Star Trek Discovery ***Season 2*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

TheIrishGrover

Goodshape wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter:



They're talking about

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

.

Some things never change

That's great!

As stated above, there are people who believe that anything after Season three (Or probably even after they got rid of the zip-down-the-front-cheapie-uniforms on TNG S2) is betraying Trek. "Betraying". And that anyone who thinks otherwise is not a True Believer or "just doesn't get it": "I stopped watching when Riker got a beard. There are no beards in Star Trek unless he is EEEEvil!!!!". I have enjoyed all trek series and movies to various degrees and even read one or two of the better (ie. readable) books in my youth.

And I have NO problem with the change in aesthetics of each new series. Times change, tastes change, production values improve. Some purists are probably bemoaning the fast that the show is filmed in 16:9.

I like the look of the Klingons in Discovery. I like the look of the ships. I even like the TranSPORE drive Eventually they are going to explain why it is not used subsequently (Overtly at least). They are already hinting at it: Needing a human pilot, the impact it has on him and the side-effects (The engineer casually mentioning "You managed to pull off another jump. Thought you'd be glad" line).

My only real issue with Discovery (As with most people) is that the main character is TOO central- Everyone else just seems to revolve around her. And she is the least interesting character.

I'm loving Discovery's interpretation of Spok and I know there are people screaming that he is far too emotional/unemotional (Depending on who you ask). That, again, he "betrays" the spirit of the original.

I think the problem is that Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans tend to be a bit too precious about the franchise they follow. ANY deviation of the version that introduced them to that franchise is immediately a betrayal (If after) or to be dismissed (If before) and non-canon. There are actually strange people out there who believe that Voyager is the best Trek and anything before/after is inferior...... VOYAGER!!!!

I'm guilty of this myself: Writing a few posts about how Ready Player One movie (Terrible but still better than book. But I digress) totally misunderstands people's love of The Iron Giant and misuses the character in the movie before I copped on: I didn't like their interpretation/use of The Iron Giant but hey, I'm sure some did.

Anteayer

To be quite honest, as a casual viewer of this show, I'd rather watch it and enjoy it for what it is. There's way too much lock-down into this 'canon' dogma on discussion forums.

Plot holes and contradictions with previous series are going to happe, as the show was never written with the idea of having a continuing story arch that went on for ever.

I think they made a big mistake in trying to link it too deeply into previous shows as there's inevitably going to be a load of people on forums poking holes in the script, in a way they couldn't with something that was set safely in the future.

Also, the technology in Trek has always been full of dubious and vague links to real science and plenty of garble technobabble was thrown in along side.
Positronic matrix in Data's brain and so on. It also threw in plenty of inexplicable phenomena that are just take for granted like telepathy and so on.

seamus

Anteayer wrote: »

To be quite honest, as a casual viewer of this show, I'd rather watch it and enjoy it for what it is. There's way too much lock-down into this 'canon' dogma on discussion forums.

There's a small number of people who've lost sight of the fact that Star Trek is a work of fiction. A work of art. And like all art there are no real limits on how much that art can be re-imagined and re-interpreted.

The fiction lays out a general basis for the universe; some key elements in terms of the plot and the major in-universe waypoints.

Once an interpretation broadly stick to the major points, then you don't get to whinge when they alter some minor aspects such as the appearance of Klingons, the realism of the bridge or some details in a character's history.

Star Trek isn't history. It isn't made up of hard facts and historical realities. There is no reason why any future Trek has to stick rigidly to the interpretations of past ones.

Inviere

seamus wrote: »

And like all art there are no real limits on how much that art can be re-imagined and re-interpreted.

The whiff of George Lucas off ya :P

There is no reason why any future Trek has to stick rigidly to the interpretations of past ones.

This whole thing was really avoidable by the producers. They're the ones that made a point of telling everyone that Discovery is set in the Prime Timeline. Once they went down that rabbit hole, there was no going back. I mean c'mon, we're talking about Star Trek fans here, know your audience. Why did they need to pander to fans by making such a point?

Discovery would be just as good (or bad, depending on your feelings for it) whether it was set in the Prime Timeline, an Alternate Timeline, of indeed the future of either of those timelines. For me, the show is strong enough to stand on its own - it doesn't need to be tied down by canon, it shouldn't be retreading existing canon, the show is good enough to make its own, new, original canon.

CramCycle

Anyone else think the Camera man in Generations looked very Borg like in the opening scene, maybe Rick Berman has been planning this all along, changing the time line in the most intricate story ever told :pac:

Scotty thinks Kirk is alive, then he was there for his death.

For those who like the idea that it all has to work out perfectly

Still think Ariams body has a part to play.

TheValeyard

Dont they need a supernova to power the crystals for the timesuit?


Maybe they cause a time relative supernova now, which causes the Romulus sun to go Supernova in the future......

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Dont they need a supernova to power the crystals for the timesuit?


Maybe they cause a time relative supernova now, which causes the Romulus sun to go Supernova in the future......

They could do with some reason as to how a supernova can go boom in some random system and take only a few months to get to another system (don't talk to me about comics nonsense). On screen or nothing

Johnny Storm

seamus wrote: »

There's a small number of people who've lost sight of the fact that Star Trek is a work of fiction.....

You're kidding, right?

ilovesmybrick

So, what I'm thinking is that the sphere data in some form is kept in Discovery's computers, and rather than using the red angel suit and to rid the data by sending it far into the future, they used the ship, and the Discovery we saw in Calypso reached self awareness in the future due to this, or something along those lines. They either sent the ship out to the reaches of the galaxy or far into the future to hide the information...Of course then we're down a ship for season 3, which is a slight problem, unless they go with a Discovery-A conveniently missing the spore drive...

Would not be the first time that an advanced propulsion system is mentioned once and forgotten about (along with the sound of a combustion engine stalling)

Dave0301

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

So, what I'm thinking is that the sphere data in some form is kept in Discovery's computers, and rather than using the red angel suit and to rid the data by sending it far into the future, they used the ship, and the Discovery we saw in Calypso reached self awareness in the future due to this, or something along those lines. They either sent the ship out to the reaches of the galaxy or far into the future to hide the information...Of course then we're down a ship for season 3, which is a slight problem, unless they go with a Discovery-A conveniently missing the spore drive...

Nice link between your theory and Calypso there, and it would tie up why later knowledge about the spore drive is limited. If another Discovery vessel is commissioned, the spore drive would be omitted on ethical grounds.

ilovesmybrick

Dave0301 wrote: »

Nice link between your theory and Calypso there, and it would tie up why later knowledge about the spore drive is limited. If another Discovery vessel is commissioned, the spore drive would be omitted on ethical grounds.

Well it's just that they do seem to be trying to tie in some of the short treks stuff into this season (between The Brightest Star earlier, and Runaways apparently this week), so it would be one of the few ways they could tie in Calypso and explain away some of the issues with the spore drive, control etc.

Evade

The easiest way around losing the Discovery is to get a special dispensation from the chief of Starfleet Operations.

Goodshape

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

(between The Brightest Star earlier, and

Runaways

apparently this week)

Fixed that for you.

Bobtheman

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Goodshape wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter:



They're talking about

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

.

Some things never change

That's great!

As stated above, there are people who believe that anything after Season three (Or probably even after they got rid of the zip-down-the-front-cheapie-uniforms on TNG S2) is betraying Trek. "Betraying". And that anyone who thinks otherwise is not a True Believer or "just doesn't get it": "I stopped watching when Riker got a beard. There are no beards in Star Trek unless he is EEEEvil!!!!". I have enjoyed all trek series and movies to various degrees and even read one or two of the better (ie. readable) books in my youth.

And I have NO problem with the change in aesthetics of each new series. Times change, tastes change, production values improve. Some purists are probably bemoaning the fast that the show is filmed in 16:9.

I like the look of the Klingons in Discovery. I like the look of the ships. I even like the TranSPORE drive Eventually they are going to explain why it is not used subsequently (Overtly at least). They are already hinting at it: Needing a human pilot, the impact it has on him and the side-effects (The engineer casually mentioning "You managed to pull off another jump. Thought you'd be glad" line).

My only real issue with Discovery (As with most people) is that the main character is TOO central- Everyone else just seems to revolve around her. And she is the least interesting character.

I'm loving Discovery's interpretation of Spok and I know there are people screaming that he is far too emotional/unemotional (Depending on who you ask). That, again, he "betrays" the spirit of the original.

I think the problem is that Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans tend to be a bit too precious about the franchise they follow. ANY deviation of the version that introduced them to that franchise is immediately a betrayal (If after) or to be dismissed (If before) and non-canon. There are actually strange people out there who believe that Voyager is the best Trek and anything before/after is inferior...... VOYAGER!!!!

I'm guilty of this myself: Writing a few posts about how Ready Player One movie (Terrible but still better than book. But I digress) totally misunderstands people's love of The Iron Giant and misuses the character in the movie before I copped on: I didn't like their interpretation/use of The Iron Giant but hey, I'm sure some did.

A very good analysis. I'm not drawn to Michael in the way that Kirk, picard and a lesser extent sisko drew me in. Discovery had to branch in new directions. It could. Not blithely ignore BSG. However the novelistic approach could use an injection of once off episodes. All

Inviere

I have to be honest, Season 2 for me has been a disjointed, confusing mess. I much prefered Season 1. I might regret saying that when I rewatch Season 2, but I seem to spend every week losing concentration, scratching my head, and just nit picking flaws in the show like the god-awful bright/blinding light in almost every single scene. I can't seem to engage with the storyline, I've zero emotional attachment to any of the characters anymore, everything seems so forced and contrived with no emotional weight behind any of it, with the exception of Pike. He has pretty much single handedly been the only thing decent in the whole season.

I used to enjoy Discovery, sadly, now, I don't

OldMrBrennan83

I love it, but then again I can't watch the original series so I was never worried about continuity, etc.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I love it, but then again I can't watch the original series so I was never worried about continuity, etc.

It's not a continuity issue for me (I prefer to just think of Discovery being in an alternate timeline anyway), it's a writing issue. We're at the end of the second season now, and in the modern tv climate, the show should be considered mature and firmly planted by now. For me it isn't.

Though that could be just my taste being to prefer watching 2-3 eps an evening, rather than one per week. So I'll reserve final judgement until I rewatch the entire season.

pixelburp

Season 1s back half had a more definitive, straight line direction whereas you can see the course correcting of tone and style with season 2, not to mention the changeover of producers, with the end result being a more meandering feel to the second season.

I have preferred season 2 though because its tone has been a bit more in keeping with Trek's overall ethos but you can see that perhaps Michelle Paradise & co. didn't quite know what to do with some characters, coupled with budget and management issues needing filler such as episode 13 just finished. Wouldn't be surprised if some characters are jettisoned for season 3, and i suspect that might include Culber, Stamets and (hopefully) Tyler.

_Kaiser_

Saw this come up in my YouTube feed this morning.. He makes a lot of sense IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvKyG9JKZWA

Too much, too soon

Inviere

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Too much, too soon

He makes a fantastic point really. What if in DS9, it opened Season 1 with the Dominion War, and by Episode 5, Sisko & Garak were conspiring to bring the Romulans into the war. Would the episode have had the same effect, the same emotional weight, and the same impact on fans? You'd have to be nuts to say yes. It took literally years of character development, to allow DS9 to shine as brightly as it did.

That said, I think Star Trek was/is on shaky ground still (in the sense of being viable on tv). I can imagine the leeway to devote entire seasons to character development is long gone (in most tv shows really), so Discovery probably had to get its skates on really quickly in order to survive/be viable in the eyes of the studio and the accountants. I think if any of that is true, the show has suffered for it.

I feel like I can't catch a breath watching Discovery, big convoluted arcs, characters with who I still don't even know their names, flashy lights, shifts in tone, shifts in writing, shifts in leadership (on and off screen). Ugh, it's annoying, because I don't hate Discovery, it has real potential, and there was a time I really did enjoy watching it.

OldMrBrennan83

If you started slowly people wouldn't watch at all and it wouldn't last half a series. TV watching is massively different to it was back in the DS9 days.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If you started slowly people wouldn't watch at all and it wouldn't last half a series. TV watching is massively different to it was back in the DS9 days.

The overall result is poorer for that imo. Many of those painful first seasons of Trek shows, and indeed many others, laid the foundation for shows that really blossomed later on. Arguably, bombarding the audience will cause similar viewing fatigue later on, and things begin to run out of steam very quickly. Avenues for meaningful character exploration are lost, because, well, nobody really cares who lives & dies if they don't connect to characters; there's only so long a show can live like that.

OldMrBrennan83

Inviere wrote: »

The overall result is poorer for that imo. Many of those painful first seasons of Trek shows, and indeed many others, laid the foundation for shows that really blossomed later on. Arguably, bombarding the audience will cause similar viewing fatigue later on, and things begin to run out of steam very quickly. Avenues for meaningful character exploration are lost, because, well, nobody really cares who lives & dies if they don't connect to characters; there's only so long a show can live like that.

Bombarding is how it has to be done or they'll just move on to one of the hundred other binge watches. That's the landscape these days.

I don't agree myself and would love to see it done like older series too, but it can't happen any more.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

but it can't happen any more.

Probably true, unfortunately. I tried to watch The Expanse fairly recently, and bailed about four episodes in; I found it painfully slow, despite knowing it develops into a show many people absolutely adore.

More worrying, what the hell are they going to do with the Picard show? If it's 'movie Picard', we're screwed.

Baggly

DS9 came off the back of TNG and had voyager running at the same time. It was arguably peak interest in trek. They could afford to take things slower because the interest was there.

Its not a given disco will get an extended run. It has to maintain viewership immediately, hence the pacing.

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

Its not a given disco will get an extended run. It has to maintain viewership immediately, hence the pacing.

It kinda puts a lot of pressure on a show to hit the ground running, where very small mistakes could end up having a massive impact on the show. They almost have to wow the audience first, and worry about development later, rather than developing first, and then wow'ing.

BrookieD

That video is odd, If i look at just ST:TNG for example the assumption is very much that the poor season 1 and 2 of ST:TNG was planned so that we had character build up and then the build up to Best f Both Worlds would have more impact. It just was'nt the case. A writers strike during season 2 in 1988 led to a glut of poorly recieved episodes, Q-Who (S02E16) was the stand out episode that introduced The Borg. It was a shift to get Gene R, Maizlish and show runner Maurice Hurley out of the writters room that allowed TNG to expand and become the show it did, they wanted and did push the Idea of Gene's utopian vision.

Shows evolve all the time, behind the scenes conflicts are the main aspect as new writers bring fresh ideas and take the show in a different direction. While i love TOS and TNG for what ther were and very much dive into both to watch every now and again i find Discovery as enjoyable and entertaining. Its different but thats OK...

Inviere

BrookieD wrote: »

That video is odd, If i look at just ST:TNG for example the assumption is very much that the poor season 1 and 2 of ST:TNG was planned so that we had character build up and then the build up to Best f Both Worlds would have more impact. It just was'nt the case.

That wasn't at all how it came across for me. For me, what he meant was that while the early seasons were poor, they often dealt with individual character development episodes; a Picard episode, a Riker one, a Data one, etc. While these individual eps may have been poor in terms of their story, what they did do successfully was that they engaged the audience with those characters over time. Then, when the big arcs came along, where the stakes were high, the audience actually gave a damn because the characters had become people we loved/hated/were attached to; they had meaning. In Discovery, that's not happening because we've not had time to really sit down and get to know the individual characters, it's all been largely focused on big story arcs. As a result, nobody gives much a damn about most of the crew.