Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO

[fireproof78]

I also think this is why Into Darkness doesn't work. It's no longer about "bringing the family together." In that movie, it becomes about their adventure as a family. So all of the "stupid" details in (2009) get amplified and look and feel worse.

I think it works great because they lose their "father" in Pike and Kirk discovers he's not ready. It's an amazing picture, because without the guiding force of the father's hand (Sarek, and Pike) Spock and Kirk devolve in to their worst selves and only realize that they affect their family that it makes them stop.

To me, that's exactly what Picard season 3 is about. It's about Picard realizing he's a father. It's about Riker believing in having a purpose again. It's Riker and Troi realizing the effect their son's death had on their outlook on life and each other. It's about all of them realizing they are a family that's been separated for too long, and it builds to that moment where they're together again on their rebuilt old home.

See, that stuff would work if it felt like that was the point of the whole season. But, the pacing drags on too long. If that were to be the story, then get rid of Vadic and have the Borg threat known from the beginning. That Jurati tried to stop it but her forces were overwhelmed. Flashback to the Borg Cube ignoring the Enterprise D after Best of Both Worlds part 2 if you want that connection.

There's a reason why I put Season 3 firmly in the average category. There is a lot of promise in the character set ups (aside from Shaw and Picard and Riker early on) that just don't land by the end. It's about family, but, well, that feels too haphazardly thrown in with the mixed threats.

But, when it's on, with Riker and Troi, with Geordi and Picard, it's on. It's just let down by the surrounding story.

 

[Char Kais]

Season 3 pulled a b-level antagonist who had been seen only twice in the season and made her into the big bad out of seeming nowhere.

The first time we encounter Osyraa, her flagship was defeated by Book's small courier vessel.

The first and second time we encounter representatives of Emerald Chain (S03E01, S03E06), they are portrayed as buffoonish Saturday morning cartoon villains.
And we are supposed to think of the Emerald Chain as serious threat?

The way the Emerald Chain was handled by the writers was very amateurish.

Compare that how the Lucian Alliance in Stargate SG-1 and SG Universe was portrayed 20 years earlier.

Season 4 had a legit great ending.

S4 was boring. The plot of a double episodes was stretched out over 13 episodes.

And the end was heavily inspired visually and conceptually by Denis Villeneuve's Arrival and visually by StarCraft 2. Which is recurring theme with NuTrek.

NuTrek has two primary sources of inspiration:
1) Nostalgia bait/Member Berries
2) Pop culture from the last 15 years (TED talks (Paul Stamets/Mycelial network, Tardigrades), recent games, recent movies)

(With some occasional references to Ursula K. Le Guin and other Hegelian SciFi authors)

 

[JoseNoodles]

Yeah, it was okay.

 

[Rahul]

I'm sure people think it's probably just nostalgia, but I honestly felt Picard season 3 was the first live-action season of Star Trek that I was genuinely excited about watching week-to-week. I liked Strange New Worlds season 1, but I really, really liked Picard season 3 on the level of how I watched TNG and DS9 as a kid.

My argument about the "stupidity" is that the Borg-Changeling plot is not really what season 3 is about. The plot in Picard season 3 is a means-to-an-end of reuniting the Enterprise-D crew. In other comments about this, I've mentioned this, but to me Picard season 3 is thematically similar to The Voyage Home. That movie is not about whales or massive cylindrical space probes. That's only the means by which the crew is united together and ultimately proves they deserve to be together again as a "family" on the bridge of the Enterprise-A. At the end of The Voyage Home, we don't know who sent the whale probe. We don't know why they wanted to talk to humpback whales. Hell, we don't even know what George and Gracie said to the probe to get it to stop ... And it doesn't matter. The movie is about why Kirk, Spock, McCoy and all of them are a family.

To me, that's exactly what Picard season 3 is about. It's about Picard realizing he's a father. It's about Riker believing in having a purpose again. It's Riker and Troi realizing the effect their son's death had on their outlook on life and each other. It's about all of them realizing they are a family that's been separated for too long, and it builds to that moment where they're together again on their rebuilt old home.

I would make the argument that's why Star Trek (2009) works as a movie. If you sit down and go through that plot, it's full of stupid, consequential stuff that only happens because the plot needs it to happen (e.g.,, transwarp beaming, Kirk being dropped on Delta Vega because the story needs him to meet old Spock and Scotty, etc.). But I don't think that movie is really about Nero and Red Matter. It's about watching that crew come together and realize they have purpose.

I also think this is why Into Darkness doesn't work. It's no longer about "bringing the family together." In that movie, it becomes about their adventure as a family. So all of the "stupid" details in (2009) get amplified and look and feel worse because the details of the adventure is what the plot is about.

I like this opinion. I disagree on almost all points (well, except a little Into Darkness bashing), and for me these points are exactly why neither PIC S3 nor ST09 worked. But I'm well aware this is my personal, subjective opinion, and there are plenty of people out there (like you) on whom these worked very well, and this comment is probably the best possible, objective description of the real, existing appeal they have, even for someone (like me) on whom that appeal didn't really land.

 

[StarMan]

S4 was boring. The plot of a double episodes was stretched out over 13 episodes.

It was boring ... hit the mid-season molasses hard. I recall a few Monty Python "get on with it!" memes being posted.

My main issue was I didn't buy into 10-C's "Oh, are you guys sentient? Woops!". It was the perfect crime: mine the galaxy down below for the omega molecule every few thousand years. Then, when the natives cry foul, act all cryptic and apologize for slaughtering a few dozen systems. Then, go back behind your hyper-bubble and chill for a few millennia - odds are the races that caught you in the act will have wiped themselves out / expired. Then, rinse and repeat.

I mean come on - we didn't recognize you as sentient is a stretch, but what about warp signatures? Subspace communications? The galaxy would be teeming with evidence of technology, which any sentient race - however alien they were - would surely infer as evidence of advanced, self-aware life forms.

It's a rather gaping plot hole that seems to be overlooked by many in favor of embracing the 'alien-ness' of the concept.

 

[fireproof78]

however alien they were - would surely infer as evidence of advanced, self-aware life forms.

No, they wouldn't. They could regard them as lesser and therefore not valuable to consider as "life".

 

[Fateor]

It was boring ... hit the mid-season molasses hard. I recall a few Monty Python "get on with it!" memes being posted.

My main issue was I didn't buy into 10-C's "Oh, are you guys sentient? Woops!". It was the perfect crime: mine the galaxy down below for the omega molecule every few thousand years. Then, when the natives cry foul, act all cryptic and apologize for slaughtering a few dozen systems. Then, go back behind your hyper-bubble and chill for a few millennia - odds are the races that caught you in the act will have wiped themselves out / expired. Then, rinse and repeat.

I mean come on - we didn't recognize you as sentient is a stretch, but what about warp signatures? Subspace communications? The galaxy would be teeming with evidence of technology, which any sentient race - however alien they were - would surely infer as evidence of advanced, self-aware life forms.

It's a rather gaping plot hole that seems to be overlooked by many in favor of embracing the 'alien-ness' of the concept.

Yea... I was very very surprised how most people just ignored that giant plot hole to praise the season...

Especially given they had established just an episode ago that some unknown polity had wiped out 10-C's ringworld some time in the past.

No, they wouldn't. They could regard them as lesser and therefore not valuable to consider as "life".

That doesn't help your case here...

In fact, it actually makes it worse because it changes them to a race that actively needs to be stopped for crimes against the universe.

 

[evilchumlee]

My overall reaction? "Good riddance".

A more nuanced take?

Discovery had been sabotaged from the get-go by Fuller and the show never recovered from it. The show also squandered the premise, that SHOULD have been incredibly interesting, but somehow the idea of "following lower ranked people around" for a show became "Michael Burnham isn't the Captain but IS the most important person to ever existed in all of Star Trek so despite being low ranked Michael Burnham must be the focus of every single event that happens on a galactic scale because MOAR BURNHAM!" Just absolutely squandered. If we didn't get infected with Burnham Cancer, the show could have been an interesting look into the frustrations of the "lower decks" so to speak as they want to contribute more, and perhaps even have the right answer, but are more often than not overlooked.

That was not the case with Discovery, at least not really. The premise would eventually follow through when we got... "Lower Decks".

The obsession with changing everything visually just for the sake of changing it hurt the show. I'm not even referring to not looking like TOS. There is an actual, reasonable explanation as to why that wasn't the case. I'm referring to stuff like the Klingons. "But, they look more ALIEN!"... great, but they look much less Klingon. If you wanted to make neat, new aliens... maybe... make neat, new aliens?!

Which brings me to one of the greatest weaknesses of the early show, being a nonsensical prequel for absolutely no reason. Everything about the show would have worked better being set forward in the timeline... to the point that show itself even realized that, and had a time jump by S3. Too little, too late. Aside from having Spock show just because, there was really nothing about the story of S1 and 2 that in any way needed to be pre-TOS. It was a nagging annoyance that brought the show down.

After the time jump? Things improved by S3, but that only fixed some of the more surface problems. The shows single biggest issue was never really improved (maybe slightly by S4), in fact they tended to double down... Michael Burnham. The absolutely crushing, incessant, obsessive focus on Burnham absolutely flat tired the show. Burnham was terribly written and it really ever improved slightly. Green did a fine job in the role, it's not a knock on her. The character was just a poorly written mess that we HAD to keep the focus on, made even worse by the fact that Discovery HAD some truly great characters who never really got the time to shine because everything had to be All Burnham, All The Time.

It's not ALL bad though. As just mentioned, Discovery did introduce some truly great characters. Saru is the #1, far and away the most interesting character on the show. But I also think Stamets and Culber were great characters, and while I didn't particulary love Tilly at first, she grew on me by shows end. An honorable mention goes out to Harry Mudd. THAT'S how you make a character. Wish we got more Mudd.

Another thing Discovery did well was deeper lore. While I think the show did an overall poor job on the macro scale of lore (in the first two seasons anyway, 3-5 were fine), it did do a particularly good job with smaller details/references and the like. I appreciated that.

The little bit of good does not outweigh the crushing bad, and now that it's over, I can EASILY place Discovery as my least favorite Star Trek series, by an incredibly wide margin. I've watched every Star Trek series more times than I can even possibly articulate... a single viewing of Discovery was enough. I don't plan to ever watch it again.

 

[fireproof78]

That doesn't help your case here...

In fact, it actually makes it worse because it changes them to a race that actively needs to be stopped for crimes against the universe.

Yes, they should. That's my point. Though, I would like to know who gets to arbitrate the "crimes against the universe."

Is there a universal judge?

Which brings me to one of the greatest weaknesses of the early show, being a nonsensical prequel for absolutely no reason.

Money was the reason.

 

[evilchumlee]

Money was the reason.

Given that they ditched the idea and did a time jump for the last three seasons... it appears to have proved to be a poor reason.

 

[Fateor]

Yes, they should. That's my point. Though, I would like to know who gets to arbitrate the "crimes against the universe."

Is there a universal judge?

The same type that gets to arbitrate any crimes, the group with the strength to do so.

 

[fireproof78]

The same type that gets to arbitrate any crimes, the group with the strength to do so.

A universal group? Whom is that in Trek?

Given that they ditched the idea and did a time jump for the last three seasons... it appears to have proved to be a poor reason.

No one said it was anything but poor. That was a pretty common refrain from the word "Go" for Discovery. I'm ok with it, but less warm to it now that Discovery has moved in to the 32nd century. I think neither era fully suits the show.

 

[Noname Given]

I really enjoyed S1 (my one disappointment was the 'true Lorca' revea' and especially LOVED S2.

Once they jumped to the 32nd century - yes, I continued to watch, but progressively lost any real interest, and in the end, my reaction to S5 was 'meh'.

 

[Lord Garth]

Some people have said Discovery will be looked at more fondly in the future. I think it will and it won't. It depends on who we're talking about.

If we're talking about people who are honestly critical of it, then all it takes is for a Star Trek series to come out that they like even less, which they'll shift either their hatred or their dislike to. It'll happen eventually. Maybe as soon as with Starfleet Academy or the Prequel Trek Movie, or maybe something that's made later on down the line, but it'll happen. "No! Never!" Oh, yes it will. Especially if they're still around to see Star Trek made by actual Generation Z. I don't need to be Nostradamus to predict the reactions some people will have to that one! Then they'll look at Discovery a whole lot differently. Similar to how they now look at Voyager and Enterprise differently.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the people who say, "They made it woke!", then I have to tell you that people with that point-of-view aren't going to change their mind ever. Maybe a few, but not the vast majority of them. They'd have to change a lot more of their views than just what they think of a TV series. Same goes for those in Facebook and YouTube Comments Sections who act like they're in middle school when they're really in middle age. If they haven't changed the way they behave by now, they won't change the way they behave ever. Especially in an environment where they're unchecked.

Also, looking at a third group, if you're talking about people who've been fans for 30 or 40 or 50 years and Discovery (or possibly any other Star Trek from the Kurtzman Era) is one or two steps too far for them, it's going to stay that way. In the 1950s and '60s, it would've been the equivalent of people who grew up with jazz not liking rock'n'roll. There's a huge generational split there. Same in the 1980s and '90s with rap. Some people just won't be able to make that leap over. Some could and have, but a lot won't.

So, while I do think it will be better received in the future, anyone hoping for that should still temper their expectations. It's only going to happen up to a point.

What's more likely is people discovering Star Trek in the future and going through all the old series (which will include the Kurtzman shows by this hypothetical time). Such people will be more open-minded because they won't have grown up with Roddenberry Trek or Berman Trek or Kurtzman Trek. They wouldn't have known any of those for 20 years apiece as what Star Trek should be. They'll take it all in at the same time, if they sample a little here, a little there, in close proximity or if have way too much time on their hands and want to go for (a lot) more. Either way, someone ripe to become a Trekkie.

 

[Rahul]

I do think DIS will generously live on in the "Trek trivia" sense: first gay main characters, first transgender character, first black woman captain, first "evil" captain twist, "remember Doug Jones once was on Star Trek?", "launched streaming era of Trek" and so on & forth. It got a long going for it in this regard.

I do NOT think it will get the same re-evaluation that ENT (& to a degree VOY) received. Why? Those shows also got re-tooled each. ONCE. And not as severe. But even before that, these shows knew already what they were. They had a distinct vision, style, quality. You either like them - then you will like most of them - or you don't, and then you simply don't watch them.
DIS on the other hand was all over the map. Every season somewhere from 90° to 180° degree different than the one before - from grimdark "anyone can die or is a traitor", to utmost B-movie, chewing the scenery villain trash, to sappy, soapy feel-good character drama. Many people have one or two seasons they like (I like 4 & first half of 2 for example) - but it's absolutely hard to like the entire series, when not even the show itself seems to like most of its previous self.

However - the hate & vitrol against it will also not stay. For one, it's over now. But also, it's already neither the worst (PIC season 2 *cough), nor the most controversial (*cough Icheb eye-gore) Trek has put out recently.
It will just be there.

However - and I might be alone in this prediction - I think the 32nd century (as depicted) won't have a lot of staying power either. We will see, but if "Starfleet Academy" isn't an absolute, runaway mainstream success, Star Trek as a franchise will return to the 23-25th century in the long run, purely because the 32nd century is too far removed from "traditional" Star Trek - not just visually & technology wise, but also lore-wise (Vulcan/Romulan re-umified, non-Federation Earth, "time-wars"having happened in the past) and more importantly regarding it's general utopian vision. It's simply too far removed from what "Star Trek" means to most people. And once that happens - inevitably the 32nd century Trek & what happens in it will be relegated to "off-shoot status" like the Kelvin reboot-verse.

 

[Lord Garth]

However - the hate & vitrol against it will also not stay. For one, it's over now.

It's largely over here. On TrekBBS. Elsewhere is a different story. I was lurking some Facebook groups the other day, and someone posted a group photo of DSC from the end of Season 1 and it triggered a ton of vitriolic reactions. A picture.

I do NOT think it will get the same re-evaluation that ENT (& to a degree VOY) received. Why? Those shows also got re-tooled each. ONCE. But even before that, these shows knew what they were. They had a distinct vision, style, quality. You either like them - then you like most off it - or don't, and then simply don't watch it.

People will look at Discovery as Seasons 1-2 and Seasons 3-5. They'll forget further distinctions as time goes on.

As far as Enterprise, you just proved my point. ENT itself was retooled twice. In Season 3 and then again in Season 4. But you glossed over that. Just like I expect differences between individual seasons to be glossed over in Discovery.

To take it further: In the '90s, DS9 was seen as a series that kept re-inventing itself. Season 3 with the Defiant. Season 4 with Worf and the Klingons. Then in the middle of Season 5 when the Cardassians joined the Dominion. Don't believe me? Let me quote Tim Lynch from his review of "By Inferno's Light" in 1997.

https://timlynchreviews.fandom.com/wiki/By_Inferno's_Light

[H]aving Cardassia suddenly return to "we're the bad guys" status felt less like an expected development than it did like Yet Another DS9 Retooling [TM] a la the Defiant and "TNG-izing" of the show early in season 3 and the addition of Worf and the Klingons to the mix in season 4. (Another indication of this is Sisko's line about how he thought Dukat had changed over the years, and perhaps he was just wrong. On some levels, that sounds like a conscious choice to "make Dukat turn bad again, and damn the consequences." Still, a single sentence from Dukat can chill my blood a lot more easily than a whole speech from Gowron, so perhaps that's not an entirely bad choice.​

 

[Rahul]

ENT itself was retooled twice. In Season 3 and then again in Season 4. But you glossed over that. Just I like I expect differences between individual seasons to be glossed over in Discovery.

Funny thing - I never thought of ENT season 4 being a "retool" of season 3. The Xindi plot simply was over. And they were absolutely right in the decision of not making "another" world ending season plot.

So while the "main plot" of season 4 is certainly way different than season 3 - the style - more action focused, tighter, more character drama, faster paced, all in all a lot closer to '24' than to 'Band of Brothers' - stayed very much the same. YMMV though.

To take it further: In the '90s, DS9 was seen as a series that kept re-inventing itself. Season 3 with the Defiant. Season 4 with Worf and the Klingons. Then in the middle of Season 5 when the Cardassians joined the Dominion. Don't believe me? Let me quote Tim Lynch from his review of "By Inferno's Light" in 1997.

https://timlynchreviews.fandom.com/wiki/By_Inferno's_Light

[H]aving Cardassia suddenly return to "we're the bad guys" status felt less like an expected development than it did like Yet Another DS9 Retooling [TM] a la the Defiant and "TNG-izing" of the show early in season 3 and the addition of Worf and the Klingons to the mix in season 4. (Another indication of this is Sisko's line about how he thought Dukat had changed over the years, and perhaps he was just wrong. On some levels, that sounds like a conscious choice to "make Dukat turn bad again, and damn the consequences." Still, a single sentence from Dukat can chill my blood a lot more easily than a whole speech from Gowron, so perhaps that's not an entirely bad choice.​

I actually do think of DS9 as a show that WAS constantly re-tooling itself, because it took a long way to find itself. But it did so in a very reasonably matter - introducing a new character, a new plot device, changes to the status quo. Similar to how I thought the DIS early season 2 retool was a "good", sensible one.

Just don't throw out the baby with the bathing water!

People will look at Discovery as Seasons 1-2 and Seasons 3-5. They'll forget further distinctions as time goes on.

This one is 100% on the money.

 

[Citiprime]

People will look at Discovery as Seasons 1-2 and Seasons 3-5. They'll forget further distinctions as time goes on.

I think one thing that might make Discovery different than reassessments of Voyager or Enterprise is how highly serialized it is, and how focused it is on one character.

You're right. All of the Star Trek series have retooled a lot to a little from season to season. And both Deep Space Nine and Enterprise were serialized to some degree. But not in the way Discovery was.

The serialization was looser since there were 20+ episodes in each season. They could do distinctive stories that allowed people to find something they liked, with different characters being the focus in those stories, while slowly progressing a season's arc along with characters' progression. Even if I don't like Voyager, I can stop to watch "Equinox" or one of the hours focused on Robert Picardo's Doctor, skip the Neelix ones, and probably not be lost if I watch a random episode from later in the season.

I don't think Discovery allows that. I think how you feel about Discovery is very dependent on how you feel about Michael's character and whether you buy into her story within the season's arc. And I don't think it allows the casual viewing the other shows have, since the main thrust in most episodes is the season's mystery/threat.

 

[Frontis]

Meanwhile I watched more DISCO to give it another chance, but honestly it didn't get better. Even Pike couldn't save it (I love the caracter in SNW). Everything is overshadowed by a lot of drama. Every character seems to suffer from a trauma. DISCO is just too much tragedy for me, unnatural much and watching it actually depresses me. Plus I still don't like the story lines and I still can't stand the new Klingons. And I don't want a new captain every week. So it has been confirmed that it's not my Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

I think how you feel about Discovery is very dependent on how you feel about Michael's character and whether you buy into her story within the season's arc.

Yes, this cannot be overstated. Michael's story resonates hard with me, in a way that is difficult to articulate. I enjoy her, I enjoy the stories (mostly), I love the Klingons in Discovery far more than almost any other iteration, and I welcome the variety of aliens presented.

Could it have been done better? Absolute, but it still is in the vein of past Trek just focused on one character.

Mileage will vary and I would say anyone who is willing to try it can find good things to enjoy.