle with writing dynamic, compelling relationships where everyone's not happy all the time. And that's not a nit.

I agree with your points. I'll just add that Book's actions last season were a legit deep betrayal of Burnham. It should've been a gut level punch to Burnham that should've left her reeling for a long time. To gloss over that cheapens the whole thing.

Speaking of which, I had NO IDEA Rhys was now the chief tactical officer until this episode. Which speaks volumes to how the "bridge crew" are portrayed.

Agreed. It's quite the problem when you don't even know what some of the bridge crew does. The bridge seems like an odd place to have so many end credit actors. I mean, you know a lot of key scenes will be there.

This episode, while very entertaining, doesn't really touch it.

Agreed. It was a fun ride and nice trip down memory lane, but not a lot more. It progressed Raynor's character arc. He sure became a believer quickly!

 

[Cr0sis21]

Again, maybe. Writers do not view characters the same way as audience members, nor do they always know how to capitalize on popularity, or even if they want to explore those characters. They may just want to discard them because it's not part of their story.


Who said anything about ignoring all critique? Assumption at best.

My point is, as noted above, writers regard characters differently, as I have no doubt you know. But, to capitalize on such success isn't easy. Two, it isn't always beneficial because they reason audience members might grab on to characters might not be what is actually explored in a work. "I want to know more about X character" does not translate in to what is actually explored.

And finally, I don't think any of these characters that you have expressed interest in are part of the main cast in the way the writers want. So, yeah, they're not going to focus on them.

There's a good and bad side to all of these. The knee-jerk reaction Ira Behr had to fan reactions to Dukat is what gave us the awful "CrAzY Dukat" of Season 7.
But on the other hand, I can not fathom why the writers on DSC make some of the choices they make.
1) Dump Ash, and then do literally nothing with him ever again.
2) Tease Lorca multiple times but do nothing.
3) Sideline the universally-enjoyed Jett Reno for multiple episodes at a time
4) Write off Tilly, one of your core, most loved, characters for no discernable reason
5) Contrive a reason to completely erase Georgiou, one of your most intriguing characters, from ever showing up again.
6) Create two new characters more known for their genders than who they are, then dump one of them off after a handful of minor appearances.
And that's without even touching on my annoyance that they completely sidelined two of the most potentially interesting characters on the show.

 

[Mr Awe]

I've explained where the confusion with these characters has happened multiple times here, most recently within the last 5 days. So I won't go into into it all again now. They weren't intended to be written as Barclay and Ro.

Saying that they were intended to be written as bland ciphers doesn't help! So, I'm not surprised you don't want to "go into it"!!!

The bridge is going to be a primary setting for key scenes. It helps when you have strong characters there. I get that they weren't intended to be the main characters, but that's just a really odd decision.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Saying that they were intended to be written as bland ciphers doesn't help! So, I'm not surprised you don't want to "go into it"!!!

The bridge is going to be a primary setting for key scenes. It helps when you have strong characters there. I get that they weren't intended to be the main characters, but that's just a really odd decision.

You know someone who is a big shining example of how to build a background character up?
Damar.
Holy hell, who'd have ever thought we'd see him in the position he got to after just seeing Return to Grace?

 

[Mr Awe]

There's a good and bad side to all of these. The knee-jerk reaction Ira Behr had to fan reactions to Dukat is what gave us the awful "CrAzY Dukat" of Season 7.
But on the other hand, I can not fathom why the writers on DSC make some of the choices they make.
1) Dump Ash, and then do literally nothing with him ever again.
2) Tease Lorca multiple times but do nothing.
3) Sideline the universally-enjoyed Jett Reno for multiple episodes at a time
4) Write off Tilly, one of your core, most loved, characters for no discernable reason
5) Contrive a reason to completely erase Georgiou, one of your most intriguing characters, from ever showing up again.
6) Create two new characters more known for their genders than who they are, then dump one of them off after a handful of minor appearances.
And that's without even touching on my annoyance that they completely sidelined two of the most potentially interesting characters on the show.

Add sidelining Saru to that list! Jones was one of the best actors in the show and his character was one of the most intriguing. To reduce him to the side and use him to illustrate domestic issues is maddening!

 

[Mr Awe]

You know someone who is a fish shining example of how to build a background character up?
Damar.
Holy hell, who'd have ever thought we'd see him in the position he got to after just seeing Return to Grace?

Damar's character arc was awesome. It felt so natural too.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Of course they did a shifting through time episode, but it worked. Though it seemed a little easy to get the old friends on board.

I agree with other sentiments that it's baffling the way they're splitting up the strongest characters. Taking Saru and Tilly off the ship just makes no sense especially since they didn't give the rest of the bridge crew much catch up development.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Of course they did a shifting through time episode, but it worked. Though it seemed a little easy to get the old friends on board.

I agree with other sentiments that it's baffling the way they're splitting up the strongest characters. Taking Saru and Tilly off the ship just makes no sense especially since they didn't give the rest of the bridge crew much catch up development.

Really, they're shooting themselves in the foot. You don't need to introduce Adira, Gray, and Raynor and put their character development into transwarp when you have other, viable characters that the audience already knows and likes right there!

 

[fireproof78]

There's a good and bad side to all of these. The knee-jerk reaction Ira Behr had to fan reactions to Dukat is what gave us the awful "CrAzY Dukat" of Season 7.
But on the other hand, I can not fathom why the writers on DSC make some of the choices they make.

Then maybe someday you'll get to ask them.

I'm good were it is at. Sorry it isn't working for you.

 

[SJGardner]

There's a good and bad side to all of these. The knee-jerk reaction Ira Behr had to fan reactions to Dukat is what gave us the awful "CrAzY Dukat" of Season 7.
But on the other hand, I can not fathom why the writers on DSC make some of the choices they make.
1) Dump Ash, and then do literally nothing with him ever again.
2) Tease Lorca multiple times but do nothing.
3) Sideline the universally-enjoyed Jett Reno for multiple episodes at a time
4) Write off Tilly, one of your core, most loved, characters for no discernable reason
5) Contrive a reason to completely erase Georgiou, one of your most intriguing characters, from ever showing up again.
6) Create two new characters more known for their genders than who they are, then dump one of them off after a handful of minor appearances.
And that's without even touching on my annoyance that they completely sidelined two of the most potentially interesting characters on the show.

At least half of these aren't even the writers' fault. Tig Notaro has a medical condition that prevents her from traveling much for her work, limiting her availability to one or two days per season. She shoots all of her scenes in one go then immediately flies back to LA. Tilly had a reduced role in the middle of Season 2 because Mary Wiseman was planning her wedding, and she was apparently missing from most of Season 4 because her off-Broadway play in mid-season had a COVID outbreak and she had to stay in quarantine in New York for several weeks longer than originally planned. Georgiou was long planned to helm a Section 31 show that had been in development hell for several years until ultimately being downsized into a single streaming movie as part of CBS Paramount's cost-cutting measures. And Jason Isaacs is a movie actor they can't afford for a mere cameo, especially not when the rest of the cast is 1000 years into the future from his character. If he were to ever come back, he'd do so in Strange New Worlds.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Then maybe someday you'll get to ask them.

I'm good were it is at. Sorry it isn't working for you.

Ha ha, yeah, I'm not gong to ask any of the writers about that.
I've had a few conversations with Ira Behr, and I dint get the idea any of those writers want to hear those kinds of questions.

 

[Rahul]

I'm late to the party:
I really liked this one!
It is my favourite episode this season so far.

I really liked that this episode wasn't just a "best-of" of previous Discovery "big moments". Instead it mostly focused on the characters, and how they have changed over the seasons (and the whole tone of the show itself) - from the BSG-inspired mistrustful, confrontational, suspenseful, to the current "connect"-touchy-feely-goodie show. It was the first time the show felt somewhat comfortable with itself and it's transformations. Having "old" Burnham be the final antagonist felt really fitting.

Some minor nitpicks & observations:

• TIme bugs, time crystals, Harry Mudd's time-balls - previous Trek shows often had a lot of techno-bubble - but DIS is just the worst with absolutely unconvincing stupid time-travel Mcguffins
• Smart idea to use a time-travel episode to show the "bad ending" for the season arc (like ENT's time-travel episode showing Earth destroyed by the Xindi). Fantastic way to heighten the main arc's stakes with "show-don't-tell"
  
• I absolutely prefer the production Design of DIS' 23rd century compared the current one. Was great to see that again.
• Lall & Mok (sp?) really are weird antagonists - a teenage bounty hunter couple that continuously outsmarts the highest decorated crew of the biggest galactical power. Not a good look

 

[Rahul]

One thing however becomes more and more visible to me - it's not this episode's fault, but it made it more visible for me: Jumping to the 32rd century was an absolute mistake. The characters didn't even aknowledge that monumental shift this episode - even the rank pips are sill the same.
The 32rd century simply has nothing to offer, and any innovation is either only cosmetical, or actually complicates the "internal rules" of the show and muddies the stakes,. As for a viewer it's unclear what is possible or not (mostly all the "old" Star Trek rules apply - but then there regularly is a monumental ass-pull, that in theory changes how the whole universe operates, only to be ignored again)

 

[fireproof78]

rank pips are sill the same.
The 32rd century simply has nothing to offer, and any innovation is either only cosmetical,

Because that's what it was. Meant to satisfy hand wringing over canon and nothing more.

 

[Captain Jollydark]

I'm referring to character archetypes. People who are fans of the way Burnham is portrayed really, really don't seem to like characters more in the mold of Shaw.

This just seems a bit ipso facto and reductive to me. It's a perception based on a limited sample size of fans I suspect.

I'm pretty sure many people who are fans can hold both captains' different command styles in their heads without their brains exploding.

I can see how some of Rayner's style would be useful for Burnham to adopt and vice versa. I'm confident that's what we'll be seeing more of as the story progresses.

I personally love Burnham's story, how she got from where she was to where she is now. That's the story of our potential.

I also love the delightful and petty assholery of Captain Shaw whose backstory made me cry, and who manages to put all that aside and use his skills to help save the universe.

I'm enjoying Rayner's story so far and look forward to learning more about him, his expansion and growth over the course of the season. That doesn't mean he will grow into another Michael Burnham. Why is that the assumption?

"Oh no! They're going to turn that manly reticent communicator into Burnham." (Burnham, who is simultaneously too whiny crybaby and also too good at martial arts and fighting big men).

 

[Cr0sis21]

At least half of these aren't even the writers' fault. Tig Notaro has a medical condition that prevents her from traveling much for her work, limiting her availability to one or two days per season. She shoots all of her scenes in one go then immediately flies back to LA. Tilly had a reduced role in the middle of Season 2 because Mary Wiseman was planning her wedding, and she was apparently missing from most of Season 4 because her off-Broadway play in mid-season had a COVID outbreak and she had to stay in quarantine in New York for several weeks longer than originally planned. Georgiou was long planned to helm a Section 31 show that had been in development hell for several years until ultimately being downsized into a single streaming movie as part of CBS Paramount's cost-cutting measures. And Jason Isaacs is a movie actor they can't afford for a mere cameo, especially not when the rest of the cast is 1000 years into the future from his character. If he were to ever come back, he'd do so in Strange New Worlds.

I knew Tig Notaro had breast cancer and a double mastectomy, but I wasn't aware it limited her that much.
My biggest issue with Georgiou and Lorca is, nothing ever really filled the hole left by their absence. And it didn't feel like they really even tried.