For me? Yes, because I recognize the characters don't know they're related at those points. Weird shit like that has happened in real life.
Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Need? No, of course not. I do like try to understand other points of view.
To a degree yes. It's hardly important to the story.
But... he wasn't even artificial back then?
I cannot even begin to fathom somehow a new story taking away the enjoyment of a story that I have already enjoyed.
A million percent this. Literally nothing was changed with the original. Not a line of dialogue is different, not a piece of acting, it is preserved as is for eternity as is.
But... he wasn't even artificial back then?
I know this. Hence the idea Picard ruined TNG for me.
I dare say it had its inconsistencies, though show me a Star Trek show that didn't! I felt it ended on a terrific high with Season 5, which for me was a fun, joyous ride, solving a series of fascinating puzzles that placed an emphasis on what Star Trek has always stood for: cooperation, understanding, compassion and creativity.
That bothers me... but for me (and sorry I'm dragging Discovery thread into Picard here) it completely undermined the core of Picard himself, TNG and Generations.
Generations was about the paths not taken. Time was our stalker (the fire in which we burn). He hadn't had children, he had prioritised his job. His nephew was his one consolation. Then he lost that.
Indeed that was a core part of Picard's personality throughout the show.
This was mirrored in the loss of the Enterprise D herself. But Picard reflects wistfully that time is not our enemy but a companion. It's a sad time, but you can't cheat death or time and Picard moves onwards with his life.
Then Picard the series... no kids? Yes you do, here's one now! Enterprise D beyond repair? No she's not. A mere scuff on the saucer, fixed by one man. Whack on a entirely different drive section, that'll do. Same thing eh? Nothing's lost. No consequences. You can to quote Cher "turn back time" just fine.
TL;DR for the novellette below: Overall, I view Discovery as a flawed success more than a noble failure.
The show's casting, visual effects, and production design was always tops. I absolutely adore Saru and Culber. Discovery is a damn cool looking ship. The script's the thing that frequently caught the chagrin of the king, however. The staff turmoil over the first three years of the show sounds to be something that could rival Chaos on the Bridge for the insanity of it, and unfortunately Disco wore that on its sleeve.
Season 1 I feel was the most successful. It got Trek back on screens in a big way. Sure, the Klingon redesign was weird, the Spore Drive kinda bizarre, but it feels a strong and confident first installment. Breaking up the season into three distinct story arcs (Klingon War/Mirror Universe/Klingon War II) actually worked to the benefit of the storytelling. Unfortunately, the ultra-serialized plot meant that we only really got to know Burnham, Saru, Lorca, and Mirror Georgiou... a problem that would dog the show throughout.
Season 2 started incredibly promising! Pike was great. The show's tone bloomed away from the ultra-serious drama from season 1. The setup of the science vs. faith storyline was intriguing. But then... Berg and Harberts fuck up, get shitcanned, the show goes on a lengthy production pause, and Kurtzman rewrites a significant part of the story of the season - even including the in-person addition of Spock. The season at it stands feels two halves that don't make a whole.
The Red Angel thing becomes uninteresting. We get the whole Control storyline with universe-ending ramifications - a plot device I'm super tired of seeing in television these days. Airiam's death remains an utter low point for the show. The worst case of writers forcing us to give a shit about a background bridge bunny in time to kill her off and then making the other characters act overwrought to bash the audience over the head with "you're supposed to be sad!" I'm not entirely convinced that Discovery going into the future was "always the intent" in all these retrospective interviews, as disjointed as the whole thing became.
Season 3 is a mixed bag. I enjoyed seeing a new century, freed from the bounds of canon. Everyone in the galaxy now are a group of assholes because the future got grimdark? I was on board with that concept. The Emerald Chain concept was good. The new Orion makeup looked horrendous on Janet Kidder as Osyraa. Loved the introduction of Adira and Gray to the series. Representation was always Discovery's strongest suit.
The Burn, however... while I found the idea of an impactful cataclysm upending life in the galaxy fascinating, the root cause had me smacking my head into a wall. All dilithium blew up... because of a child's emotions? In retrospect, that's probably the most Michelle Paradise idea, considering how each successive season of the show increasingly felt like it was being written by a therapist. It was the start of Discovery being overly fixated on trauma as a tool for character arcs.
Season 4 is an even more mixed bag, and the lowest point of the series. The idea of Species 10-C is intriguing. The visualizing of it and the totally alien concept of their language was the hardest sci-fi ideas the show has ever worked with. However, the show lags HARD during the middle. I never gave a shit about Tarka, and his backstory came too little, too late. Book's storyline again ties into Paradise's obsession with post-traumatic growth. This also was the start of the background bridge bunnies giving us details about themselves in clunky bits of expositional dialogue because the writers couldn't think of a natural way to incorporate them.
Season 5 righted the ship quite a bit. I think the reduction to a 10-episode order forced the writing staff to get on with it and not drag shit out longer than necessary. However, we still have many instances where the plot stops cold for the characters to talk about their feelings. At this point, Disco's gonna Disco. I really liked L'ak this season and wished he could've stayed around. Moll... I didn't. She played the same note in every scene she was in and I barely felt any sort of nuance. As antagonists go, she was one of the least memorable the franchise has ever come up with.
When we got to the finale, I quite enjoyed how it all came together. How the Progenitor's tech was dealt with worked for me. I loved the idea that it wasn't even the Progenitor's to begin with; they only found it. We got Burnham and Book walking off into the sunset - a perfect ending I thought.
Oh, shit wait - you mean there's more?! That epilogue... I still don't care for it. It made a satisfying series finale worse for two reasons: 1) Burnham's flashback on the Bridge is such a patting-ourselves-on-the-back gag that falls a bit flat given how little we really know about most of the characters. 2) There is no goddamn reason the show needed to tie back into Calypso. They managed to do connect-the-dots worse than Picard season 3.
I really didn't mean to go on this much about Discovery, but the fact I care enough to write this much means that the show means something to me. We don't get any of the other Paramount+ series - Picard, Lower Decks, SNW, Prodigy, SFA - without Discovery. For that, I shall be eternally grateful the show exists, however flawed it is.
The show's casting, visual effects, and production design was always tops. I absolutely adore Saru and Culber. Discovery is a damn cool looking ship. The script's the thing that frequently caught the chagrin of the king, however. The staff turmoil over the first three years of the show sounds to be something that could rival Chaos on the Bridge for the insanity of it, and unfortunately Disco wore that on its sleeve.
Season 1 I feel was the most successful. It got Trek back on screens in a big way. Sure, the Klingon redesign was weird, the Spore Drive kinda bizarre, but it feels a strong and confident first installment. Breaking up the season into three distinct story arcs (Klingon War/Mirror Universe/Klingon War II) actually worked to the benefit of the storytelling. Unfortunately, the ultra-serialized plot meant that we only really got to know Burnham, Saru, Lorca, and Mirror Georgiou... a problem that would dog the show throughout.
Season 2 started incredibly promising! Pike was great. The show's tone bloomed away from the ultra-serious drama from season 1. The setup of the science vs. faith storyline was intriguing. But then... Berg and Harberts fuck up, get shitcanned, the show goes on a lengthy production pause, and Kurtzman rewrites a significant part of the story of the season - even including the in-person addition of Spock. The season at it stands feels two halves that don't make a whole.
The Red Angel thing becomes uninteresting. We get the whole Control storyline with universe-ending ramifications - a plot device I'm super tired of seeing in television these days. Airiam's death remains an utter low point for the show. The worst case of writers forcing us to give a shit about a background bridge bunny in time to kill her off and then making the other characters act overwrought to bash the audience over the head with "you're supposed to be sad!" I'm not entirely convinced that Discovery going into the future was "always the intent" in all these retrospective interviews, as disjointed as the whole thing became.
Season 3 is a mixed bag. I enjoyed seeing a new century, freed from the bounds of canon. Everyone in the galaxy now are a group of assholes because the future got grimdark? I was on board with that concept. The Emerald Chain concept was good. The new Orion makeup looked horrendous on Janet Kidder as Osyraa. Loved the introduction of Adira and Gray to the series. Representation was always Discovery's strongest suit.
The Burn, however... while I found the idea of an impactful cataclysm upending life in the galaxy fascinating, the root cause had me smacking my head into a wall. All dilithium blew up... because of a child's emotions? In retrospect, that's probably the most Michelle Paradise idea, considering how each successive season of the show increasingly felt like it was being written by a therapist. It was the start of Discovery being overly fixated on trauma as a tool for character arcs.
Season 4 is an even more mixed bag, and the lowest point of the series. The idea of Species 10-C is intriguing. The visualizing of it and the totally alien concept of their language was the hardest sci-fi ideas the show has ever worked with. However, the show lags HARD during the middle. I never gave a shit about Tarka, and his backstory came too little, too late. Book's storyline again ties into Paradise's obsession with post-traumatic growth. This also was the start of the background bridge bunnies giving us details about themselves in clunky bits of expositional dialogue because the writers couldn't think of a natural way to incorporate them.
Season 5 righted the ship quite a bit. I think the reduction to a 10-episode order forced the writing staff to get on with it and not drag shit out longer than necessary. However, we still have many instances where the plot stops cold for the characters to talk about their feelings. At this point, Disco's gonna Disco. I really liked L'ak this season and wished he could've stayed around. Moll... I didn't. She played the same note in every scene she was in and I barely felt any sort of nuance. As antagonists go, she was one of the least memorable the franchise has ever come up with.
When we got to the finale, I quite enjoyed how it all came together. How the Progenitor's tech was dealt with worked for me. I loved the idea that it wasn't even the Progenitor's to begin with; they only found it. We got Burnham and Book walking off into the sunset - a perfect ending I thought.
Oh, shit wait - you mean there's more?! That epilogue... I still don't care for it. It made a satisfying series finale worse for two reasons: 1) Burnham's flashback on the Bridge is such a patting-ourselves-on-the-back gag that falls a bit flat given how little we really know about most of the characters. 2) There is no goddamn reason the show needed to tie back into Calypso. They managed to do connect-the-dots worse than Picard season 3.
I really didn't mean to go on this much about Discovery, but the fact I care enough to write this much means that the show means something to me. We don't get any of the other Paramount+ series - Picard, Lower Decks, SNW, Prodigy, SFA - without Discovery. For that, I shall be eternally grateful the show exists, however flawed it is.
That's a pretty great novellette, you've put a lot of my own feelings and observations into words there.
I think Discovery was a great addition to the Star Trek franchise. Season one started out slow for me, but by the middle of the season I was very much riveted by what was going on. The second season was even better due to Anson Mount's introduction as Pike. I enjoyed the third season for taking the series far into the future. It finally gave the show the chance to pave new ground for the franchise. Season four was great as we saw Michael as the Captain finally. I really enjoyed the arc of the season. Season five was good, but I thought the villains could have been better. Still, the final episode was a fitting finale for the series.
Or even a 25th century show. That's all that it needed to be. The aesthetic setting and everything else was excellent, it's the timeline setting and making Burnham Spock's adopted sister ruined everything else.
Ruined. Ruined, I tell you!
I’m rewatching Discovery with the complete series blu-rays and I’m most of the way through season 3. Before this I had only watched week by week and saved any rewatches for when the complete series was released.
Originally, my opinion on the series was that seasons 1 - 2 were far superior to seasons 3 - 5. Despite the fact that I liked that they moved the setting to the far future, I felt the writing (and the show runners) were better in seasons 1 - 2 compared to the Michelle Paradise years. However, now being mostly through season 3, I’m surprised how much I’m enjoying it and feel that it holds up with the first couple of seasons, despite being less of an action adventure. Maybe the slower pace works more in a binge format than week by week? In any case, I’m interested in seeing if my opinion of season 4, which is my least favorite season of Discovery, changes with the rewatch as well.
Originally, my opinion on the series was that seasons 1 - 2 were far superior to seasons 3 - 5. Despite the fact that I liked that they moved the setting to the far future, I felt the writing (and the show runners) were better in seasons 1 - 2 compared to the Michelle Paradise years. However, now being mostly through season 3, I’m surprised how much I’m enjoying it and feel that it holds up with the first couple of seasons, despite being less of an action adventure. Maybe the slower pace works more in a binge format than week by week? In any case, I’m interested in seeing if my opinion of season 4, which is my least favorite season of Discovery, changes with the rewatch as well.
Lots of good things in a series that could never decide what it was trying to do.
That original premise of making it another prequel, and it's lead character Spock-lite, was it's greatest sin. They had fancy new technology, a rad new starship design, a new revolutionary method of travel, and intricately fancy new uniforms, and new alien races, all perfect for a post-"Voyager" continuation of the saga.....then decided that to be "Star Trek," it had to be in Kirk's era, the villains had to be "Klingons," and the heroine had to be related to the most famous character in the franchise.
The vast improvements brought with Season 3 were also frustrating, because they were still hindered by the convoluted storylines from the previous seasons.
I badly wish that the entire series had done that "rebuilding the Federation" plot from the start. It would've been the perfect metaphor for trying to revive the franchise after its dormancy. Spore Drive could've been a revolutionary new technology invented after centuries of the Burn destroying warp travel.
Something I just now thought of: what if the above story centered on a cast of characters from different eras of "Trek?" One from Kirk's time, one from the TNG/DS9/VOY era, etc. (Time travel or cryogenic freezing or whatever being part of the premise.) They'd have something for every type of Trekkie, and work as a metaphors for fans disagreeing on where to take the franchise, as they each offer their unique take in how to rebuild the Federation.
That original premise of making it another prequel, and it's lead character Spock-lite, was it's greatest sin. They had fancy new technology, a rad new starship design, a new revolutionary method of travel, and intricately fancy new uniforms, and new alien races, all perfect for a post-"Voyager" continuation of the saga.....then decided that to be "Star Trek," it had to be in Kirk's era, the villains had to be "Klingons," and the heroine had to be related to the most famous character in the franchise.
The vast improvements brought with Season 3 were also frustrating, because they were still hindered by the convoluted storylines from the previous seasons.
I badly wish that the entire series had done that "rebuilding the Federation" plot from the start. It would've been the perfect metaphor for trying to revive the franchise after its dormancy. Spore Drive could've been a revolutionary new technology invented after centuries of the Burn destroying warp travel.
Something I just now thought of: what if the above story centered on a cast of characters from different eras of "Trek?" One from Kirk's time, one from the TNG/DS9/VOY era, etc. (Time travel or cryogenic freezing or whatever being part of the premise.) They'd have something for every type of Trekkie, and work as a metaphors for fans disagreeing on where to take the franchise, as they each offer their unique take in how to rebuild the Federation.
I loved how Discovery started, but it was rocky road where the behind-the-scenes carnage took a heavy toll. Season one started great but ended very flatly. Season 2 was a change in direction (literally to that of the Kelvin movies, according to Kurtzman himself) and although nonsensical with time travel and more backstage chaos and rumours of massive retooling the second half, was great fun and ended strongly. Season 3 was a new start and another change in direction, but full of action and excitement and a loopy ending which infuriated some.
Then came seasons 4 and 5, which looked like 3 but the characters seemed to lose their third dimension and the galaxy-threatening stakes didn't feel like they mattered.
Then came seasons 4 and 5, which looked like 3 but the characters seemed to lose their third dimension and the galaxy-threatening stakes didn't feel like they mattered.
I started my first full rewatch of season 5 since the series ended.
As always, Discovery is incredibly detailed and I'm noticing small things like the phaser pistol turning into a rifle...previously missed this; and various explanations that about Promelian tech, and problem solving in regards to the puzzles and map that had a better flow to them this time as I was absorbing them.
I think what I'm noticing more this time around is the loving attention to detail in the first two episodes which I recall being a whirlwind of activity.
Season 5 really does hit the right notes.
As always, Discovery is incredibly detailed and I'm noticing small things like the phaser pistol turning into a rifle...previously missed this; and various explanations that about Promelian tech, and problem solving in regards to the puzzles and map that had a better flow to them this time as I was absorbing them.
I think what I'm noticing more this time around is the loving attention to detail in the first two episodes which I recall being a whirlwind of activity.
Season 5 really does hit the right notes.
I feel the Burn ruined the story because I loved visiting the future...but expected them to return to the 22nd century.
You know, WHERE THE PLOT WAS.
They also rebuilt the Federation in one season and had no interest in it as a long term idea.
Discovery had no interest in any long-term ideas. It was always just about "how do we get eyeballs on this season?" Which of course a thing that every show needs to consider. However, hopefully that's not the main consideration in a serialized drama. Yet to me it always felt like the writer's room reconvened with essentially no ideas carried over from the previous season, starting with a clean sheet of paper and trying to figure out a new arc. Hell, the show barely even worried about consistent character growth across multiple seasons.
Admittedly, this isn't too different from how earlier Trek (save DS9 and a bit of ENT) worked from episode to episode. But when you had around 26 episodes a season - mostly standalones, with maybe a few two parters - throwing things against the wall and seeing what stuck was more defensible. Partly because the writer's room was so overworked you couldn't expect every one to be great, and partially because even if only have of them hit, that was still a dozen or so bangers.
At least later seasons of Discovery didn't actively undermine the earlier seasons, as Picard did. That said, it all ended up rather less the sum of its parts, leaving me to feel it was all just disposable entertainment meant to keep Trek "engagement" high for a set period of time.
