nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

AMKC

Well CBS released a trailer for Discovery season 3 at New York Comic Con but its not yet available this side of the bond yet. Maybe Netfliks will have one out in the next few days.
They also released some Short Trek trailers which are available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WexZWZN_-pA

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rawr

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

Kermit.de.frog

It has it's flaws but this is easily the best Star Trek series since Generations.

Although the bar was quite low.

breezy1985

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It has it's flaws but this is easily the best Star Trek series since Generations.

Although the bar was quite low.

DS9 was better especially at the long story arcs. The other 2 were pretty crap bar the odd episode a bit like DIS

Evade

Rawr wrote: »

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

I think I made this analogy a little while ago too. It really is uncanny how Homer-writes-Poochie Burnham is. It'd be nice if she returned to Vulcan to avert a crisis only to never be seen again.

pixelburp

I like Discovery.
I like The Mandalorian.

Both have aspects I like, but both shows have big fundamental flaws that make enjoyment a chore sometimes. Neither sets of flaws are dealbreakers however, though the endless video game fetch quests of Mando gets tedious.

Where I think Mandalorian curries more favour is it is seen as a return to what Wars "is" (after the garbage fire of Rise of Skywalker), while Discovery deviates too far from the one true faith of the perceived Trek boilerplate (in terms of fandoms brain trust, as opposed to simple dislike of the show on its own merits)

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

while Discovery deviates too far from the one true faith of the perceived Trek boilerplate (in terms of fandoms brain trust, as opposed to simple dislike of the show on its own merits)

I don't think it's that it deviates from the "one true Trek" strawman, STD has massive flaws of its own. The critcism Burnham being just unlikeable and the center of the universe, to the constant overly emotional scenes over the slightest thing, or a lot of it hinging on absolute nonsense have almost nothing to do with Star Trek and are purely Discovery problems.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I don't think it's that it deviates from the "one true Trek" strawman, STD has massive flaws of its own. The critcism Burnham being just unlikeable and the center of the universe, to the constant overly emotional scenes over the slightest thing, or a lot of it hinging on absolute nonsense have almost nothing to do with Star Trek and are purely Discovery problems.

uhm. I say this in the last line? YMMV in how much you can take of " fundamental flaws" I speak of, but equally there has been a narrative from some fans that Disco "isn't Trek", it often comes up in these very threads. The reverse being the case with Mando where it is often praised for returning to source.

FunLover18

flazio wrote: »

Really? We have to pick one or the other? We can't enjoy them both?

No of course not, that's not what I intended to suggest at all.. I've seen plot contrivances as a criticism of STD and then I've seen people say that Mando is a better show, I don't think these are the same people and I hope not because I don't understand how one can criticise one show for something the other it rife with. As PB said they both have their flaws and people will have their preference. I'm watching both but if you asked me to choose I'd pick Discovery. That's all.

Anyway, carry on.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

uhm. I say this in the last line?

Yeah, I misread the line.

breezy1985

FunLover18 wrote: »

No of course not, that's not what I intended to suggest at all.. I've seen plot contrivances as a criticism of STD and then I've seen people say that Mando is a better show, I don't think these are the same people and I hope not because I don't understand how one can criticise one show for something the other it rife with. As PB said they both have their flaws and people will have their preference. I'm watching both but if you asked me to choose I'd pick Discovery. That's all.

Anyway, carry on.

I reason is because some people me included watch Star Trek and Star Wars for different reasons. I could not care if SW has no character development and loads of just believing in magic as its a show about religious space wizards with space spitfires.

Problem with Trek now is ever since Abrams it is trying to mimic SW. JJ Abrams said himself that he was never a Trek fan and only loved SW and I really get that vibe from the DIS show runners too. Burnham would make a fine SW hero saving the galaxy every week with her divine powers

FunLover18

breezy1985 wrote: »

I reason is because some people me included watch Star Trek and Star Wars for different reasons. I could not care if SW has no character development and loads of just believing in magic as its a show about religious space wizards with space spitfires.

Problem with Trek now is ever since Abrams it is trying to mimic SW. JJ Abrams said himself that he was never a Trek fan and only loved SW and I really get that vibe from the DIS show runners too. Burnham would make a fine SW hero saving the galaxy every week with her divine powers

The first paragraph is fair, they are very different show and they have different priorities.

I disagree with the second though. I had issues with Abrams Trek films, especially Into Darkness but a SW feel wasn't one of them. He did definitely feel more at home with his SW film though.

Joe Don Dante

Rawr wrote: »

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

didn't Booker call her "Poichie" after they had sex in the last episode?

TheValeyard

flazio wrote: »

Really? We have to pick one or the other? We can't enjoy them both?

Crossover episode?

TheValeyard

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

breezy1985

TheValeyard wrote: »

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

Ferengi society crashed when the women got involved in running things

Banana Republic 1

I won't be happy until something like this happens to key characters, not Saru though. If it meant crying scenes it would be worth it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWjpWtsqhec

pixelburp

TheValeyard wrote: »

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

There was a Cardassian in a starfleet uniform in the background recently.

PhiloCypher

Rapidly losing patience with the show at this stage . I liked and defended season 1, feeling, despite its flaws, it was a better first season then any other Star Trek show had given us. Season 2 likewise, the introduction of Pike was just the sort of authority figure the show needed after losing Jason Isaacs Lorca, someone who could keep Burnham in check. Something that Saru, due to his prior relationship with Burnham, and his demotion of her not withstanding, is failing at in season 3 .

Throwing them into the future in season 3, while theoretically freeing them of cannon issues, solved none of the shows real issues. Its still Burnham centric to a fault, they still amp every emotion up to 11 in every episode, the 15 episode seasons leave them no room to explore anything other than Burnham and the seasons overarching mystery , which are normally one and the same. We haven't had a fun episode since magic to make the sanest man go mad in season 1 featuring Harry Mudd , or a non Burnham character centric episode since Saru losing his Ganglia in season 2 . Never thought I'd say it but I'd gladly see the budget cut in half and see the return of the matte paintings and polystyrene sets if it meant enough episodes to explore anything other then Burnham or the season arc.

Giving Burnham credit for Spocks achievements were a new low for the writers in this episode. I could also do without the constant teasing from the writers indicating that they know how insufferable they are making Burnham, while continuing to do absolutely nothing about it. I'm not a holy man but I'm preying to God she stops equivocating and ****s off into parts unknown with Book at the end of the season. Otherwise I don't know if I'll be back for season 4 .

breezy1985

pixelburp wrote: »

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

There was a Bajoran got his head blown off in the prison camp Book was in

Bobtheman

I'm on episode 4 and so far I'm enjoying it. Burnham has thawed out. There is still a mawkish element to it all. A let's wrap up complex issues in 45 minutes etc. The episode where they returned to earth and just by a bit of chat sorted out the attacks on earth. Yes I know that was a feature of a lot of trek but time to dump it or tone it down a bit.
One of the things that's annoyed me about trek since the end of deep space 9 is this idea of escaping history. The trek universe did not really move forward.
You had the film's yes but we had two series in the past ? Enterprise and discovery.
Then discovery goes to the future to deal with continuity issues??
Why the hell just have a series that moves the timeline forward ?? I know we had Picard and that was relatively ok but we need a series that moves forward. Is an 80 year old actor the best they can do in this regard !?

breezy1985

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'm on episode 4 and so far I'm enjoying it. Burnham has thawed out. There is still a mawkish element to it all. A let's wrap up complex issues in 45 minutes etc. The episode where they returned to earth and just by a bit of chat sorted out the attacks on earth. Yes I know that was a feature of a lot of trek but time to dump it or tone it down a bit.
One of the things that's annoyed me about trek since the end of deep space 9 is this idea of escaping history. The trek universe did not really move forward.
You had the film's yes but we had two series in the past ? Enterprise and discovery.
Then discovery goes to the future to deal with continuity issues??
Why the hell just have a series that moves the timeline forward ?? I know we had Picard and that was relatively ok but we need a series that moves forward. Is an 80 year old actor the best they can do in this regard !?

They are afraid to do anything that doesnt involve a million call backs and Easter eggs and all that nonsense that generates memberberries and youtube traffic. All 3 current shows are about hey look its that guy from that thing from before wow but at least Lower Decks and PIC to a lesser extent are honest about it

Rawr

breezy1985 wrote: »

They are afraid to do anything that doesnt involve a million call backs and Easter eggs and all that nonsense that generates memberberries and youtube traffic. All 3 current shows are about hey look its that guy from that thing from before wow but at least Lower Decks and PIC to a lesser extent are honest about it

Indeed. To add, Lower Decks is the first time in a long while that a Trek show has picked up the story right after the end of the last contiguous installment, set right after ST: Nemsis.
Despite it being an animated comedy and I get the feeling of the show continuing the TNG universe where DSY & VOY left off.

pixelburp

My reckoning is simply that the story hasn't advanced because collectively, the social conscience isn't aligned to a franchise with a utopia as the status quo.

We're far removed from the heady optimism of Treks birth in the futuristic styling of 60s pop culture: open a newspaper; it's full of environmental collapse, political division, pandemics, while social media acts as ideological poison.

While the presence of a story set within a "perfect" futures seems like the obvious response to this as escapism, misery likes company. Fiction - especially sci-fi - often reflects the mood of the populous, hence we get all these post apocalyptic tales - and why Trek generally can't move forward with its timeline (at least, not without throwing a grease into the setting). Equally, this morose attitude leans into nostalgia for "better times", hence all the reverential callbacks, reboots, belated sequels etc.

It's not without reason The Walking Dead is/was the ratings smash it has been. Culturally we're wallowing.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

We're far removed from the heady optimism of Treks birth in the futuristic styling of 60s pop culture: open a newspaper; it's full of environmental collapse, political division, pandemics, while social media acts as ideological poison.

Yeah, papers in the 60's had none of that.

Goodshape

yeah, I'm not sure there was any shortage of horrifying and terrifying news stories and fears of social collapse in the 60s, 70s. The 90s were a bit more optimistic I suppose.

I think Gene Roddenberry was just a bit of a hippie socialist idealist. You can see it in TOS and TNG and I think it's sorely missing from everything since.

I'm sorry (not sorry), but I liked the ideal of no conflict within the crew. I enjoyed the utopian socialist fantasy of it all. The best possible future for humanity.

These days it's just another jingoistic military-based sci-fi spectacle. I don't think that's necessarily a sign of the times, it's just lack of vision.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

Yeah, papers in the 60's had none of that.

Never said they didn't, but the 50s & 60s (specifically in America) were seen as the zeneth of its status and technological superiority; and not without reason. IIRC the average American ate 50% more than the average European during the mid '50s - just to pull one point of comparison. After all, this is the time the MAGA crowd pine for. While in the zeitgeist and SciFi in general, it was forward-thinking and incredibly optimistic in nature. Not just Trek, but everything from penny dreadfuls, comics, to noted "proper" writers of the time. That was the era of the Space Race, and breathless editorials about how we were going to live on the moon in 20 years time. It's not without reason Khan was from the far-future of the 1990s - there was a lot of outward thinking in that respect that advances would accelerate. Can the same be said now?

IMO there's no way Trek could have been born from any other cultural era than 1960s America because that was when that country (or rather, a very niche demographic within) believed the future was bright; the occasional Cuban Crisis notwithstanding. Vietnam put an end to SciFi as broadly optimistic, when you started to see this grubbier, more pessimistic tone creep in (see books like The Forever War for instance)

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

I don't think that's necessarily a sign of the times, it's just lack of vision.

I read something a little while ago that might contribute to this. Writers used to have careers outside the entertainment industry before becoming writers today it seems to go college>entry level position in film/TV production>writing so there's no real difference in their experiences.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

[...]
These days it's just another jingoistic military-based sci-fi spectacle. I don't think that's necessarily a sign of the times, it's just lack of vision.

I disagree; show me a popular SciFi franchise of the last 20 years that doesn't inherently plough the furrow that amounts to "humanity are their own worst enemy". Babylon 5 maybe? Andromeda perhaps, but that's going back to the 90s - and sure B5 was just a rebadged DS9 :pac: </troll>

Everything from the BSG reboot up to The Expanse, or smaller entries like Man in the High Castle, Altered Carbon etc. have had a deeply cynical heart. Now, I've loved those shows and will wax lyrical about BSG if given half a chance, but (and here comes the topicality again), post 9/11 American mainstream pop culture has looked inward, been often heavily introspective or self-critical - sometimes even nihilistic. Fiction isn't ever born in a vacuum, even disposable TV drama can be reflective of a mood within its audience. Or the mood within the broader fiction universe.

The only recent exception I can immediately think of here is the recent Lost in Space reboot: while not without its own problems the core tone of the show was very optimistic and "knowledge" led. Our lead characters consisting of scientists who tried to use their smarts and brains to get themselves out of the environmental problems the plots would throw at them. And even THEN, it didn't lack some of that cynical "humanity can be shady customers" styling. I suppose there's also Dr. Who of course, but I know some would quibble if that's even Science Fiction

Goodshape

Fair points pixelburp, although I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with there

. That all/most sci-fi in the last 20 years has a "humanity are their own worst enemy" theme feeds into my point that Star Trek is (now) just another one of them.

You make a good case that it's a sign of the times but, without meaning to sound like too much of a "real Trek" gate-keeper, people still regard Star Trek as being part of that more optimistic narrative. Why bother bringing it back at all if they're not willing to continue that theme.

When's the last time you heard anyone on Star Trek cheerfully mention having no need for money, or poverty being eradicated, or literally any good news of our future at all. Everyone's too busy with their anxieties and PTSD from whatever recent war the Federation has been involved in.

Edit:: sorry actually, were you saying that most other shows are more cynical and "humanity are the enemy" than Star Trek is now? Eh. Maybe kinda but no. Lorca, Federation Romulan spy lady in Picard. Can't trust ourselves in Star Trek either. And the themes of any kind of bright future are gone.