Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Lord Garth, May 20, 2019.
The writing has definitely let Sonequa Martin-Green down.
I think Sonequa Martin-Green has a unique problem in that the writers are desperate to make the character loved by the audiences so they don't ever give her anything quiet to do. She's the big ass action hero, the relative of the much-beloved character, the moral coscience, the anti-hero, and so on many times over. The thing is that every character in the show and in Star Trek in general is most likable when they're doing little things.
I think this is definitely a sign of the BTS chaos is the different visions of Burnham and how she handles problems. I definitely liked her more in Season 2, though Season 1 was an interesting challenge and someone I identified with more with the self-deprecating, negative self-image Burnham could struggle with, especially with her guilt around Georgiou.
The larger struggle that in Trek many heroes are portrayed as being "right" or that the audience is to agree with them. Burnham is definitely not that character for me. But, I identify with her more than Kirk or Picard at times.
I have just finished a rewatch and enjoyed it, although there plenty things that bug me.
Mainly how the signals all appear in the first episode but then they re-appear one at a time for them to chase and Sarek and Amada come for a goodbye visit with Burnham and then don't bother telling Star Fleet that Discovery and Enterprise are out of comms but are about to have a fight to save all life in the galaxy.
Saru's sister had enough time to become a pilot and fly there, Ash had time to go pick up a Klingon Fleet. Surely the Federation could have chipped in a little help.
Character wise I was dissapointed in what was billed as great love story between Culber and Stammets. No real time was spent developing them in a meaningful way.
I still enjoyed it though.
I feel that it really was them just realizing killing off the first married gay couple in Star Trek was probably not a great opening move.
But overall, my opinion of Season 2 was that it was a much better Season than Season 1 (which I didn't dislike) but dropped the ball the moment Michael's mother was revealed to be the Angel. It was a terrible idea and drags down much of the final episodes.
I think the wormholes were programmed to all go through Stardate whateveritwas on their way to their final destinations, which is where they reappeared.
Or something like that anyway. Michael and Mum seemed to have unlimited access to space and time on that thing, at the end Michael literally scrolls through earlier episodes to get to the specific points she's supposed to appear.
That makes as much sense as anything, but they should already have had the coordinates for all the signals given that they all appeared at once.
It's not a big deal, but I have to hae something to nitpick.
I thought the second half of S2 was borderline non-sensical. The worst half-season of Trek. There was still good acting, and nice moments. But the arc was confusing and contradictory.
The story arc simply does not hold water or make any sense at all.
If you are going to do these big arcs, they need to make sense. And you should know how they end before you start.
Hopefully S3 is better.
Through S2 I would go:
I had DIS #3 after S1.
This has to be the best description of what happened in the season 2 finale (and now season 3). And also why I utterly hate it.
Also they did not only just wipe the story board - they also wiped the characters. With Burnham and all her adventures being classified, Spock is now entirely unfazed by her or her fate. In fact, his short interaction with No. 1 in a turbolift is now the more defining backstory for his habits.
Saru lost his main defining trait (imagine if Data became a human in season 2 of TNG, or Spock learning emotions in season 2 of TOS!). And the whole main cast of the show had to take a backseat in the latter half of the season for Burnham family drama and Pike/Spock/Enterprise-fanfic.
Really. The most frustrating thing about this show is that sometimes it's really, really good.
Thus it's foolish to just "drop it". And every once in a while I really get that warm feeling of, "hey, Star Trek is back". And then it all turns to shit again. If it were shit the whole time, I could just turn it off without feeling I missed anything. But it isn't. Sometimes it's really good.Which makes it even more frustrating when it then suddenly becomes bad again.
It really does make me wonder what has been going on behind the scenes all along, not just during the periods when we know there were issues but all the way through as the approach used after the issues were resolved has a direct relation to what went on before.
Hence why there are certain points in both S1 and S2 were I think it all went a bit pear shaped script/plot wise and it shows in the final product.
Was it too many cooks in the kitchen.
Too much interfering from up above (or too little even).
Trying to fit too much in at once.
Perhaps its a case of internal CBS politics at work.
At times it just seems like the show is being pulled in too many directions at once, this is not unusual in the writers room but normally there is someone that has a vision of the overall direction of the show that can steer everyone else, the last two seasons feel like they changed driver multiple times mid season and that hurt the show because of the sharp changes in story direction, as soon as you start to make a connection with characters and events they pull another handbrake turn and go off in another direction when there is no real story reason to do so besides it being the end of the Federation/Galaxy/Universe again.
I must also agree with @eschaton as well, it does feel like a demolition bordering on a reset for those who remain in the original Disco/ToS time period (perhaps paving the way for a Pike/Enterprise show with a focus on getting the basics right first), Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles did the same when they were on the bubble in the hopes it would save the show, the circumstances used for the reset is very similar to Discovery as they also jumped forward in time although not as far.
I wouldn't say Spock is totally unfazed, but, I understand what you mean.
I actually think it makes more sense that Number One has, at least what appears to be, a larger impact on Spock. Consider that he served under her on a daily basis for a full eleven years -- assuming she was Pike's first officer for the entirety of his tenure. Aside from the first few moments in the turbolift, who knows what she taught him while serving with her for that long. I would say that Number One's influence comes in her forming who Spock became as an officer in Starfleet.
I'd argue that Burnham's impact on Spock came at the end before she left; telling him to find the person that is least like him and reach for them. It's not insane to think that person is who Kirk ends up becoming and that leads to one of the best bromances in all of science fiction.
So I think the impact of both women in Spock's life is totally present, but, just in different ways.
The consensus seems to be that the season started off good and then totally went off the rails by the mid-point.
It always came off to me that the arc they came up with was handed off to a new team of writer/producers about halfway in and they couldn't quite make it work and bring it to a satisfying conclusion. As I watched the season again, it all seems very tight at the start, but, right around the point where Control is brought in, that's when it starts to get a little batty. Like, the new writers stepped in and said, "Hey, guys, we need a baddie for the season!"
As someone who writes on occasion, I get the feeling that when the season concluded; on paper it felt very neatly tied up and the cracks in the plot and logic just weren't evident.
I host a Discovery podcast -- which has now evolved into a general interest Star Trek podcast. We record a new episode about a day after the new Discovery episode aired and, while I don't recall which episode it was, I actually said to my co-host in our episode that I was getting fearful they weren't going to be able to successfully tie all of this up. I felt there was too much still being introduced late into the season with no clear sign things were heading to conclusion. It was not unlike how I was feeling when LOST was going off the air back in 2010.
I'd be very curious to hear if BTS this was actually the case or did they walk out of there thinking they told a good story and tied up those arcs well? I started to wonder this because Kurtzman actually stated in an interview that Control was dead, because it wasn't clear on screen that was the case. To me, that's a problem.
Kurtzmans statement about Control being dead was always suspicious anyway, Control was never actually alive in the first place so he could just be playing with words to try and keep the surprise for S3.
Silly really, Discovery took what was left of Control to the future along with the data so nothing has actually been achieved, not to mention the original AI in the future that sent the probe that infected Control has still not been dealt with yet, or if it has in fact been dealt with they just havent bothered to show us and tie all the loose ends up properly.
It feels like Discovery has been sacrificed to bring about a reset of the ToS era to provide a canon canvas for future shows such as Pike/Enterprise that would benefit from it, the S31 show doesnt require it and neither does Picard.
I think Burnham is going to be using that suit again in S3, to go back and identify nexus points that contribute to the fall of the Federation and try to fix them.
Its all very Andromeda and 12 Monkeys.
Is this really the best they could come up with, it just feels like its been cobbled together at the eleventh hour, hopefully they have something better planned.
I think the jump to the future was entirely unnecessary. I'll fight with anyone who wants to, but, the show absolutely did not violate any narrative canon whatsoever. The lack of mentioning something doesn't mean it can't exist.
After Control was defeated, the jump into the future wasn't needed, yet, the writers were hellbent on doing it anyway. All they needed to do was create some situation where when Control was defeated, Discovery could've been caught in the gravitational pull of the wormhole and it was too late to turn around; thus them getting pulled into the future was entirely by accident. As far as everyone who witnesses this is concerned, Discovery may very well have been destroyed and the need to cover it up doesn't have to happen.
What gets me is in various interviews, it's already been stated that Discovery is in the future for good now. It's not going to just be there for season three and then come back. And is this something the crew is going to question? Surely when they arrive and see that Control is no more, is anyone going to speak up and say, "So, can we go home then?" We're nearly a thousand years in the future now; I have to imagine time travel is simple.
I've said exactly a thousand times on this board, but, I still just don't understand the thinking behind this as a means to "sync" Discovery up with canon. Oh, we'll find out why the USS Discovery is never mentioned on any of the other shows. There have been thousands of Federation starships over the centuries. The fact that Kirk, Picard, Spock, Sisko, or Janeway neglects to mention the events of this series absolutely does not mean the show can't exist.
I think the problem is that we, the fans, care a whole lot about canon.
But now the powers that be (Kurtzman, previously JJ Abrams, Orci) think they have to care about canon, too.
But they're wrong. Because they really don't care about it - and that's fine. But now they're investing a whole lot of energy into something they don't care about, instead of using that energy to tell interesting stories.
I think one of the underrated qualities of Rick Berman as a producer was taking care of canon in a way that all the writers and producers and directors didn't have to anymore, and could focus on the stuff they were actually invested in.
I wouldn't say they don't care about. And look, my view on this does come off as cynical. The jump into the future frees them from canon entirely and I am excited to see what we find there. It's very possible they just want to tell stories on a scale that wasn't possible in the TOS era BECAUSE canon didn't allow them to do that.
But I also say, look, if you wanted to do a series in that time, a new Star Trek show from the ground up could've easily been set there. Restructuring an existing show entirely for that wasn't the best idea, IMO.
I have never been that locked on canon myself, hence why I enjoyed the Kelvin Films but I can understand why some who believe in the canon (Roddenberry) established vision of the show are not happy at all.
Its like I said earlier I think they tried to pander to everyone but ended up with a mess and many are pissed off with the result anyway.
As I have posted before the show needed the first season to properly establish the state of the Federation and galaxy as a whole plus time should have been given to flesh out characters backgrounds, we could have had PU Lorca (S31 member or not I dont mind) and PU Georgiou for a full season and it could have shown the events leading up to the Klingon War.
Yup, Discovery should have always been set in the far future, or at least the 25th century - maybe spore drive was developed after the "warp drive ruins space!" crap from TNG.
Then they should have taken the cue of fan films, and filled in the 23rd century with more appropriate stuff, maybe in the vein of short Treks or some other goodies just for All Access.
Or just reboot it. Discovery as a brand new spin on Trek.
Separate names with a comma.