EltonJohn69 wrote: » Just finished 5 seasons of the expanse. Wow ! That’s the. Best sci fi since battler star. It is so far ahead of discovery. Discovery probably has a bigger budget and more resources but they squandered it. The expanse makes you have to watch everything episode to find out what happens, I was watching discovery out of obligation. When you see the expanse and mandalorian, it is kinda shocking how bad they got did with discovery. They should have never got rid of Lorca.
Rawr wrote: » When Discovery is all done and dusted (If it is ever gets done and dusted), it would be interesting to see how inside the production evolved over time. On paper, Discovery has had a lot of ingredients for being a successful Trek show, and if handled correctly may of even been one of the best. However, something happened that sort of knee-capped that potential early on and appeared to have gotten worse over time. It's hard to know if this is due to any individual or the group as a whole, or even the current state of Television production in the past few years, but some factors had appeared to remove the production's ability to stitch together an enjoyable sci-fi series. This is ignoring all of the canon and Burnham issues, but it does feel like this people people have forgotten how to make entertaining Sci-fi. Early on, I was actively using my own head-canon to explain away their continuity mistakes because to a degree I was enjoying myself. But that ended, and by the time we get through Season 3, watching Discovery had become a chore. Up until mid-way through Season 3 I was actively avoiding these forums whenever a new episode was coming out in order to give the episode a spoiler-free first impression. But as Season 3 continued, this had become a tedious chore. Eventually I dropped it entirely and for the last few episodes I ignored the spoiler-warnings here, and read about the episode ahead of watching it. I had even spent a lot of the time fast-forwarding through scenes that I could instinctively feel would not add to the episodes at all and would just eat into the runtime with emotional slokk. So there was that added level of tedium. I think I'm at the point of only watching a future episode if a lot of good stuff is being said about it here. Otherwise I don't see the payoff of even watching anymore. This for me is mostly down to entertainment value. I'm a Trekkie because Trek entertains me, and that universe has usually been a source of entertainment in so many different forms. Alas, Discover stopped being entertainment for me a long time ago.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Two points: The problem with the show and current Star Trek was/is Kurtzmann Real criticism didn't start here until the tail end of season 3 the show was a turkey long before that.
Rawr wrote: » I think for me, Discovery went from being bad Trek, to tediously unwatchable Trek during the tail-end of Season 3. By that I mean I had gone from watching episodes that I was fairly sure I would not rewatch, to watching episodes that had me questioning why I was even watching....during the process of actually watching said episode.
GreeBo wrote: » ^ You know its bad when a show turns a fan into a hate watcher.
pixelburp wrote: » I don't hate watch Discovery either, but season 3 kinda broke me in failing to hit the biggest open goal the show yet conceived. I forgave seasons one and two because I knew behind the scenes there was chaos. So chaos was seen in the final product. Season 3 was just so disheartening. A genuinely great pitch for the show, undermined by bad structure. Not the writing now - cos even crap writing can be fun to watch if the story's good (see the CW superhero shows) - instead it was like there was no communication to the writers to stick to a form or arc. Guys you're supposed to be reforming the Feder... oh, no, we're just going to arse about for 11 episodes.
breezy1985 wrote: » We seem to have a group desperate to do arcs who are crap at it
ilovesmybrick wrote: » I'm not sure that the arcs per se are the problem, having an underlining story arc can be a real benefit. I think the problem is the complete lack of any smaller little storylines or sub-plots that flesh out the universe. It's just one, quite weak, story arc with little else. If Discovery season 3 had kept the main arc, and if they had fleshed out the hinted at PTSD lines storylines, dislocation story, or even the (really poorly drawn out) Adira story line, it could have been a decent season. However, they had sweet f all development of those potentially interesting side plots and focused almost exclusively on the weak burn story, which could have been stronger if there had been some other meat on the season. For obvious reasons I'm going to exclude the Georgiou waste of time....
Evade wrote: » I think Kurtzman must have some sort of ADD or something. I started watching Salvation on Netflix but I had to pack it in a few episodes into season two. It's an asteroid heading towards Earth series but it couldn't just be that there's about five of six secret plots piled on top of one another and it just gets so convoluted.
RandomViewer wrote: » Finished "The Expanse" last weekend, secondary characters have more backstory than Discovery main cast,
breezy1985 wrote: » Prax vs Sarcastic Engineer or Fred Johnson vs High 5 bridge guys
EltonJohn69 wrote: » Is it possible that Star Trek just fades away ? Star Wars is going to continue being huge, I think the expanse has huge potential for more spin off series/movies, battle star galactic is back with a great show runner. Star Trek movies have no demand, the numerous show are only there to try and get people in for a streaming service . If Star Trek doesn’t do something radical it isn’t going to survive.
silverharp wrote: » there is a lot to be said for a normal episodic shows, I watch the Expanse but I it doesnt really keep my attention so I kinda forget who everyone is and what they are supposed to be doing.
breezy1985 wrote: » Trek will be fine when someday someone who knows how to make good TV gets a hold of it. It's just bad luck that Trek got the guy who can't put a story together and tries to be the next Michael Bay with his CGI shots. Even doing arcs and single character stories it could have worked with someone else
GreeBo wrote: » But you can get your fix for that from The Orville or Lost In Space, The Expanse isnt trying to fill that gap, its trying to tell a story, along the lines of lord of the rings. I think the Expanse would have made an excellent 3 part movie.
pixelburp wrote: » Discovery is just mush for the brain, and has never ever hit the utter cringeworthy lows of something like Sub Rosa. Episodic TV under the strain of 26 episodes produced a lot of utter tosh that non Trek people use to slate Trek
pixelburp wrote: » Trek hasn't been consistently great in 20 years, not if you factor in Voyager and Enterprise into the equation. Oh sure, you got the odd good season, maybe some standout episodes amongst the dross, but a solid, efficiently executed Trek show? Unseen since DS9 IMO. Nostalgia is doing a lot of heavy lifting in those 20 years and while I doubt Disco will have as many standout episodes that soften the memory, let's be blunt here: for me this is a franchise in search of itself for longer than Kurtzmann was on the scene. Berman and Braga started the rot. Heck Abrams and Kurtzmann came on board precisely because it was a franchise that was a spent force. Nemesis was garbage, a dying scream from a series on its last cultural legs. But unlike someone like Russell T Davies who took an extinct property (Dr who) and revitalised it while remembering the things that made it great, Kurtzmann tried to remove those genetic links; a shot in the arm for the 2009 film but ultimately a dead cat bounce. But that he appeared at all said a lot about the state of Trek.
Evade wrote: » I'd gladly take more Sub Rosas and Thresholds if they came alongside the Chains of Commands and Inner Lights. Being very uneven is better than consistently bad.
breezy1985 wrote: » Abrams and Kurtzmann both make vacant flashy shows and we're completely the wrong fit and add to that Paramount/CBS and Badrobot don't have the guts the likes of HBO have to do their own thing and just followed trends and fed people memberberries. Trek wasn't any more dead than BSG or Dr. Who it just got the wrong people to restart it
