The Dismal Frontier (Thinkpiece on Discovery, Star Trek and Utopian Science Fiction)

[eschaton]

No, it was reportedly always the plan to wrap up the war in one season. Indeed, Fuller's original desire was to do a seasonal anthology with each season featuring different characters and situations jumping forward through the Trek timeline.

That's quite routine, except for shows with short seasons or Netflix-type things that drop all at once. And of course plans did change once Fuller was fired and Berg & Harberts took the lead, but that changed things from episode 2 onward, rather than being a late-season change.

Like I keep saying, there's always some "negative fan reaction" to anything new in Trek, and it's usually just a few really loud people on the Internet who egotistically believe they represent the majority when they really, really don't. To hear people online talk about it, you'd think the Kelvin movies were universally hated flops, but in fact the first two were the most financially successful Trek movies in history. So studios and producers should know better than to take that kind of "negative reaction" seriously, because it's always going to be there from a certain portion of the audience no matter what you do. All that matters is the ratings or the box office.

And season 2 is not moving on entirely from the Klingons. We know that L'Rell will be back as a recurring character. The war is over, but the DSC-style Klingons are alive and well.

As I said, I'm trying to be charitable to the writer's room - assuming there were conflicts further up the corporate chain which muddled the narrative. If I instead hold to the belief you outlined - that the ending we saw was what they planned from the beginning - then they really are just a bunch of talentless hacks, because there was so much that just didn't make any narrative, character, or even logical sense.

There absolutely were, however, narrative changes which happened on the fly. For example, apparently Jayne Brook impressed the crew in Lethe, because the decision was made at the last minute to not have her character die. Thus the whole arc with her and L'Rell on the Ship of the Dead, and her later involvement in the final two episodes, was improvised.

Oh, and (looking at Memory Alpha) it seems on the first After Trek it was revealed that not only had the finale not yet been filmed when the opening two-parter premiered, but Harberts was still writing it. This is interesting, because After Trek 1 was produced on September 24th, with filming of the final episode scheduled to start the next day. It was still being shot on October 7th. My understanding is that working on a script so close to filming is very rare, and it can help to explain why the narrative is so sloppy, even if the broad strokes were really intended from the start.

 

[Mudd]

My understanding is that working on a script so close to filming is very rare...

It probably is, now, on shows with arcing plots when the producers know what they're doing and where they're going. It was not always - scripts on the old Trek shows got worked on right up to production, with changes being made during the shoots.

 

[Lord Garth]

Every new Trek incarnation from the TOS movies onward has been accused by some of being unprecedentedly alien to Trek's values. The problem isn't the specific series, the problem is the kneejerk human instinct to mistrust the new. Which is why I'm never going to take such a claim seriously again, no matter how you present it to me. I've heard it too damn many times before. Sure, there's stuff I don't like about DSC, but there was stuff I didn't like about VGR and ENT, and to some extent all the others as well. I was telling people nearly 20 years ago that ENT was no different from the previous cases, I was telling people nearly 10 years ago that the Abrams continuity was no different, and now I have to dredge up the same old well-worn arguments and tell you that DSC is no different. And you're not going to listen, and neither will the people 10 years from now who insist that the next new Trek has totally failed to be as true to the spirit of the franchise as DSC was. I'm sick of the whole Sisyphean grind.

It's why I adopted the "agree to disagree" mentality. The argument will continue forever. The name of the series or movie changes, and the (user)names of the people who are complaining about it change, but The Argument stays exactly the same. To a fault. Just because I like Star Trek doesn't mean I want to get into that same fill-in-the-blanks argument with (different) people online about it for the rest of my life.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ @Lord Garth: I didn't say that. That quote was said by somebody else.

 

[Lord Garth]

^ I messed up with the quotes. Sorry about that! Just fixed it.

 

[eschaton]

It probably is, now, on shows with arcing plots when the producers know what they're doing and where they're going. It was not always - scripts on the old Trek shows got worked on right up to production, with changes being made during the shoots.

And this is what really, continually dumbfounds me about DIS. Maybe Fuller had a plan for the season, but if so, it seems like it was mostly pulped. They decided to go ahead with production of season 1 of a heavily serialized show having only the vaguest sort of idea about where they wanted to end up. Why bother producing a show if you don't have any creative plan for it at all?

They should have, IMHO, either delayed production longer (expensive, I know) or set their sights much lower, and just tried to use the first season to help "set the table" for future seasons in terms of fleshing out the characters. After all, the most heavily serialized portion of modern drama is the characterization.

 

[Jadeb]

Every new Trek incarnation from the TOS movies onward has been accused by some of being unprecedentedly alien to Trek's values. The problem isn't the specific series, the problem is the kneejerk human instinct to mistrust the new. Which is why I'm never going to take such a claim seriously again, no matter how you present it to me. I've heard it too damn many times before. Sure, there's stuff I don't like about DSC, but there was stuff I didn't like about VGR and ENT, and to some extent all the others as well. I was telling people nearly 20 years ago that ENT was no different from the previous cases, I was telling people nearly 10 years ago that the Abrams continuity was no different, and now I have to dredge up the same old well-worn arguments and tell you that DSC is no different. And you're not going to listen, and neither will the people 10 years from now who insist that the next new Trek has totally failed to be as true to the spirit of the franchise as DSC was. I'm sick of the whole Sisyphean grind.

I still think Voyager and Enterprise (other than the last season) are bad. That Trek has been bad for a long time doesn't make the current incarnation any better. I'd like Trek to be good.

 

[fireproof78]

My understanding is that working on a script so close to filming is very rare, and it can help to explain why the narrative is so sloppy

It depends on the production. TOS certainly struggled with that. Star Wars had some difficulties with it as well. It might be rare, but it does happen even with larger productions.

 

[jaime]

I still think Voyager and Enterprise (other than the last season) are bad. That Trek has been bad for a long time doesn't make the current incarnation any better. I'd like Trek to be good.

I re-evaluated Voyager recently, and I now think it’s actually really good, with its low spots not as low as other series, and it’s high spots usually as high.

Ent...well...I tried going back, I really did, but I just can’t engage.

 

[BillJ]

I re-evaluated Voyager recently, and I now think it’s actually really good, with its low spots not as low as other series, and it’s high spots usually as high.

Voyager was better than I remembered with some really good episodes. Though it was riddled with massive inconsistency and the bad episodes were some of the worst Trek ever produced prior to Discovery.

Deep Space Nine was always my least favorite. Well, until 2017.

 

[Jadeb]

I re-evaluated Voyager recently, and I now think it’s actually really good, with its low spots not as low as other series, and it’s high spots usually as high.

Ent...well...I tried going back, I really did, but I just can’t engage.

Voyager frustrates me like Discovery does, in that it squanders its assets. Could have been a cool show if they'd really explored the implications of the premise. Like Discovery, though, it puts a toe in and then trembles at the prospect of getting wet.

I didn't think Ent's first season was terrible, but, like Discovery's first season, I will probably never watch it again.

 

[BillJ]

Voyager frustrates me like Discovery does, in that it squanders its assets. Could have been a cool show if they'd really explored the implications of the premise. Like Discovery, though, it puts a toe in and then trembles at the prospect of getting wet.

When T'Whothehellcares took to specifying the Andorians, I thought it would be cool to do a story arc about the Klingon occupation of either Andor or one of its colonies.

It struck me again last night when watching "Errand of Mercy"...

KIRK: Gentlemen, I have seen what the Klingons do to planets like yours. They are organised into vast slave labour camps. No freedoms whatsoever. Your goods will be confiscated. Hostages taken and killed, your leaders confined.

We didn't get to see any of these things from a Klingon war. The writers seemed more interested in their pizza cutter ship than any real ramifications that people could connect with.

 

[eschaton]

I still think Voyager and Enterprise (other than the last season) are bad. That Trek has been bad for a long time doesn't make the current incarnation any better. I'd like Trek to be good.

Starting in late 2016, I worked my way through all of Trek in timeline order, in part because there were large swathes of Trek (including most of ENT and VOY) that I had never seen, and I wanted to be completest.

VOY was better than I remembered - few genuinely terrible episodes, but tons of mediocre episodes that I never have the desire to see again. They only did a few great "classic Trek" episodes (Living Witness, Blink of an Eye). Most everything else they did which was good was the "character focus" episodes. Not just The Doctor and Seven either, Torres, and even Neelix get some good episodes. Every attempt they did to have "action Trek" was awful however.

ENT (discounting the last season) was undoubtedly a bit worse. Ironically it was a more "modern" show, with the characters having some flaws, but I don't think I will be able to handle watching Archer be a bumbling idiot ever again. I still like it better than VOY as a whole however, because it's less boring even when failing, and Season 4, as you note, is actually pretty damn good.

 

[Jadeb]

ENT (discounting the last season) was undoubtedly a bit worse. Ironically it was a more "modern" show, with the characters having some flaws, but I don't think I will be able to handle watching Archer be a bumbling idiot ever again. I still like it better than VOY as a whole however, because it's less boring even when failing, and Season 4, as you note, is actually pretty damn good.

I wouldn't mind watching season 4 of Enterprise again to see if it holds up or if it was just an improvement over what came before.

That's the danger of the franchise continuing to limp along: At a certain point, you get accustomed to bad, so even meh looks good. But non-fans don't have that perspective: Discovery isn't competing with syndicated sci-fi from the '90s but with every other TV show out right now, and there are a lot of really great TV shows out right now.

 

[eschaton]

We didn't get to see any of these things from a Klingon war. The writers seemed more interested in their pizza cutter ship than any real ramifications that people could connect with.

We only actually saw planets six times in DIS season 1:

Episode 1: Desert world with no characters
Episode 4: Brief shot of mining colony (no characters, but actually showed a tiny bit of the war)
Episode 6: Vulcan, albeit almost entirely via flashback. Also wherever Cornwell went - I don't remember if it was a planet or starbase.
Episode 8: Pahvo, British Columbian rainforest tinted blue. Again, no characters
Episode 11: Gravel pit world in the MU where Voq's resistance group is located.
Episode 15: Starfleet HQ, and everyone gets a medal!

I guess you could also include starbases and the like, along with some brief flashbacks of Burnham's childhood. But 90% of the action on DIS took place on the four ship sets (Discovery/Glenn, USS/ISS Shenzhou, Ship of the Dead, and that other Klingon ship).

 

[eschaton]

I wouldn't mind watching season 4 of Enterprise again to see if it holds up or if it was just an improvement over what came before.

That's the danger of the franchise continuing to limp along: At a certain point, you get accustomed to bad, so even meh looks good. But non-fans don't have that perspective: Discovery isn't competing with syndicated sci-fi from the '90s but with every other TV show out right now, and there are a lot of really great TV shows out right now.

I don't think a non-fan would like ENT season 4, because it's basically fanwank. I mean, I really love the Vulcan three-part arc, but it's so wrapped up with the mythos of Trek (and also created in large part to explain why ENT up until now had showed the Vulcans to be a bunch of passive-aggressive dicks who didn't seem that logical).

 

[BillJ]

...and also created in large part to explain why ENT up until now had showed the Vulcans to be a bunch of passive-aggressive dicks who didn't seem that logical.

Which was playing to a fanbase that didn't actually understand them. They were always passive-aggressive dicks who didn't seem that logical going all the way back to "Amok Time".

But this is the same fanbase that insisted that it had been made clear that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet, completely dismissing the Vulcan crewed Intrepid from "The Immunity Syndrome".

 

[jaime]

Voyager was better than I remembered with some really good episodes. Though it was riddled with massive inconsistency and the bad episodes were some of the worst Trek ever produced prior to Discovery.

Deep Space Nine was always my least favorite. Well, until 2017.

Voyager frustrates me like Discovery does, in that it squanders its assets. Could have been a cool show if they'd really explored the implications of the premise. Like Discovery, though, it puts a toe in and then trembles at the prospect of getting wet.

I didn't think Ent's first season was terrible, but, like Discovery's first season, I will probably never watch it again.

See, I drifted off from Voyager around about the end of season 3. When I came back and rewatched, the thing that helped elevate it was some of the more SF concept heavy episodes...(gravity, blink of an eye) but also the fact these guys were probably the most rounded Trek characters outside of DS9, and as a result, it was characters we could care about actually on a Starship. More so even than TNG, because these guys had more to them...Bells and Toms relationship in particular really stood out as an unusual decision for Trek. Even when they didn’t get much to work with, they put the effort in (or sometimes only when they did, understandable Chakotay. ) and it made things interesting. I think Tim Russ may actually better Nimoy for setting the nature of Vulcans, though he benefits from the work of his main predecessors and knows his stuff. Even Neelix becomes such a finely wrought character, and as I say, I drifted off in season three, so had only really my teenage dislike of him to go on....the bravery of ending his story a few episodes before the finale, and that little toe tap from Tuvok brings as much of a tear to the eye as Quarks ‘it’s written all over his back’.
It makes you realise TNG got shortchanged by going to the movies...the heart is here in the small screen.

Ent...I just can’t do it. It’s a strange thing to say, but I actually think part of its problem is that it’s too American, in a way that’s hard to explain succinctly. In a way that no other Trek is. It felt like SG1 sometimes, and that show never clicked with me either.

 

[BillJ]

The Voyager episodes I really enjoyed were mostly Borg-related. I don't think it added anything special to the franchise beyond those.

 

[eschaton]

See, I drifted off from Voyager around about the end of season 3. When I came back and rewatched, the thing that helped elevate it was some of the more SF concept heavy episodes...(gravity, blink of an eye) but also the fact these guys were probably the most rounded Trek characters outside of DS9, and as a result, it was characters we could care about actually on a Starship. More so even than TNG, because these guys had more to them...Bells and Toms relationship in particular really stood out as an unusual decision for Trek. Even when they didn’t get much to work with, they put the effort in (or sometimes only when they did, understandable Chakotay. ) and it made things interesting. I think Tim Russ may actually better Nimoy for setting the nature of Vulcans, though he benefits from the work of his main predecessors and knows his stuff. Even Neelix becomes such a finely wrought character, and as I say, I drifted off in season three, so had only really my teenage dislike of him to go on....the bravery of ending his story a few episodes before the finale, and that little toe tap from Tuvok brings as much of a tear to the eye as Quarks ‘it’s written all over his back’.
It makes you realise TNG got shortchanged by going to the movies...the heart is here in the small screen.

I think VOY is very hard to watch on modern streaming services (except in small doses) because approximately half of each season became "Ship is in danger due to X thing, which is solved in the last act due to thing Y." I feel like the other Treks - even ENT - mixed things up a bit more, having more episodes where an away mission went bad, or only one character was really at risk, or no one at all was at risk. Suspension of disbelief was hard enough at the time it was running, but when you are binge watching VOY, you notice it's basically the same formula over and over (unless it's a week for a character piece, which were, as I said, often great. It really is a shame however that aside from the Paris/Torres relationship they basically put no effort into character continuity at all. I mean, you have an absolutely stellar episode like Barge of the Dead, where Torres essentially "finds religion" and then a few seasons later, in Lineage (which is also an amazing B'Elanna episode) she directly tells a Klingon that she doesn't believe in all that mumbo jumbo.

Ent...I just can’t do it. It’s a strange thing to say, but I actually think part of its problem is that it’s too American, in a way that’s hard to explain succinctly. In a way that no other Trek is. It felt like SG1 sometimes, and that show never clicked with me either.

They definitely made an attempt to work that whole "war on Terror" thing into ENT, particularly in the third season with their attempt to make Archer into The Hard Man who makes The Hard Choices (like torturing).