Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO

[DarKush]

My two cents on the showrunner discussion. I don't think it's an either/or when it comes to whether showrunners should be uberfans or not. I would be okay with whoever the showrunner is if they put making an entertaining series with good stories and compelling characters at the forefront, and then all the things about canon second. Speaking as just one old fan now, I can forgive a lot if the writing is gripping and the characters are compelling. When it comes to a venerable franchise like Star Trek, I would hope that showrunners build on the lore and expand it, instead of chucking it (especially if what they come up with is not as good). I also feel the same way regarding retcons. If it's not as good as what came before, or isn't organically done, I would rather they not do it.

My thoughts on Paradise running Disco are muddled. I like how she built up the Burnham-Book romance a lot. I liked a lot of the new characters and ideas she introduced; however, I don't think the series explored the 32nd century enough. I didn't care for the broad emotionalism in a lot of the characters either. It happened too often at inappropriate times. I also wished that more of the cast had been developed (but that goes back before Paradise, but that being said, I was looking at Episode 12, Season 2, which had a quick scene of the bridge crew eating lunch and playing game-a scene I forgot about-and I wish we had gotten more of that throughout the series). I also feel that many of the big and interesting ideas/storylines under Paradise had little payoff. Season 4 had the best payoff but it just took way too long to get there. There's a lot of vocal internet hate for Kurtzman-Paradise Disco, but to their credit, they tried to appeal (or is it appease old fans) each season, but it never seemed to quiet the griping. Let me say, that I don't find anything necessarily inherently bad about griping. I've done that for Discovery, but most especially for Picard, Enterprise, and Voyager in my time, but it does feel like Disco was never able to fully regain the benefit of the doubt after the first episode (s) of the first season. There were moments though, with Pike's introduction in Season 2, setting the series into the far future in Season 3, and even giving us the Breen in Season 5, but it never lasted.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I don't have much to say about Discovery as a series, but I do have something to say about tv. I was in the mental hospital for nearly a week, which means that tv was one of the few things that could get my mind off of my stay there. When I watched any program on tv, I was simply astounded at the number of commercials that played. I grew up in the 70s when you had 3 to 5 commercials during a break. Now, you have 2 to 3 times that number. It really plays havoc with the shows, and makes watching shows less enjoyable. And, in every commercial break, ads for drugs and junk food were the biggest share of all the commercials. I am so thankful that I do not have a tv in my home.

 

[Gepard]

All media has been diluted so much, "due to the vagaries of the production parameters, vis-à-vis the fragmenting of the audience due to cable television, carnivals, water parks.", plus way too many streaming services.

Don't forget unusually nice weather in the UK.

 

[Nyotarules]

Like all Trek shows treated like Marmite, (you either love it, or hate it, there is no in between), time will give Discovery more love from fans (if you don't believe me read the reception TNG got and the Enterprise experience, there is nothing new under the Trek sun).
I think going to the 31st century was too far into the future, but they did it and I wasn't a fan of Season 3 and 4, Season 5 was slightly better for me. Season 1 and 2 are the only ones I tend to rewatch, mainly due for the characters Lorca and Pike. If Memory serves and The Vulcan hello are my favorite episodes.
Burnham was an interesting protagonist, I like that she was not perfect but an emotional mess with a good redemption arc. I think her characterisation would have worked even better if the seasons were longer.

 

[tomalak301]

Like all Trek shows treated like Marmite, (you either love it, or hate it, there is no in between), time will give Discovery more love from fans (if you don't believe me read the reception TNG got and the Enterprise experience, there is nothing new under the Trek sun).

I think we are already seeing that with Season 1. I remember when that season came out and it was bashed and heavily criticized quite a bit. When I went back to rewatch season 1, I was actually impressed by some of it, namely the stuff happening on the ship with Burnham and Lorca and the themes it was trying to convey in regards to the Mirror Universe and how it changes you as a person. It just fell into the trap a lot of the Discovery seasons fell in to. They didn't know how to close the season and what happened was disappointing.

 

[eschaton]

I think we are already seeing that with Season 1. I remember when that season came out and it was bashed and heavily criticized quite a bit. When I went back to rewatch season 1, I was actually impressed by some of it, namely the stuff happening on the ship with Burnham and Lorca and the themes it was trying to convey in regards to the Mirror Universe and how it changes you as a person. It just fell into the trap a lot of the Discovery seasons fell in to. They didn't know how to close the season and what happened was disappointing.

The problem with Discovery is one that you often have with serialized TV (later-period GOT had this too) - if the ending of a season is underwhelming, it retrospectively makes the rest of the season seem bad, because the promises at the beginning didn't get a proper payoff.

Season 1 had a creative, interesting start that was nearly ruined by a rushed final two episodes. Season 2 tied itself into knots trying to justify the whole Control/red angel thing by the end. 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. Season 4 had a legit great ending. And Season 5 rallied a bit at the end, but ultimately failed to live up to the promise of the premier.

Ultimately, I'd say that every season of Discovery (other than Season 4) had better episodes at the beginning/middle than the end. Which is an issue, because as I said, if you hate the end of an arc, you'll have negative emotions related to the rest, even if it was enjoyable.

 

[Farscape One]

The problem with Discovery is one that you often have with serialized TV (later-period GOT had this too) - if the ending of a season is underwhelming, it retrospectively makes the rest of the season seem bad, because the promises at the beginning didn't get a proper payoff.

Season 1 had a creative, interesting start that was nearly ruined by a rushed final two episodes which. Season 2 tied itself into knots trying to justify the whole Control/red angel thing by the end. 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. Season 4 had a legit great ending. And Season 5 rallied a bit at the end, but ultimately failed to live up to the promise of the premier.

Ultimately, I'd say that every season of Discovery (other than Season 4) had better episodes at the beginning/middle than the end. Which is an issue, because as I said, if you hate the end of an arc, you'll have negative emotions related to the rest, even if it was enjoyable.

Totally agreed. It's why PICARD season 1 didn't work that well and season 2... well, except for the first 2 episodes and a few scenes of the finale, was abysmal.

Serialized seasons like what is done today just don't really work in STAR TREK... with the exception of PICARD season 3, but even then there were a few holes. One good serialized season out of 8 is a terrible record.

 

[James Cole]

Serialized seasons like what is done today just don't really work in STAR TREK... with the exception of PICARD season 3, but even then there were a few holes. One good serialized season out of 8 is a terrible record.

Especially when seasons are effectively episodic bloated films. You need a multi-season plan with multiple serialized threads... something like BREAKING BAD or THE SHIELD.

Either that or at least take some lessons from THE SOPRANOS, THE WIRE, THE AMERICANS, and JUSTIFIED on how to do season to season serialized plots. Hell, even DEXTER largely made them work at least pacing wise!

 

[Citiprime]

Totally agreed. It's why PICARD season 1 didn't work that well and season 2... well, except for the first 2 episodes and a few scenes of the finale, was abysmal.

Serialized seasons like what is done today just don't really work in STAR TREK... with the exception of PICARD season 3, but even then there were a few holes. One good serialized season out of 8 is a terrible record.

Especially when seasons are effectively episodic bloated films. You need a multi-season plan with multiple serialized threads... something like BREAKING BAD or THE SHIELD.

Either that or at least take some lessons from THE SOPRANOS, THE WIRE, THE AMERICANS, and JUSTIFIED on how to do season to season serialized plots. Hell, even DEXTER largely made them work at least pacing wise!

I think a fundamental problem with both Picard seasons 1 and 2, and more than a few of the seasons of Discovery, is they didn't have enough story to fit the number of episodes Paramount probably wanted for the season.

Season 1 of Discovery is FIFTEEN episodes long and there's no reason it should be that long. It just meanders into side quests before getting towards a conclusion. There's no reason for season 5 of Discovery to have been 10 episodes. You could probably tighten up the Progenitor quest into 5 or 6 episodes, and it would have benefited the material.

If you look at the other shows that have done serialized storytelling really well, the pacing is key. In Breaking Bad or The Wire, it doesn't feel like a moment or scene is wasted in telling the narrative and the length of what they produced fits the story they intended to tell. Where I feel like with Picard and Discovery there are filler episodes where you can just feel they're stretching things because they needed to produce 10 episodes for Paramount because Paramount wanted 10 episodes whether or not it works for the overall structure of the season's arc.

 

[Commander Richard]

I think season 4 of Discovery is the absolute worst season of Trek ever. It was just an anomaly episode stretched out to a full season with a lot of equally stretched out personal drama. And in the end, we didn't even get what we were promised, which was supposed to be a force of nature threat.

 

[fireproof78]

I think a fundamental problem with both Picard seasons 1 and 2, and more than a few of the seasons of Discovery, is they didn't have enough story to fit the number of episodes Paramount probably wanted for the season.

Season 1 of Discovery is FIFTEEN episodes long and there's no reason it should be that long. It just meanders into side quests before getting towards a conclusion. There's no reason for season 5 of Discovery to have been 10 episodes. You could probably tighten up the Progenitor quest into 5 or 6 episodes, and it would have benefited the material.

If you look at the other shows that have done serialized storytelling really well, the pacing is key. In Breaking Bad or The Wire, it doesn't feel like a moment or scene is wasted in telling the narrative and the length of what they produced fits the story they intended to tell. Where I feel like with Picard and Discovery there are filler episodes where you can just feel they're stretching things because they needed to produce 10 episodes for Paramount because Paramount wanted 10 episodes whether or not it works for the overall structure of the season's arc.

Yeah, they learned from Marvel's Netflix series.

 

[eschaton]

I think a fundamental problem with both Picard seasons 1 and 2, and more than a few of the seasons of Discovery, is they didn't have enough story to fit the number of episodes Paramount probably wanted for the season.

Season 1 of Discovery is FIFTEEN episodes long and there's no reason it should be that long. It just meanders into side quests before getting towards a conclusion. There's no reason for season 5 of Discovery to have been 10 episodes. You could probably tighten up the Progenitor quest into 5 or 6 episodes, and it would have benefited the material.

If you look at the other shows that have done serialized storytelling really well, the pacing is key. In Breaking Bad or The Wire, it doesn't feel like a moment or scene is wasted in telling the narrative and the length of what they produced fits the story they intended to tell. Where I feel like with Picard and Discovery there are filler episodes where you can just feel they're stretching things because they needed to produce 10 episodes for Paramount because Paramount wanted 10 episodes whether or not it works for the overall structure of the season's arc.

In terms of the pacing, I think it was off for every season of modern serialized Trek other than PIC season 3, but not always due to "too little story."

DIS Season 1 - The pacing issue here wasn't too little story, it was too much. Yeah, I think they probably spent one episode too long in the MU. But the end of the season once they got back was horribly rushed. Nowhere was this clearer than the lack of any real antagonists in the final two episodes. Every real Klingon character other than L'Rell was dead (or essentially so, in the case of Voq), leaving the Klingons as faceless antagonists, and Georgiou playing the role of last minute, halfhearted antagonist (Lorca was just far, far better). They really should have ended the story with the death of Lorca and the return to the PU, and then wound down the Klingon War in Season 2.

DIS Season 2 - This is hard to judge given the mid-season retcons due to BTS drama, but overall, Season 2 felt rushed, rather than slow paced. The beginning of the season bumped around from one episodic adventure to the next, while the back half railroaded the whole Control thing down our throats way too fast.

DIS Season 3 - While this is a linear, semi-serialized story, it's not really a true arc like the others here. Episodes 1/2 are about Michael and the Discovery crew reuniting. Episodes 3/4 are a speedrun on "finding the Federation." Then the bulk of the season is Michael's monomania about finding the "cause of the Burn" other than the weird side-trip with Georgiou as the main character in Terra Firma 1/2. Then we have "kill Osyraa" dropped as the endgame out of nowhere in the final three episodes. I think it's paced well as a season of Star Trek - it's just not a real plot arc, and would likely have been better if it was a season of shorter arcs.

DIS Season 4 - This is the first season of DIS I think suffers from slow pacing. You can easily see a stripped down version of the season which dealt with all of this in four episodes, with Episode 1 introducing the DMA, Episode 2 covering the events of ...But to Connect, and then a two-part finale. The rest of the season is just padding.

DIS Season 5 - Overall, this is similar to Season 4, in that it's too little butter spread across too much bread. I don't think the pacing issues are quite as bad here - perhaps because of the shorter season. However, the whole treasure hunt involving a key with five bits is pretty transparently an effort to eke out two episodes worth of plot across ten episodes. Unlike Season 4, I think these semi-episodic adventures hold some of the most memorable turns, but it limps to the finish line in an almost perfunctory manner.

PIC Season 1 - I think Season 1 of PIC had too many good ideas thrown into the mix, like the first season of Discovery, which leads to a rushed feeling. You have the whole setup of the Romulan supernova/Romulan refugees, which is largely dropped after Episode 4. You have the whole XB plot on the Artifact, which just kind of vanishes. And you have the whole synth plot. I do think elements of the pacing were too slow (one too many episodes on Earth before the show got going - took until the fourth episode to introduce all the characters) but on the whole, it felt like this season was overplotted and left too much on the cutting room floor (we know there were deleted scenes, like Narek getting arrested).

PIC Season 2 - Terribly paced mess that should have been solved in a two parter. Indeed, it says something that SNW essentially did the same thing in Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (right down to having a car chase) and finished it in a single episode.

PIC Season 3 - Well paced overall. Indeed, thinking back on PIC Season 3, I can't even discern where the individual episodes start and end. I have my issues with the season (mostly the scripting and fankwank) but the pacing was fine, with a clearly defined three-act structure.

 

[Rahul]

It really boils down to it that Star Trek as a whole has not yet figured out how to do season long arcs.

And that includes the fantastic SNW, which Gorn threat story line is meandering around, only saved by the fact that SNW is, in fact, explicitly NOT built around it's seasonal arcs.

Trek has IMO done only 3 successful models of serialisation:
1) DS9 Dominion War - which is not repeatable, as it's built upon years of build-up, which meant several seasons of non-war/low stakes serialisation before
2) ENT season 3 - which, apart from the "prequel problem" (where you know Earth won't be destroyed, which they tried to mitigate by including time-travel) - is IMO so far the absolute best example of a one-season high-stakes plot (mostly because it stuck the ending, in that both the plots panned out, and it was highly character focused). However it worked so well because it was a once-in-a-lifetime threat. A follow-up season with equally high stakes would have sunk.
3) ENT season 4 - which is NOT a one-story season, but basically has a singular THEME - the interspecies cooperation that would lead to the foundation of the Federation - and has several multi-episodic arcs related to that (Vulcan-Andorian, Romulan, xenophobic human roadblocks), which are also connected to each other


In my opinion it all starts & ends with the level of stakes.
Sadly, here the MARVEL & DC superhero movies are standard, where every single time (even in a goddamn Thor movie) at least Earth or even the multiverse needs to be saved.
However that leads to every plot becoming exactly that: superficial superhero entertainment.
Which robbs Trek of what it's great at - character drama, high concept/what if scenarios, adventure stories.
Star Trek had some good villain stories. But it was never the best at that, and always trails other franchises behind in that regard.
DIS was not the worst at that (cough Picard). But it certainly didn't find a solution to the core problem plaguing present day Star Trek.

 

[Rahul]

PIC Season 3 - Well paced overall. Indeed, thinking back on PIC Season 3, I can't even discern where the individual episodes start and end. I have my issues with the season (mostly the scripting and fankwank) but the pacing was fine, with a clearly defined three-act structure.

PIC season 3 is an absolute failure of pacing in my regards.
The first three episodes are - like in many modern Trek shows - fantastic!
That mini-arc of Picard & Riker on a mission, rescuing Beverly, highlighting in the confrontation with the shriek - way too close to the TOS movies, but great regardless!

Then however, things take a bad turn. The conspiracy plot wears absolutely thin, the episodes feel stretched out as the isolation of Picard & the Titan from the Federation feels more and more forced.

And all that resulting in an absolute joke of a whiplash, where, much like season 1's space tentacle monsters, a completely new threat with is thrown in your face, that had been referenced, but absolutely not built up before, relying on absolute convoluted logic holes (all of the Federation being there at once, all relying on Picard's son going rogue at the exact right time, and a mass assimilation & casualty that's the stupidiest thing put in Star Trek so far).

Where - once again - the plot of the last two episodes should have been the actual plot of the season, and instead the whole 8 episodes before that are just filler with a completely different side plot, only for then the entire ACTUAL plot - built up, reveal, explanation, highlight, resolution - are ALL absolutely rushed through in a very disappointing two-parter.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree with @eschaton that DSC Season 3 didn't have a true serialized arc across the season.

I also think Season 5 wasn't truly serialized. Episodes 1-2 and 9-10 are serialized. Episodes 3-8 are episodic with "the treasure hunt" loosely connecting them.

Seasons 1 and 4, my favorite seasons, were serialized but a key difference was that S1 had four episodes in the Mirror Universe, "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad", and "Si Vic Pacem, Para Bellum" to break it up. Season 4 didn't have anything to break it up, yet I'm glad they had episodes like "Stormy Weather". If they cut everything down to the "bare minimum" then an episode like that, which I thought was the strongest episode of the season, would've been cut. Without "Stormy Weather", you lose a lot of context for the Zora story in "... But to Connect".

 

[Quantum21]

I impressed at seeing the buzz online has been ongoing since the finale, both with fans and in various reactions. It's been a memorable season.

I think that excitement will translate over the next 5 years with the whole series.

 

[fireproof78]

DIS was not the worst at that (cough Picard). But it certainly didn't find a solution to the core problem plaguing present day Star Trek.

What's the solution?

And all that resulting in an absolute joke of a whiplash, where, much like season 1's space tentacle monsters, a completely new threat with is thrown in your face, that had been referenced, but absolutely not built up before, relying on absolute convoluted logic holes (all of the Federation being there at once, all relying on Picard's son going rogue at the exact right time, and a mass assimilation & casualty that's the stupidiest thing put in Star Trek so far).

While I do agree on the sudden reveal of the Borg threat, the stupidest thing in Trek? Damn.

Might make my top 50 but not top 10 of stupidest things in Trek.

 

[Rahul]

What's the solution?

Well, it would depend on the implementation, but some good suggestions have been made already:

• Tone down the scope of the threat: If the entire universe is at stake with a ticking clock, a planet-of-the-week episode feels like distracting filler. If the main plot is a mystery plot or war-or-peace thriller though, a side-adventure instead can be useful worldbuilding
• Have larger sub-arcs (I didn't like season 1s mirror universe sideshow - but as a whole the whole season plot felt to flow faster compared to later seasons)
• Actually don't do full season arcs, instead have episodic plots, and then do a 3-4 episodes "major" arc at the end of the season
• If there's a twist, do that already 3/4 through the season, to properly examine the ramifications - DON'T do an asspull at the end of episode 9 and then having to wrap up & resolve a completely new thread in episode 10

While I do agree on the sudden reveal of the Borg threat, the stupidest thing in Trek? Damn.

Might make my top 50 but not top 10 of stupidest things in Trek.

To be fair, I'm grading on a (stupidity x consequences) grade:
Stamets having to explain basic science to Burnham (because the writers need to tell the viewers, and those are the only two characters in the scene), or Data having the same computational power as a RTX9030, are arguably even dumber - hower it's inconsequential for the story and therefore can easily be disregarded.

"Threshold's" warp 10 salamanders are so infamous because they scratch the fabric of Star Trek's reality (Warp 10). Trek is FULL of even worse transformations, who simply get ignored, because they have less consequences for the franchise as a whole.

That's why PIC season 3 weighs so much for me, as it's fallout would arguably be the most consequential moment in the entire franchise history - and yet all of it depends on a number of unplanned moments purely happening by chance at the exact right moment, with all characters holding the idiot ball at exactly the right time to have it happen.

It reminds me of the plot of Die Hard 2, the one where the bad guys take over the airport, where the bad guys months-in-advance plan completely depends on there being a major ice storm in DC at exactly the date the bad guy dictator would be transferred from there via plane.
It's simply ridiculous.

 

[fireproof78]

Tone down the scope of the threat: If the entire universe is at stake with a ticking clock, a planet-of-the-week episode feels like distracting filler. If the main plot is a mystery plot or war-or-peace thriller though, a side-adventure instead can be useful worldbuilding

I just don't get this, but ok.

Actually don't do full season arcs, instead have episodic plots, and then do a 3-4 episodes "major" arc at the end of the season

I'd support this.

because they have less consequences for the franchise as a whole.

Bullshit, at least to me. Going Warp 10, at infinite velocity (or very fast, as Neelix put it), and being able to journey the whole galaxy and occupy multiple points is a huge game changer. It should be spore drive on steroids, mixed with Guild Navigators from Dune.

Also, "Where No One has Gone Before" takes the cake for me. "Thought is the basis of all reality." Ok, Traveler. Out you go.

 

[Citiprime]

To be fair, I'm grading on a (stupidity x consequences) grade:
Stamets having to explain basic science to Burnham (because the writers need to tell the viewers, and those are the only two characters in the scene), or Data having the same computational power as a RTX9030, are arguably even dumber - hower it's inconsequential for the story and therefore can easily be disregarded.

"Threshold's" warp 10 salamanders are so infamous because they scratch the fabric of Star Trek's reality (Warp 10). Trek is FULL of even worse transformations, who simply get ignored, because they have less consequences for the franchise as a whole.

That's why PIC season 3 weighs so much for me, as it's fallout would arguably be the most consequential moment in the entire franchise history - and yet all of it depends on a number of unplanned moments purely happening by chance at the exact right moment, with all characters holding the idiot ball at exactly the right time to have it happen.

It reminds me of the plot of Die Hard 2, the one where the bad guys take over the airport, where the bad guys months-in-advance plan completely depends on there being a major ice storm in DC at exactly the date the bad guy dictator would be transferred from there via plane.
It's simply ridiculous.

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.