Star Trek Discovery...best first season of the franchise?

[CorporalClegg]

Apology accepted.

I'm not really a Star Wars fan. I saw the movies, but I'm more of a casual movie-goer in that regard, not a hardcore fan like I am with Star Trek. I don't have the Disney Channel or any of that either, so I'm not likely to see The Mandalorian, unless I'm over at someone else's house and they're showing it to me. And given Covid-19...

... so I'll comment further when I get a chance to watch a full episode of The Mandalorian and can discuss it after having actually seen it.

There's a huge inferiority complex with Star Wars amongst Star Trek fans. And I too bought into it for a long time. TVH was the first movie I ever got to see in theatres when I was barely five. Loved it and have been a dire hard Trekkie ever since. I didn't see my first Star Wars movie until I was a senior in high school when my friends forced me to watch the OT a week before they dragged me to Phantom Menace. And even then, I really didn't become a 'fan' for a few more years. (It was actually a videogame of all things that really got me hooked.)

Thing is, I've come to realize that trying to separate them is silly. They are a lot more alike - way more than either fandom would care to admit - than they are different. And Star Trek fans get all in a tizzy because Wars is so much more popular. But at the end of the day, that's because Star Wars does things better.

And semantics are important here. Because I don't necessarily mean Star Wars is always better in quality, I mean it's always pushed the envelope and tried to be innovative. And this comparison is the perfect example of what I mean. Discovery (or Picard) doesn't do anything new. It just takes what's been done before and throws a lot more money at it. And more money =/= better. And everything that looks shiny and new is still derivative of something else and just the result of either newish technologies or just having a bigger budget. It's like building a new house using old foundation and framing techniques and throwing the newest siding and expensive trendy paint. Mando said heck with all that and came up with an entirely new way of laying the foundation and constructing the frame -- one I suspect will become industry standard within10 years **A lot of this depends on how much of the new tech ILM has patented. I have to think that, if they can, Kurtzman and CO will try to get their hands on it for SNW.

 

[Sci]

When are people going to drop the conspiracy theory that getting two extra episodes somehow threw off DSC's first-person narrative, or the notion that the end of the season was rushed?

Well, I can't say I ever knew there was any sort of "conspiracy theory." But the second "pod" of the season is what they would have been writing around the time CBS made the decision to order additional episodes, and it consists of 4 Mirror Universe episodes and 2 Klingon War episodes. Two additional episodes means the pod ended up increasing in size by a third while the entire season increased by 15%, and yeah I think that's a significant increase.

Basically, it is my opinion that stopping the Klingon War arc to do a 4-episode MU arc before going back to the Klingon War disrupted the pacing of the Klingon War arc. Is it possible that they always intended to do that two-thirds of the way through the season? Well, sure. But that's a really weird structure, to suddenly stop the arc you've been building up since the start of the season for an extended second arc, and then re-start it. I can't think of any other serialized show that's done something like that. So, yeah, I strongly suspect that the weird structure is a result of the additional episode order leading the writers to try to do more with the MU than originally intended. I don't know this for sure, I could be wrong, but it is my suspicion.

There's objectively nothing wrong whatsoever with the narrative structure or pace of DSC Season 1,

I mean, it depends on what your creative goals are. To say that something is "objectively" this or that is going to depend on what kind of story it's trying to tell; is The Godfather "objectively" better than The Wizard of Oz?

I would personally argue that if we're judging DIS S1 by the standard of conventional serialized storytelling, wherein you build up tension and momentum until your final couple of episodes of the season, whereupon the escalated conflict reaches a climax, then I find DIS S1 doesn't fulfill that standard structure, because of the way the story it was telling gets stopped dead in its tracks for four episodes before coming back. I think it would have been better for DIS S1 to be dedicated to the Klingon War, and then to have the MU travel be the season-ending cliffhanger, possibly with the revelation that Lorca was MU all along. Then, have DIS S2 be dedicated to the MU, and expand it to more than just four episodes.

Mind you, that doesn't mean it's bad! I really love DIS S1, and I like the Klingon and MU arcs. I just didn't agree with combining them into one season; I think both arcs would have been served better by having a season to themselves.

which is indeed the best first season of the franchise to date when looked at completely objectively.

I mean, "objectively" I don't think you can even compare every first season of ST to one-another, because different ST shows have had different creative goals for their first seasons. TOS was essentially being a 1960s adventure show with an episodic structure that imitated anthology shows that were considered the "prestigious" TV of their day. TNG, DS9 Seasons 1-3, VOY, and ENT Seasons 1-2 were standard 1980s/1990s-style mostly-episodic, lightly serialized adventure shows. DS9 Seasons 4-7 and ENT Seasons 3-4 were quasi-serialized shows with a greater focus on characterization and thematic depth. DIS and PIC have both been strongly serialized, highly character-based, strongly influenced by modern "prestige" TV like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, etc.

My rankings were about subjective enjoyment and preferences; I do prefer the highly serialized shows. But if you ask me to start evaluating the shows on the basis of some sort of "objective" criteria, I would ask what the criteria you're looking for are, and then I'd ask if different kinds of stories just don't lend themselves to certain criteria. I'm pretty sure the criteria by which a drama like The Godfather is evaluated would measure a children's adventure story like The Wizard of Oz as being inferior, and vice-versa.

Thing is, I've come to realize that trying to separate them is silly. They are a lot more alike - way more than either fandom would care to admit - than they are different. And Star Trek fans get all in a tizzy because Wars is so much more popular. But at the end of the day, that's because Star Wars does things better.

I don't agree. I think Star Wars as a whole and Star Trek as a whole have very different creative goals, intended audiences, and dramatic structures. I think there are some individual installments that can be fairly compared to one-another: Rogue One has a narrative voice and foundational creative conceits that are different from SW as a whole, and I think you could fairly compare Rogue One to, say, The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country. The Voyage Home is a much lighter story that's more consciously family-oriented than other ST films, so I think it would be fair to compare it to, say, A New Hope or The Force Awakens.

I haven't seen The Mandalorian yet, so I can't comment except to say that it seems comparable to Firefly, and that it rather obviously is even more strongly influenced by Westerns than Star Wars normally is; the "amoral gunslinger forced to embrace a higher responsibility" is a story that's been done many times before -- it's not breaking new ground there. That doesn't mean it isn't wonderful! Originality is not the same as quality, and I'll take quality over originality most of the time.

But in general, I think Star Trek and Star Wars are different beasts doing different things, and I don't really try to rank them. I love them both equally, for different reasons.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Apology accepted.

I'm not really a Star Wars fan. I saw the movies, but I'm more of a casual movie-goer in that regard, not a hardcore fan like I am with Star Trek. I don't have the Disney Channel or any of that either, so I'm not likely to see The Mandalorian, unless I'm over at someone else's house and they're showing it to me. And given Covid-19...

... so I'll comment further when I get a chance to watch a full episode of The Mandalorian and can discuss it after having actually seen it.

Im surprised to hear you are not on SW forums every night telling the folks there how Solo is the best SW movie ever

 

[fireproof78]

Im surprised to hear you are not on SW forums every night telling the folks there how Solo is the best SW movie ever

I usually am the one saying that. @Lord Garth knows to stay in his lane

 

[Lord Garth]

Im surprised to hear you are not on SW forums every night telling the folks there how Solo is the best SW movie ever

The best movie ever is Blade Runner (1982).

I haven't seen seen the Solo movie. It's the one SW movie I didn't go see. fireproof78 told me I should give it a watch.

 

[fireproof78]

The best movie ever is Blade Runner (1982).

I think you mean Star Wars lol

 

[CorporalClegg]

I haven't seen The Mandalorian yet, so I can't comment except to say that it seems comparable to Firefly, and that it rather obviously is even more strongly influenced by Westerns than Star Wars normally is; the "amoral gunslinger forced to embrace a higher responsibility" is a story that's been done many times before -- it's not breaking new ground there. That doesn't mean it isn't wonderful! Originality is not the same as quality, and I'll take quality over originality most of the time.

Mando might be a bit more on the nose with its visual trappings, but all of Star Wars is very much rooted in a Western-style. And so is Star Trek. Star Wars might trend more towards the Kurosawa inspired stuff and Star Trek more towards the Stagecoach - Wagon Train - variety. But they're both about swashbuckling adventures on the frontier seeking adventure with a laser six-shooter. And everyone hangs out at the bar where there are dancing green women and everyone takes the occasional shot of Elizabethian whiskey with an operatic chaser.

And the heroes champion inspiring - albeit naive - messages rooted in vaguely Eastern metaphysics and Humeish philosophy - the Jedi code is more or less Kir'Shara copypasta. (And vice versa).

 

[Sci]

Mando might be a bit more on the nose with its visual trappings, but all of Star Wars is very much rooted in a Western-style. And so is Star Trek. Star Wars might trend more towards the Kurosawa inspired stuff and Star Trek more towards the Stagecoach - Wagon Train - variety. But they're both about swashbuckling adventures on the frontier seeking adventure with a laser six-shooter. And everyone hangs out at the bar where there are dancing green women and everyone takes the occasional shot of Elizabethian whiskey with an operatic chaser.

And the heroes champion inspiring - albeit naive - messages rooted in vaguely Eastern metaphysics and Humeish philosophy - the Jedi code is more or less Kir'Shara copypasta. (And vice versa).

100% agreed.

Where ST I think diverges a bit from SW is that ST has an institutionalist aesthetic informed by a pseudo-colonialist subtext. Star Trek very much wants to believe in a form of colonialism that is benevolent and victimless -- settlers arriving on virgin land rather than conquerors driving out the natives. Star Trek tries to fuse that benevolent colonialist subtext with a liberal belief in emancipatory institutions. Whereas Star Wars, I think, has some deeply anti-institutional subtexts, bordering on outright libertarianism.

 

[fireproof78]

Whereas Star Wars, I think, has some deeply anti-institutional subtexts, bordering on outright libertarianism.

That exactly what it is. That's why Han is such a darling hero is that he embodies a yearning to be free. I think that's why Jack Sparrow and Malcolm Reynolds are so popular.

 

[Sci]

That exactly what it is. That's why Han is such a darling hero is that he embodies a yearning to be free. I think that's why Jack Sparrow and Malcolm Reynolds are so popular.

Exactly. Whereas, except for PIC, every Star Trek hero, even the ones closest to the "charming rogue" archetype that Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, and Malcom Reynolds represent, is someone who is still ultimately part of and accountable to a very large institution of state power.

Ironically, Star Trek: Picard is not only the first ST show not to center its main characters around that large institution -- it transformed the character most closely identified with the righteous power of the state, and turned him into a rogue operating outside of the confines of state institutions! PIC's depiction of Jean-Luc Picard and Cristóbal Rios aboard La Sirena are about as close to Han Solo aboard the Millennium Falcon, Jack Sparrow aboard the Black Pearl, or Malcolm Reynolds aboard Serenity, as we're ever likely to get in ST.

Edited to add:

I think one of the biggest differences between ST and SW, actually, is this:

At least in theory, respectively, Star Wars is about tearing down oppressive institutions, while Star Trek is about building up emancipatory institutions.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

The whole colonial thing is is exaggerated when it comes to Trek. Colonialism is forced on the natives whereas the UFP is not. The prime directive gets broken too much alright but mostly when the Enterprise swoops in to a primitive species it's to genuinely save them as opposed to let's say British colonialism which swooped in to enslave Africa and and left millions to die in both India and Ireland during famines while under their rule

 

[Kpnuts]

Or what might be my single favorite shot from any skiffy show ever:

I could write paragraphs on this single frame. The obvious reference to ET, channeling the innocent boy under all that armor or how the light and the dark create a cage-like image on the floor. He's literally imprisoned in between them.

And I could probably find a good dozen more like them. That's what provocative, thoughtful, and imaginative visuals look like. Art.

Fuck, Disco isn't even in the same league.

Great post. It's a gorgeous series, every establishing shot crafted with such care and attention to detail.

From a visuals pov the shot of the Razor Crest docking at that pirate station in ep 6 had my jaw on the floor. A standard sequence but it just looked incredible.

I mean, "objectively" I don't think you can even compare every first season of ST to one-another, because different ST shows have had different creative goals for their first seasons.

I don't understand how you can say "this piece of entertainment is better than that one, objectively". There's nothing objective about an opinion like that.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

There's objectively nothing wrong whatsoever with the narrative structure or pace of DSC Season 1, which is indeed the best first season of the franchise to date when looked at completely objectively.

 

[Sci]

The whole colonial thing is is exaggerated when it comes to Trek. Colonialism is forced on the natives whereas the UFP is not.

Right, which is why I say Star Trek is about a fantasy of benevolent colonialism -- a fantastical version where you get the expansionism without the people who were historically marginalized as a result of that expansionism in real life.

The prime directive gets broken too much alright but mostly when the Enterprise swoops in to a primitive species it's to genuinely save them

Yeah, but, right there, you've got the colonialist fantasy/colonialist mindset of "primitive other" vs. "advanced in-group." And in real life, colonialists often believed they were "saving" or "helping" the "primitive" foreign culture.

That's not to say Star Trek is bad or that Star Trek is pro-marginalizing cultures that were colonized in real life! But Star Trek really wants the colonialist adventure story without the baggage of real-life colonialism. Hence, it presents us with the fantasy of a benevolent colonialism in space.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Right, which is why I say Star Trek is about a fantasy of benevolent colonialism -- a fantastical version where you get the expansionism without the people who were historically marginalized as a result of that expansionism in real life.



Yeah, but, right there, you've got the colonialist fantasy/colonialist mindset of "primitive other" vs. "advanced in-group." And in real life, colonialists often believed they were "saving" or "helping" the "primitive" foreign culture.

That's not to say Star Trek is bad or that Star Trek is pro-marginalizing cultures that were colonized in real life! But Star Trek really wants the colonialist adventure story without the baggage of real-life colonialism. Hence, it presents us with the fantasy of a benevolent colonialism in space.

I don't see it as a fantasy of benevolent colonialism. Colonialism despite talk of advancing the local population or saving souls was really about power and turning counties like Ireland or India into sweatshops.

The UFP never ask the locals to change religion or accept new government before or after saving the planet. I see IFP to be far more like Medicine Sans Frontiereor UNICEF than the British or Ottoman empires

 

[Noname Given]

The UFP never ask the locals to change religion or accept new government before or after saving the planet. I see IFP to be far more like Medicine Sans Frontiereor UNICEF than the British or Ottoman empires

Many a member of the Klingon Empire would disagree. Just look at how Jean-Luc Picard reacted to (and routinely dressed down), anytime he did something very culturally Klingon, but which conflicted with the UFP's view of universal humanity.

 

[fireproof78]

it transformed the character most closely identified with the righteous power of the state, and turned him into a rogue operating outside of the confines of state institutions!

I would argue that that started with First Contact, and progressed forward in to Insurrection.

 

[Sci]

I don't see it as a fantasy of benevolent colonialism. Colonialism despite talk of advancing the local population or saving souls was really about power and turning counties like Ireland or India into sweatshops.

The UFP never ask the locals to change religion or accept new government before or after saving the planet. I see IFP to be far more like Medicine Sans Frontiereor UNICEF than the British or Ottoman empires

But that's exactly what makes it a fantasy of benevolent colonialism -- the fact that the Federation does not (at least in theory) impose itself on the locals. But it's still colonialism -- the Federation literally goes around establishing colonies and expanding its territory and making deals with less-powerful planets to make them "protectorates" (eg, the Evora in INS). And of course, TOS and TNG are full of episodes where the Enterprise comes across a "primitive" or less-powerful planet and they force the locals to stop doing something they consider bad (eg, Kirk ending the computer-determined voluntary deaths in "A Taste of Armageddon," etc.), and the narrative treats this as an acceptable violation of the Prime Directive.

So you have a fantasy version of colonialism where you get to expand, and have colonies, and tell the locals how to run their society when you decide it's being bad, and bring weak planets in as protectorates, and bring new planets into the Federation, but where this is never (or almost never) depicted as a harmful thing, where it's always depicted as a benevolent thing in contrast to the real history of colonialism. It's just an inescapable part of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry himself acknowledged that Star Trek's major influences include historical colonialist fantasies like Wagon Train and Horatio Hornblower.

There's nothing wrong with a fantasy of benevolent colonialism per se, as long as we the audience remember that real colonialism did not work that way. But we do need to be aware of the archetypes that Star Trek is playing with. And the best Star Trek stories know that and are themselves metatextually aware and somewhat self-critical. One of the greatest episodes of Star Trek ever produced, DS9 Season Four's "For the Cause," literally has Michael Eddington calling Sisko out on the Federation's desire to constantly expand and bring other worlds into it, and its angry reaction when someone wants out.

I would argue that that started with First Contact, and progressed forward in to Insurrection.

I mean, yes and no? FC and INS certainly established that Picard had reached a point where he was willing to take unilateral action if the state was behaving in a manner that was self-destructive or illegal, but FC still had him as operating within and and accountable to Starfleet once the crisis was over, and INS made it clear that his goal was to make the Federation Council and/or Federation electorate aware of what Dougherty was doing on the presumption that the state would correct itself once the truth was out. Whereas PIC has him operating fully outside of state institutions altogether.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

But that's exactly what makes it a fantasy of benevolent colonialism -- the fact that the Federation does not (at least in theory) impose itself on the locals. But it's still colonialism -- the Federation literally goes around establishing colonies and expanding its territory and making deals with less-powerful planets to make them "protectorates" (eg, the Evora in INS). And of course, TOS and TNG are full of episodes where the Enterprise comes across a "primitive" or less-powerful planet and they force the locals to stop doing something they consider bad (eg, Kirk ending the computer-determined voluntary deaths in "A Taste of Armageddon," etc.), and the narrative treats this as an acceptable violation of the Prime Directive.

So you have a fantasy version of colonialism where you get to expand, and have colonies, and tell the locals how to run their society when you decide it's being bad, and bring weak planets in as protectorates, and bring new planets into the Federation, but where this is never (or almost never) depicted as a harmful thing, where it's always depicted as a benevolent thing in contrast to the real history of colonialism. It's just an inescapable part of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry himself acknowledged that Star Trek's major influences include historical colonialist fantasies like Wagon Train and Horatio Hornblower.

There's nothing wrong with a fantasy of benevolent colonialism per se, as long as we the audience remember that real colonialism did not work that way. But we do need to be aware of the archetypes that Star Trek is playing with. And the best Star Trek stories know that and are themselves metatextually aware and somewhat self-critical. One of the greatest episodes of Star Trek ever produced, DS9 Season Four's "For the Cause," literally has Michael Eddington calling Sisko out on the Federation's desire to constantly expand and bring other worlds into it, and its angry reaction when someone wants out.

Colonialism was about imposing religion, language, government and society on a people who didn't want it using force and not the same as a treaty willingly agreed to which is what the UFP do and comparing them to the horrors of colonial empires is an insult to the victims of colonialism. Benevolent colonialism as a takedown of a show is a silly philosophical notion that belittles history and the UFP are colonials if they fit the description above otherwise they are something else

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, yes and no? FC and INS certainly established that Picard had reached a point where he was willing to take unilateral action if the state was behaving in a manner that was self-destructive or illegal, but FC still had him as operating within and and accountable to Starfleet once the crisis was over, and INS made it clear that his goal was to make the Federation Council and/or Federation electorate aware of what Dougherty was doing on the presumption that the state would correct itself once the truth was out. Whereas PIC has him operating fully outside of state institutions altogether.

I said it was a start, the seeds of Picard recognizing that his orders from Starfleet were not always right, and he would take things in to his own hands without much hesitance. Yes, he still would come back to the Federation, but his faith was certainly strained.