Absolutely, but the world building in all of the 32nd century seasons was amazing. The only real problem with seasons 3 through 5 is the pacing in season 4.
Last edited:
Your postmortem thoughts on DISCO
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Sorry to admit, but I gave up just after the time jump. I'll probably go back some day and watch the full thing, and I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised at how good it is, but I just wasn't getting anything out of it. I prefer more episodic Trek.
Sticking the landing is not a DISCO strong suit. With one notable exception.
I disagree, the main Achilles heel was the bad character development. I'm going through TNG again, and all the problems each episode has, such as the 2 parter where Picard gets captured by the Cardassians. What saves these poorly written episodes is the great characters, but when you have poorly written ones the flaws come to the forefront.
I disagree for one very specific reason: The show was building up to Burnham being Captain, so I appreciated getting the chance to see Burnham actually be Captain. Of course, I'm also one who always thought the logical endpoint of Discovery is "Calypso". And I know we disagree about that. So, this is something where we're just flat-out NOT going to see eye-to-eye about.
Losing interest personally also isn't a reason for why a show should stop. I have no further interest in SNW. Between the Kelvin Films and SNW, I've ultimately found that reinterpreting and leading back into TOS just isn't my thing. Plus, the show really isn't my style. But that doesn't mean I think SNW should've stopped when I lost interest. That would be incredibly egocentric thinking. In-story, it should stop when Kirk becomes Captain. It's not my lane anymore, but that's what makes sense even to me.
As far as the rebuilding of the Federation, "leaving it to the imagination" is something that only works up to a certain point. Breaking the Federation and not bothering to do anything to fix it is like telling only half the story. Only telling half the story is the laziest thing someone can do. There's no guarantee at the end of the third season that the Federation will be put back together; and if they wanted to have other series set in the 32nd Century, like they've done with Starfleet Academy, then I feel that it was Discovery's responsibility to pick up the pieces and tell the story of how the Federation came back together, not Starfleet Academy's. Especially since the Discovery became a First Responder type of ship, and the kids in SFA are just Cadets. It inherently makes more sense to put the pieces back together in DSC than in SFA, if their intention was to have the 32nd Century be ongoing instead of a one-season-and-done type of deal. The details can be left up to the imagination, but the broad strokes should not be.
The state of emergency during the fourth season shows how and why everyone came back to together for the Federation itself to come back together again.
I'd say give DSC Seasons 4 and 5 a chance and you might like them... BUT I'm remembering that I gave ENT Season 3 a chance. Twice. And while I thought it was better than ENT S2 (not exactly a high bar), both times I still came away thinking of it as "Star Trek for Republicans". Politics aside, the point is: finally, actually watching it didn't change my mind about what I already thought, I still didn't like what I didn't like, and I suspect the same would be the case for where and how it applies to you. So, I won't naively recommend those last two seasons of DSC. I'm only explaining my rationale for why I think the third season was not the natural endpoint for Discovery.
Last edited:
Basically, aside from ludicrous science (which spans ALL of the franchise), the only real disappointment I had in Discovery was Lorca turning out
to be an evil guy whose reason for wanting to return to the Empire was to make it even eviler. It would have been so much more interesting if
(a) he actually admired what the Federation stood for, and the man we saw was a dark hardass’ idea of trying to fight for it; and
(b) he wanted to return to the Empire because he’d been inspired by this to go lead a rebellion against it, Spartacus-style. In my imagined alternate version, he’d end up doing so, no doubt failing and vanishing into history, but damned honorably.
(a) he actually admired what the Federation stood for, and the man we saw was a dark hardass’ idea of trying to fight for it; and
(b) he wanted to return to the Empire because he’d been inspired by this to go lead a rebellion against it, Spartacus-style. In my imagined alternate version, he’d end up doing so, no doubt failing and vanishing into history, but damned honorably.
Yup. Feel like a kid again reading Academy books.
It was a chore to watch and after finally accepting that I don't need to watch everything just because it has "Star Trek" in the title I stopped after season 3.
The major problem was that they wanted to do a prequel but not accept the limitations of a prequel. Redesigning the Klingons, shoehorning Spock into the story, advanced technology etc.
Sure, they addressed some of it but their fixes seemed contrived and lame; at least to me.
Then they got rid off the prequel-limitations (while ironically repeating the same mistake with SNW) with the jump into the far future but for me it was a bit too far and I couldn't get onboard with their 32nd century aesthetics.
Characters were either grating or bland (the only character I liked was Jett Reno) and while I appreciate Discovery's effort for more LGTBQI representation I found their couples lacking chemistry.
And really "The Michael Burnham Show" would've been a far more appropriate name for the show.
The major problem was that they wanted to do a prequel but not accept the limitations of a prequel. Redesigning the Klingons, shoehorning Spock into the story, advanced technology etc.
Sure, they addressed some of it but their fixes seemed contrived and lame; at least to me.
Then they got rid off the prequel-limitations (while ironically repeating the same mistake with SNW) with the jump into the far future but for me it was a bit too far and I couldn't get onboard with their 32nd century aesthetics.
Characters were either grating or bland (the only character I liked was Jett Reno) and while I appreciate Discovery's effort for more LGTBQI representation I found their couples lacking chemistry.
And really "The Michael Burnham Show" would've been a far more appropriate name for the show.
Last edited:
They had the perfect setup to explain how that could have come about, too.
1.) Lorca used to be the Empress's right hand man
2.) The Empress classified the USS Defiant files because she feared anyone reading about the Federation would get ideas
3.) He would have had access to her most closely guarded secrets
4.) Ergo....
2.) The Empress classified the USS Defiant files because she feared anyone reading about the Federation would get ideas
3.) He would have had access to her most closely guarded secrets
4.) Ergo....
Star Trek Discovery aka La Cage aux Folles in Space.
Trolling
D
Show me one straight white male besides Ash in the series. I think discovery made more than an effort for more LGTBQILMNOPXYZ representation.
Homophobia doesn't fly around here, friend.
Yeah, how about we take that down a notch. You don't have to like the show but keep the bigoted comments to yourself.
This sort of homophobia isn't acceptable here, an infraction for trolling has been issued, comments to PM.
You're very, very brave to have survived the Straight White Genocide that was Star Trek: Discovery.
Last edited:
Loved some of the characters.
Stamens and Reno but especially Saru who for me epitomised the spirit of Starfleet.
But I’m hard pressed to name one killer ,stand-out ,classic episode.
For me Disco came and went and that was it.
Just all a bit fraught and forgettable and sadly towards the bottom of my list of Trek favourites.
Stamens and Reno but especially Saru who for me epitomised the spirit of Starfleet.
But I’m hard pressed to name one killer ,stand-out ,classic episode.
For me Disco came and went and that was it.
Just all a bit fraught and forgettable and sadly towards the bottom of my list of Trek favourites.
I loved DSC during its first 2 seasons. It was far from "perfect," but it was different, bold and it wasn't afraid to try new things and be controversial.
Unfortunately, there was so much turmoil and so many mistakes made on the production and writing end of things, it made for a disjointed and unfocused effort by about the middle of Season 2. There were a number of things that contributed to that:
1. The characters and their dynamics, for the most part, were designed for the format and plot of Season 1. This meant that in subsequent seasons, the main characters became more and more difficult to find organic use for. Saru, Tilly, Stamets...they all suffered as a result.
2. Newer characters they added were weak and not interesting. They had great ideas on paper with Gray and Adira becoming a "family" with Culber and Stamets (two of my favorites from the earlier seasons), but it was never done with any conviction or sincerity, and I don't think the actors were up to the task of bringing real weight to those roles. Book was not interesting, at least not for me. Vance was ok, but underutilized after S3. Reno was a "whatever" stunt character to bring some yuk yuks. The bad guy in S4 was about the only bright spot for new characters.
3. World building and continuity really went to hell once they jumped timelines. I could tell you what the uniforms, phasers, etc. all looked like and represented in the first two seasons. After that, it was extremely generic. The re-design on the Discovery was ugly. The attempts to make far-future tech never landed for me. The whole far-future setting just didn't work and the universe the characters occupied never felt "real" as a result. Even early TOS, when it was still finding its footing, felt more coherent and unified than the last 3 seasons of DSC.
4. A lot of this was due to the jarring changes in showrunner vision. We all know that story. I think Michelle Paradise was not a great fit for the later seasons, to be honest.
5. The showrunners tried WAAAYYY too hard to make everyone happy. Instead of sticking to a vision and a tone, each subsequent season felt like an over-reaction to fan and critical response of the previous season. The result was a very lukewarm and mixed approach to a show that started out (for better or worse) full of conviction and swinging.
5. A lot of the show, for lack of a better way of putting it, just felt very self-conscious and even disingenuous. Everything after mid S2 just felt...I don't know....strangely "forced." Like DSC was trying really hard to be the show everyone would love, instead of just telling great stories with great characters. The humor, relationships, even full plotlines....they all felt a bit "fakeish."
That said, I didn't dislike the show. I watched every episode and I even think there were some great, classic Star Trek moments in there.
Ultimately, I think DSC struggled being the first out of the gate in the new era, and those struggles were made even worse by inconsistent vision due to show runner turnover.
Unfortunately, there was so much turmoil and so many mistakes made on the production and writing end of things, it made for a disjointed and unfocused effort by about the middle of Season 2. There were a number of things that contributed to that:
1. The characters and their dynamics, for the most part, were designed for the format and plot of Season 1. This meant that in subsequent seasons, the main characters became more and more difficult to find organic use for. Saru, Tilly, Stamets...they all suffered as a result.
2. Newer characters they added were weak and not interesting. They had great ideas on paper with Gray and Adira becoming a "family" with Culber and Stamets (two of my favorites from the earlier seasons), but it was never done with any conviction or sincerity, and I don't think the actors were up to the task of bringing real weight to those roles. Book was not interesting, at least not for me. Vance was ok, but underutilized after S3. Reno was a "whatever" stunt character to bring some yuk yuks. The bad guy in S4 was about the only bright spot for new characters.
3. World building and continuity really went to hell once they jumped timelines. I could tell you what the uniforms, phasers, etc. all looked like and represented in the first two seasons. After that, it was extremely generic. The re-design on the Discovery was ugly. The attempts to make far-future tech never landed for me. The whole far-future setting just didn't work and the universe the characters occupied never felt "real" as a result. Even early TOS, when it was still finding its footing, felt more coherent and unified than the last 3 seasons of DSC.
4. A lot of this was due to the jarring changes in showrunner vision. We all know that story. I think Michelle Paradise was not a great fit for the later seasons, to be honest.
5. The showrunners tried WAAAYYY too hard to make everyone happy. Instead of sticking to a vision and a tone, each subsequent season felt like an over-reaction to fan and critical response of the previous season. The result was a very lukewarm and mixed approach to a show that started out (for better or worse) full of conviction and swinging.
5. A lot of the show, for lack of a better way of putting it, just felt very self-conscious and even disingenuous. Everything after mid S2 just felt...I don't know....strangely "forced." Like DSC was trying really hard to be the show everyone would love, instead of just telling great stories with great characters. The humor, relationships, even full plotlines....they all felt a bit "fakeish."
That said, I didn't dislike the show. I watched every episode and I even think there were some great, classic Star Trek moments in there.
Ultimately, I think DSC struggled being the first out of the gate in the new era, and those struggles were made even worse by inconsistent vision due to show runner turnover.
I know I said this before (I might have said this upthread) but to me the biggest indictment of Discovery is by its fifth season, they no longer really needed the cast to tell the story they set out to make for the season.
I mean, imagine an alternative Season 5, where Michael, Book, and Rayner go off in the 32nd-century version of a runabout to face down Lak and Moll after the season opener. It would still work just fine - indeed, it would work better, narratively speaking. Instead the season needed to find excuses to keep the rest of the crew relevant. So we had the minor stakes of Saru's relationship jitters, Tilly being given a random away mission, or the completely uninspired grade-school level collective-problem solving around the "clues" by Stamets, Adira, and Reno. None of them meant anything to the plot, so, we just kept having "excuses" as to why they were still there.
I don't think this problem is limited to Star Trek, by any means. Lots of shows struggle to find relevance for a character after their original story purpose is exhausted. But the show decided to "play on hard mode" both by insisting every season have a "big plot" and by not having the main cast be the various department heads of the ship.
