Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

H3llR4iser · 10-03-2021 12:12PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah lads, a bit of a smell of "old man yells at cloud here", nostalgia ain't what it used to be

This is not at all a matter of "nostalgia" nor "rose tintend glasses", it's a matter of understanding that things (can be a show or anything else) have defining core characteristics which, if taken out, change the whole assembly ("product", marketers would say) into something else.

You take Star Trek, you remove most of its core philosophies (collaboration, competence, exploration, meritocracy, duty, respect, vision) by replacing them with basically their opposites; Then to "improve" things, you also end up tearing the IP's universe to shreds (the Klingon Empire is a cartoon villain, the UFP is no more, the RSE is no more, Vulcans behave like idiots...), you end up with something that's not Star Trek anymore.If that's the idea, then make something entirely new.

They were free to make "Fantabulous Michael Burnham saves the Universe" or "Young great Ensing Tilly makes Captain for no reason", they could've done them no problem, without having to slap a "Star Trek" sticker or them. Who knows, these might have been decent with different premises:D.

That is, if the story wasn't a pile of steaming turds straight out the backside of a triceratops.

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

Jeez, I'm curious about this Sub Rosa now

(Edit - I see, I didn't remember the title of that specific episode!)

As for the "non Trek people slating Trek"...it's a show that carries one of the biggest, longest standing, most dedicated fandoms of anything mankind has ever produced in terms of entertainment; Is it really a good idea to tell them all to "eff off" because some people make silly comments about the aliens being humanoid, or the uniforms...or any other irrelevant detail? You'll always have people who don't like a show, any show. In the case of anything Sci-Fi, even more so as it's a polarizing genre - a good chunk of any audience will refuse it by default as something they'd consider "silly", but why directly antagonize and alienate the existing viewership?

And then there's the bandied "making Trek relevant in today's environment" - the CLASSIC core values of Star Trek were NEVER more relevant than today, if one really check things out: competence, meritocracy, respect.

Evade · 10-03-2021 12:15PM

pixelburp wrote: »

I think we're into quibbling on degrees of bad because I wouldn't class the badness of Disco in the same vein as that of Sub Rosa. The latter is just a phenomenally awful piece of fiction top to bottom, Discos consistent crime is its refusal to engage (oho!) with its own franchise in a meaningful way. Bad writing, but I'd speculate easier to forgive were it more "Trek", as has often been the accusation. Either way, Trek hasn't hit a stride in years. It needs better stewards than Berman or Paradise (let's be accurate here an keep things to showrunners I guess)

I wasn't trying to imply all of Discovery's episodes were worse than the worst of the rest of the franchise but they are probably all safely in the bottom third.

GreeBo · 10-03-2021 12:21PM

pixelburp wrote: »

I think we're into quibbling on degrees of bad because I wouldn't class the badness of Disco in the same vein as that of Sub Rosa. The latter is just a phenomenally awful piece of fiction top to bottom, Discos consistent crime is its refusal to engage (oho!) with its own franchise in a meaningful way. Bad writing, but I'd speculate easier to forgive were it more "Trek", as has often been the accusation.

I disagree with this, Discovery is just bad, it wouldnt matter what universe it was set it.

pixelburp · 10-03-2021 12:46PM

Evade wrote: »

I wasn't trying to imply all of Discovery's episodes were worse than the worst of the rest of the franchise but they are probably all safely in the bottom third.

For sure, and I'm not disagreeing but my original point is merely that the first step to Trek's recovery is acknowledging that as pop culture goes it has been left behind more than others, and became a bit - and I use this term loosely - deeply uncool. Discovery isn't the disease, merely a symptom. Trek 2009 was the wrong response to a legitimate problem of a series in the creative doldrums. And remains there.

Unfortunately, Abrams, Kurtzman etc are a demographic of Hollywood powerplayers who have failed upward in defiance of common sense and obvious fan distaste. Abrams is now producing a Superman film, Jesus Christ (though at least the writer attached there sounds pretty interesting). And while I'm glad Trek isn't another IP in the monolithic Disney portfolio, somebody kinda needs to take Trek off of Paramount at this stage. Who I don't know cos American pop culture is a shítshow ATM. Its obvious Paramount don't know what to do with it.

breezy1985 · 10-03-2021 01:43PM

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.

Discovery fans always point to Sub Rosa and the like as "proof" that Discovery is of the same standard but the big difference is a few Sub Rosas in an episodic series don't ruin all around it like a bad plot in and arc does

pixelburp · 10-03-2021 01:55PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

Discovery fans always point to Sub Rosa and the like as "proof" that Discovery is of the same standard but the big difference is a few Sub Rosas in an episodic series don't ruin all around it like a bad plot in and arc does

Wait now. I'm not a fan of Discovery, don't do that. I may speak as devils advocate but don't put words in my mouth, if that was aimed at me (I was the one who mentioned Sub Rosa, so presumably)

breezy1985 · 10-03-2021 01:56PM

pixelburp wrote: »

For sure, and I'm not disagreeing but my original point is merely that the first step to Trek's recovery is acknowledging that as pop culture goes it has been left behind more than others, and became a bit - and I use this term loosely - deeply uncool. Discovery isn't the disease, merely a symptom. Trek 2009 was the wrong response to a legitimate problem of a series in the creative doldrums. And remains there.

Unfortunately, Abrams, Kurtzman etc are a demographic of Hollywood powerplayers who have failed upward in defiance of common sense and obvious fan distaste. Abrams is now producing a Superman film, Jesus Christ (though at least the writer attached there sounds pretty interesting). And while I'm glad Trek isn't another IP in the monolithic Disney portfolio, somebody kinda needs to take Trek off of Paramount at this stage. Who I don't know cos American pop culture is a shítshow ATM. Its obvious Paramount don't know what to do with it.

Trek was never cool and shouldn't try to be. Trying to make it cool just leads you down the Fast and Furious route. It should of course try and be successful but not by copying what others are doing in an attempt to be popular. Be high concept, be intelligent have an evolved sensibility and f**k writing the show based on what you think Stranger Things or Walking Dead fans will like

breezy1985 · 10-03-2021 01:59PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait now. I'm not a fan of Discovery, don't do that. I may speak as devils advocate but don't put words in my mouth, if that was aimed at me (I was the one who mentioned Sub Rosa, so presumably)

Sorry I was trying to add to your point. I was talking about the full on Discovery apologists I don't think anyone on here is one of those.

I love how offended people get about being accused of being Discovery fans

pixelburp · 10-03-2021 02:14PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

Trek was never cool and shouldn't try to be. Trying to make it cool just leads you down the Fast and Furious route. It should of course try and be successful but not by copying what others are doing in an attempt to be popular. Be high concept, be intelligent have an evolved sensibility and f**k writing the show based on what you think Stranger Things or Walking Dead fans will like

I did say "loosely". I wasn't happy with the choice of words for that reason; not cool in the sense of chasing trends or fashion, but when the great Geek Renaissance happened around the mid 2000s, Trek was a franchise curiously left behind in the move. Enterprise wasn't that long dead so I suspect corridors of entertainment power reasoned the franchise was stale and past it. BSG made it look very limp and old hat, a relic of a bygone era.

And I think Stranger Things is a good, well written show that subverts the tropes it ostensibly embraces but that's another discussion. I wouldn't lump it in as emblematic of a poverty of TV writing - if anything the Duffer Brothers would probably do a much better job of appreciating Trek

RandomViewer · 10-03-2021 02:26PM

Stripey face paint and a few ridges doesn't an Alien make, main fault of Star Trek since day one

breezy1985 · 10-03-2021 02:31PM

pixelburp wrote: »

I did say "loosely". I wasn't happy with the choice of words for that reason; not cool in the sense of chasing trends or fashion, but when the great Geek Renaissance happened around the mid 2000s, Trek was a franchise curiously left behind in the move. Enterprise wasn't that long dead so I suspect corridors of entertainment power reasoned the franchise was stale and past it. BSG made it look very limp and old hat, a relic of a bygone era.

And I think Stranger Things is a good, well written show that subverts the tropes it ostensibly embraces but that's another discussion. I wouldn't lump it in as emblematic of a poverty of TV writing - if anything the Duffer Brothers would probably do a much better job of appreciating Trek

You would never think BSG and Enterprise were from the same time.

Stranger Things is good I like it too I more just meant that new Trek should try to be good in its own way and not just copying what's popular

pixelburp · 10-03-2021 02:53PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

You would never think BSG and Enterprise were from the same time.

Stranger Things is good I like it too I more just meant that new Trek should try to be good in its own way and not just copying what's popular

You really wouldn't, but I suspect it was Nemesis that did the real damage to the brand in the long run. Enterprise was the wet fart to the franchise on TV but as a popular property, Trek cut a very tired, ragged figure on the big screen. Rather than having the confidence to make a low-mid budget adult thriller in the spirit of the TNG TV show, the studio forced a blockbuster action flick, directed by someone who famously (IIRC) had never watched Trek in his life. Once it crashed and burned the studio would only inevitably draw the wrong conclusion.

And looking at 2021, you know what? I get it to some degree. Trek occupies an odd space, in that its cultural reach is arguably equal to Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel and other powerhouses of geek culture - yet it has distinct cerebral aspirations and delineations; often making it incompatible with the kind of financial targets you might aim for with an IP that large. It also (probably) has a much older fanbase at this stage than the other properties - let's face it, there's probably a lot of grey in the hair of your average Trekkie these days

You can't make a "four quadrant" movie out of the Trek IP, but it's so big, why wouldn't you at least try? Star Trek 2009 gave a weird misleading sense that you could, with only the third of the reboot series managing to properly thread the needle between blockbuster thrills and something more "Trek" in feel. Into Darkness was a cinematic abomination that should have killed Abrams career as a blockbuster director.

It'd never happen, but what Trek needs is to be given to a studio on the level of Blumhouse: it's obviously outside their wheelhouse as (predominant) peddlers of horror films, but they absolutely know how to marry a creative vision with fiscal common sense. Universal made an absolute bags of their "Dark Universe" idea and The Mummy (directed by ... drumroll, Alex Kurtzman!), whereas in one film with "The Invisible Man", Blumhouse knocked it out of the park with one of the best horror thrillers of recent years. Trek needs that kind of scaled back, stripped down to the core approach.

Evade · 10-03-2021 03:56PM

pixelburp wrote: »

directed by someone who famously (IIRC) had never watched Trek in his life.

There's a part in the DVD commentary where he claims he wanted the Scimitar's bridge to look like a more sinister version of the Enterprises for thematic dark mirror reasons and that an alien bridge had never been laid out similarly to a Starfleet bridge. And he's right except for all the times alien bridges were redressed Starfleet bridges.

GreeBo · 10-03-2021 04:48PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

Don't like the Orville,too many smug gits, Lost in Space is very good technically, vehicles ,ships etc..

Ah but they know they are smug gits, thats the crucial difference!

breezy1985 · 10-03-2021 05:22PM

Evade wrote: »

There's a part in the DVD commentary where he claims he wanted the Scimitar's bridge to look like a more sinister version of the Enterprises for thematic dark mirror reasons and that an alien bridge had never been laid out similarly to a Starfleet bridge. And he's right except for all the times alien bridges were redressed Starfleet bridges.

Usually they looked way too much like Starfleet bridges. Every race in the galaxy seemed to evolve using a central captains chair

RandomViewer · 10-03-2021 05:35PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

Usually they looked way too much like Starfleet bridges. Every race in the galaxy seemed to evolve using a central captains chair

Dermot Bannon went intergalactic

Banana Republic 1 · 10-03-2021 07:02PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

Trek was never cool and shouldn't try to be. Trying to make it cool just leads you down the Fast and Furious route. It should of course try and be successful but not by copying what others are doing in an attempt to be popular. Be high concept, be intelligent have an evolved sensibility and f**k writing the show based on what you think Stranger Things or Walking Dead fans will like

Strangers things went to ****e by series 3. SMG was in the walking dead so that explains that.

is_that_so · 04-08-2021 08:36AM

Given the amount of time we've had to watch stuff I am surprised it has taken me so long to get to Season 3! Having got to episode 10, it's more and more looking like a complete waste of an opportunity to explore or push out the franchise. Apart from the bad writing, extremely limited plotlines and unnecessary social commentary it's clear that Star Trek and Discovery is now little more an incidental title.

As the Michael Burnham show you immediately compare it with the far better executed slice of nostalgia of Picard. The trouble is she is not Sir Paddy, not even a tenth of his ability. It's also hard to empathise with any of the cast, save Saru, who at least has some variety of thoughts. The rest are all cardboard characters - the running joke, the PTSD navigator, the chirpy ensign, the baddie who's just spouting lines, the badly acting child genius and the lead and sidekick who would probably be better off doing their own version of Firefly. None of them would be missed.

It's kind of a pity really as stepping outside the Trek timelines gave them a chance to do something interesting or new. It's neither of these. Nice to see Frakes helming a couple of episodes though.

pixelburp · 04-08-2021 08:41AM

I've rarely witnessed a TV show that has so ably sabotaged its own attempt to reinvent itself than Star Trek: Discovery. Track this thread and you'll see my excitement that the production rid itself of the prequel monicker and pushed itself into new, unexplored territory. This lasted ... uh, an episode. Maybe a little more; then the whole season swan-dived into the same horrid tropes we had already seen.

As I said at the end, at least in being a captain now - however underserving she might be from her actions - Burnham now has a title to fit the unilateral decisions the scripts kept having her make. In season 4, when she makes those rash decisions it'll track as The One In Charge.

Rawr · 05-08-2021 06:47AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117703378#Comment_117703378

+1

I was in a very similar boat at the start of Season 3. There was every chance of making this a soft reboot and follow the tradition of previous Trek to find it's feet in the 3rd Season. They even had a new logo, and there were references in script to them understanding that the focus on Michael wasn't popular...and that they'd try to fix that.

However, by the 3rd Episode they had thrown out the idea of doing anything at all new. Micheal had been stranded in the future for all of a year, but you'd barely believe that. The entire crew are stuck in the future, centuries after all of their friends and family had died...but that's was barely touched upon. The pre-starfleet half of Season 3 was essentially Star Trek: Voyager...but fails to even pull that off.

The only really new item was the annoying Trill kid who'd suck the fun right out of any scene they were in...especially if Ghost-Boyfriend was there. I had really wanted to give that character the benefit of the doubt, was really hoping this would be Dax, and had hoped that the casting of a gender-fluid actor hasn't just an empty statement to garner attention. Alas, that's all that character appeared to be. Massively waisted opportunity there.

And of course, a Discovery rant isn't complete without addressing Space Poochie. Burnham might have worked with better writing. It has been suggested by one YouTuber that Bekket Mariner from Lower Decks is the Micheal we should have gotten, and I would agree there. If they had written and cast the character in the same vein as Mariner, we might all have been singing this show's praises long ago. Shoe-horning in a human raised as a Vulcan without even bothering to develop that idea managed to crash the potential of this series. I feel that they cast Martin-Green in that role because her range so very limited that they reckoned she'd be an ideal Vulcan. But then they ditched the whole Vulkan-angle and now we are stuck with an actor who is piss-poor at emoting. I have now seen her in other works, and she really doesn't seem to have a range of any kind. They had chosen very poorly.

So now we're into the 4th year of a show that is designed by contract to be carried by a sub-par actor while everyone else must act around them as best they can. The Season 4 trailer was at very least honest about what Discovery would continue to be, and I am thankful for their honesty because now I know that I should not spend any more time on it. If something crops up here to peak my interest, I might have a look, but otherwise it will go unwatched by myself. It stopped being any fun a long while back...

pixelburp · 05-08-2021 09:00AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117708458#Comment_117708458

I agree with most of that, barring one item: I genuinely think Martin-Green's a perfectly fine actor and not the source of the problems here - nobody could make those scripts work, no matter the calibre of actor attached. To quote Harrison Ford, "George, you can type this shít, but you can't say it". You can see she's giving it her all, and if the script says "EMOTE!!" then unless you're a "difficult to work with" auteur type, a professional will just give it their best shot. And to be fair, yeah. You can't say she's wooden during all those emotive, hyper-dramatic scenes.

In fact, to loop back to the missed promise of Season 3's opening; she bordered on charismatic and likeable when the scripts allowed Martin-Green to be less tortured or earnest. But the moment the writing says "Federation Feels!", what can you do? Which, unfortunately, is precisely what happened once the interesting premise got forgotten by what I now regard as one of the worst Writing Teams on mainstream TV

Evade · 05-08-2021 11:10AM

I think it would it be fair to say Martin-Greene isn't a bad actor in an ensemble but she can't carry a whole series on her own.

pixelburp · 05-08-2021 11:32AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117709662#Comment_117709662

I liked her when she was more carefree and looser, so maybe she could carry the show; but if the scripts insist on making her this over-earnest headache, we'll never truly know.

Rawr · 05-08-2021 11:38AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117709662#Comment_117709662

That's a good way to put it, and I believe my disappointment with Discovery is peppering my opinion of Martin-Green. Much in agreement with Pixel and yourself. She is certainly an able actor and I have seen much much worse out there. But like you said, I also believe that she can't carry a series on her own. She's not good enough to be that I feel, which is a big problem when you have a show that is clearly designed to be carried by her.

I've said before that a single-character-focused Trek series is possible, and might even be good if handled right. It looks like Discovery was at one point supposed to be that, but since Martin-Green cannot carry a show they should have properly converted Discovery into a traditional ensemble Trek show by Season 3...but they didn't do that. It was clear once we got into the season, that they had settled into the same pattern of applying focus onto Micheal, even when in a traditional Trek show episodes might have much more focus on one of the other senior staff members of the ship. A clear example was the Trill episode where it appeared natural that Dr. Cupler would get a lot of focus for that story. It even opened with him giving a Daily Log. However, not that long into the episode he hands over everything to Michael, for reasons. Didn't matter that he was the Medical Officer in this situation and thus best equipped to deal with Trill matters. It didn't matter that he was apparently supposed to be developing a parental bond with the Trill kid. None of that mattered because all episodes needed to be carried by Michael by design. When that happens all of the time...it wears you down and Michael becomes increasingly the target of your frustrations with the show.

By reason of group-think, or contract, or just plain idiocy, the show runners can't grasp this issue and I fully expect they wont. Which is why I've written off Discovery and approach anything else they work on with a high degree of caution. There is some hope with the rest of the shows....but alas not this one.

GSPfan · 08-08-2021 10:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117709662#Comment_117709662

I don’t know. I actually hated her character in The Walking Dead and when I continued that hate into Discovery I started to realise it’s not the character that i have problems with, it’s her as an actor. I just think she’s incredibly unlikeable as an actor. The whispering of dialogue, the overly emotional scenes, the lack of warmth, that’s down to her. Obviously someone loves it enough to keep allowing her to do it but I think she’s awful.