Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

Justin Credible Darts · 03-09-2020 11:29am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Spot on. Like Burnham and her first name being "Michael", this all about 21st century US Identity politics and Hollywood virtue-signalling rather than good characters and plots.

If an actor portrays a good, interesting, well-written character, then that should be what defines them - not what gender/identity they or the actor are

The actor or actress or whatever this weeks technical term is, that was chosen for the part was chosen simply because of their "difference".

Zero acting history,and only hired to tick pc boxes and not on ability

Blazer · 03-09-2020 12:04pm

How it ever got a third season is beyond me.
It’s complete and utter rubbish.
All of this pandering is actually making it worse for this people.
Instead of introducing a new character and exploring their sexuality or whatever now it’s just thrown on and we’re left with characters with zero backstory.
Saru has had an excellent character development so obviously someone can write over there but what the hell are the rest doing.
It’s a sad reflection on TNG and DS9.
I’ll just have console myself with a DS9 rewatch.

Acosta · 03-09-2020 1:47pm

Star trek has always pushed boundaries so this is nothing new and I have no issue with it. I only wish there was as much concern about the state of the writing as there clearly is about their woke creditionals.

flazio · 03-09-2020 1:57pm

"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear."
Gene Roddenberry.

Inviere · 03-09-2020 3:53pm

Rawr wrote: »

I tend to be concerned that character development was a secondary concern. I could hopefully be wrong...but it feels that way.

Character development within Star Trek Discovery, as a concept, is an oxymoron

Goodshape · 03-09-2020 4:11pm

Blazer wrote: »

I’ll just have console myself with a DS9 rewatch.

That bloody woke rubbish? Black captain (single dad no less!), female first officer, some gender-swapping "Trill". UGH.

Absolutely ****e anyway. Stuck on a space station soap-opera rubbish. It's a sad reflection on TOS and TNG.

Inviere · 03-09-2020 4:15pm

Goodshape wrote: »

That bloody woke rubbish? Black captain (single dad no less!), female first officer, some gender-swapping "Trill". UGH.

Absolutely ****e anyway. Stuck on a space station soap-opera rubbish. It's a sad reflection on TOS and TNG.

Every single character in DS9 was well developed, and had meaning. What they are, who they are, what colour, race, creed, or sex they were was made irrelevant because of that...

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 5:10pm

Character development is not antithetical to any extra-script casting intentions; it's all fiction, it's all intention to have a character of Type X. All made up bullshít really. GOod writing should always be about character driving action, but the characters don't tumble out of the ether either. TBH a bit disappointing folks are making their minds up before a single scene has presented itself of Season 3. Books. Covers. Judging. And all because of a character sheet published by a marketing department who'd be entirely divorced from the Writer's Room.

It's also a bit unfair to compare a show of 176 episodes worth of character exploration vs. one with *counts* 26. Bashir hadn't even established a stable, likeable character by that point IMO.

So if they're bad characters, it'll of course be because of "woke" rather than simply that they're bad characters, or the writing is bad. Like otherwise good writers are just suddenly crippled - CRIPPLED - by wokeness, blocking otherwise Emmy Award winning writing from finding its way on screen. If they just hadn't have cast that trans actor Season 3 would have been great?

Evade · 03-09-2020 5:34pm

I think that's an uncharitable reading of what people have posted.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 5:40pm

Evade wrote: »

I think that's an uncharitable reading of what people have posted.

I'm reading complaints about virtue signalling, woke credentials and pandering; exact words. Caused by a marketing promo. So no, I don't think it's completely uncharitable. Not a universal sentiment to be fair & not aimed at those merely "hmmm"ing at the news, but it's the same theme

I'll admit it's the usual reaction to anything vaguely progressive in terms of casting; there's usually a pushback with the mentioned buzzwords; woke this, PC that. It's not exclusive to Trek.

And let's be honest, at Season 3, minds are made up. This show is pure marmite and if something like progressive casting is something that rankles or annoys - well it's just another reason to hate the show. Woke'ness as further corruption.

So yes, I think there is something of a presumption that intentional casting somehow subverts or corrupts writing; that the choice can only ever be binary.

This should be a "wait and see" scenario but doesn't seem like the prevailing mood.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 5:48pm

Inviere wrote: »

Every single character in DS9 was well developed, and had meaning. What they are, who they are, what colour, race, creed, or sex they were was made irrelevant because of that...

Dropping Disco for a moment, I wouldn't agree with that: I think DS9 and Trek in general liked to offset its existential drama onto the alien races. Humanity was deemed perfect so you couldn't write of war or prejudice. At least not directly. "Corruption" storylines still existed, such as the mini-arc with martial law on Earth during the Dominion run. In general it made sense to keep the Fed as cleancut as possible, even if TNG Season 1 stretched that too far.

However, Worf, Kira and Nog - to name three - all had character arcs based predominantly on their appearance / race. Dax to a lesser extent; Worf and Nog were literal trailblazers in being first members to Starfleet of their species, with all the internal conflict that caused. So conceptually appearance played an integral and foundational part. And when not hidden within its alien species, it was through heavy-handed(?) allegory like "The Outcast".

Justin Credible Darts · 03-09-2020 5:55pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Dropping Disco for a moment, I wouldn't agree with that: I think DS9 and Trek in general liked to offset its existential drama onto the alien races. Humanity was deemed perfect so you couldn't write of war or prejudice. At least not directly. "Corruption" storylines still existed, such as the mini-arc with martial law on Earth during the Dominion run. In general it made sense to keep the Fed as cleancut as possible, even if TNG Season 1 stretched that too far.

However, Worf, Kira and Nog - to name three - all had character arcs based predominantly on their appearance / race. Dax to a lesser extent; Worf and Nog were literal trailblazers in being first members to Starfleet of their species, with all the internal conflict that caused. So conceptually appearance played an integral and foundational part. And when not hidden within its alien species, it was through heavy-handed(?) allegory like "The Outcast".

Not sure you grasped DS9 like many others did.
Humanity was NOT deemed perfect, in many episodes of DS9, be it by Quark, or Eddington.

And DS9 is far more respected than discovery.
Maybe your defense of discovery has you blinded

Evade · 03-09-2020 5:58pm

I think the difference is I read them as saying bad writers use identities as a substitute for writing good characters and you read them as saying I won't like these characters because of their identities.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 6:07pm

Evade wrote: »

I think the difference is I read them as saying bad writers use identities as a substitute for writing good characters and you read them as saying I won't like these characters because of their identities.

Not going to pick apart the opinions of others, but I'd speculate that few writers ever use identity as a "substitute" to good writing, not least because most writers probably don't think of themselves as inherently bad - Imposter Syndrome notwithstanding

It's funny to think of a writer, hastily making a lead character trans 'cos they can't make a 3rd act work

Identity might be a foundational aspect of a character - "hey what if this character was trans?" and so long as that doesn't fundamentally disrupt the story, then there should be nothing wrong with that. If Disco wants to reflect the complexity of modern sexual dynamics, then cool. But it's not inherently a bad thing, or a substitute. Only another choice. Sometimes it's setting, sometimes it's identity.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Not sure you grasped DS9 like many others did.
Humanity was NOT deemed perfect, in many episodes of DS9, be it by Quark, or Eddington.

Indeed, like the episodes I actually mentioned in the post you quoted. DS9 took the shine off the Fed's halo. Functionally however, the Federation is supposed to be beyond prejudice, therefore no interpersonal drama based on those sins. No cliques, class, cabals or castes. Hence the comment about scripts offseting towards difference and friction caused by other races interacting within the Fed.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

And DS9 is far more respected than discovery.
Maybe your defense of discovery has you blinded

Never claimed DS9 wasn't? Nor "defending" Disco either and my opinions on the show are clear this forum. Good when it wants to be but has been shít; the Season 2 finale was garbage. What I'm appealing for is "wait and see" before getting knickers in a twist because of intentional progressive casting. So don't escalate the debate with needless sniping thanks.

Evade · 03-09-2020 6:12pm

You don't have to consciously think of yourself as a bad writer to be one. You can think you're the bees knees and be the most hack, cliched writer in existence.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 6:26pm

Evade wrote: »

You don't have to consciously think of yourself as a bad writer to be one. You can think you're the bees knees and be the most hack, cliched writer in existence.

I think I said as much? But I don't think any writer ever uses identity or some character choice to "substitute" or avoid criticism of work. Which seems to be your point; that writers here use identity to paper over deficiencies in structure. Just can't see any writers room doing that because it requires the writers knowing they're making shít but use identity to smoke n' mirrors their way out of criticism

What I do see in my mind, is the writers room using Big Emotional Moments rather than character groundwork; the big swell of music and teary confession in lieu of actual arcs or some path that earned that moment. The Spock / Burnham "conflict" was a big example of that. And that's a problem with blockbuster writing in general, not unique to Trk.

Edit: oh and going by my own experience and those of writers I've met - few ever think we're awesome. We almost always hate our own work

TheIrishGrover · 03-09-2020 6:30pm

Goodshape wrote: »

That bloody woke rubbish? Black captain (single dad no less!), female first officer, some gender-swapping "Trill". UGH.

Absolutely ****e anyway. Stuck on a space station soap-opera rubbish. It's a sad reflection on TOS and TNG.

:pac:

Justin Credible Darts · 03-09-2020 6:39pm

pixelburp wrote: »

What I'm appealing for is "wait and see" before getting knickers in a twist because of intentional progressive casting. So don't escalate the debate with needless sniping thanks.

so giving a job to someone with no acting experience of this level just to be pc did not happen then ?

RonanG86 · 03-09-2020 6:44pm

Blazer wrote: »

Saru has had an excellent character development so obviously someone can write over there but what the hell are the rest doing.

I thought Saru's character development was a joke. I wanted him to gradually marry his racially instinctive caution with a need to be more assertive in order to figuratively evolve into a strong enough character to be captain. But at the same time not completely abandon his prey instincts in order to protect his crew.

Whilst we saw some of this in season 1, rather than continue it naturally in season 2, they had him physiologically "evolve"* into a predatory version his species where he loses all his fears overnight, gains the ability to fire bone darts and goes on about how powerful he feels.

Obviously having him develop over time became too subtle for writing staff and they wanted to flick a switch. A waste, imo.

(*Actually what he did was reach a level of maturity for his species that had previously been repressed by the Ba'ul, but they said "evolve" because either the writers don't understand what science is or have been playing too much Pokemon.)

As for the general (ie. I'm not picking at any one person here) arguments around Disco around diversity, "wokeness", or "virtue signalling" or whatever your preferred term is:

1) It's Star Trek, it's been an intentionally left-wing IP since inception, that's prided itself on showing people from all backgrounds working as one. Having a transgendered or non-binary individual now, is the same as having a black woman on TV doing a technical job instead of serving tea in the 1960s. When you look at Rand and the ditching of Number One due to network pressure, it was arguably a big deal having a woman of any colour use a computer the bridge of a starship. Even if she was just answering the space telephone.

2) It's irrelevant to Disco's quality anyway, imo. Simply put, if you turned all the cast into white cisgendered men, with a couple of women dotted in so there'd be no homo, the story would be nearly identical and I'm fairly sure it'd still be terrible.
A hypothetical white male Michael Burnham who is Spock's previously not spoken about foster brother who acts like he's the center of the universe, and is constantly validated in this belief by the story, is as unrelatable a character as the black female one.
The diversity of the cast doesn't impact lazy ass writing, undermining pre-existing canon (and then trying to fix it by never speaking of the real Seymour Skinner again), failure to grasp basic scientific concepts like "space is big", and the determination to turn the largely positive and optomistic universe of Star Trek into a miserable, grimdark horror show.

I haven't decide if I'll watch S3 yet. I stayed on board with it after S1 because I was interested in following the development of Stamets, Tilly & Saru as characters. But, as I said above, they flicked a switch on Saru, put Stamets into an annoying melodrama with mycelial Culber and turned Tilly's neuroses all the way up to 11, and then sort of pushed her into the background cos they didn't know what to do with her in the state.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 6:47pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

so giving a job to someone with no acting experience of this level just to be pc did not happen then ?

So you're agreeing with me then; cool! That we should wait and see if this new actor is any good and what their character is like. Given we know nothing of their talents or otherwise.

Hardly the first production to give an important role to an actor with little or no experience. Everyone has to start somewhere and we're hardly talking about the captain's chair here.

Justin Credible Darts · 03-09-2020 6:57pm

pixelburp wrote: »

So you're agreeing with me then; cool! That we should wait and see if this new actor is any good and what their character is like. Given we know nothing of their talents or otherwise.

Hardly the first production to give an important role to an actor with little or no experience. Everyone has to start somewhere and we're hardly talking about the captain's chair here.

Well done on completely missing the point.

The person with zero experience was not hired on ability, but because they tick pc boxes.

Making characters to suit the actors is the arse backwards way of doing things.

Evade · 03-09-2020 7:05pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think I said as much? But I don't think any writer ever uses identity or some character choice to "substitute" or avoid criticism of work. Which seems to be your point; that writers here use identity to paper over deficiencies in structure. Just can't see any writers room doing that because it requires the writers knowing they're making shít but use identity to smoke n' mirrors their way out of criticism

I see what you meant now. Putting on my hyper cynic misanthrope hat for a second, I do think sometimes people know they're making **** and keep doing it because it pays the bills and I think someone in that position will play dirty to deflect criticism. The notion of every creative being very passionate about every job they do is more than a little naive.

pixelburp wrote: »

What I do see in my mind, is the writers room using Big Emotional Moments rather than character groundwork; the big swell of music and teary confession in lieu of actual arcs or some path that earned that moment. The Spock / Burnham "conflict" was a big example of that. And that's a problem with blockbuster writing in general, not unique to Trk.

Can't argue with that.

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 7:25pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Well done on completely missing the point.

The person with zero experience was not hired on ability, but because they tick pc boxes.

Making characters to suit the actors is the arse backwards way of doing things.

Oh I know what you're saying, I was just pulling your leg in an attempt to show a different perspective. I don't doubt the motivations, they're fairly transparent but it's still "wait n see" no matter how annoyed you're determined to be.

And if the casting is for a few more bridge nobodies, all this huff and puff will feel further pointless

pixelburp · 03-09-2020 8:37pm

Evade wrote: »

I see what you meant now. Putting on my hyper cynic misanthrope hat for a second, I do think sometimes people know they're making **** and keep doing it because it pays the bills and I think someone in that position will play dirty to deflect criticism. The notion of every creative being very passionate about every job they do is more than a little naive.

Oh there are jobsworths out there, no question and plenty of hacks who'll stick to tropes and clichés. No more than any other profession really: not everyone wants to create a masterwork, only earn any easy pay-cheque. Nothing wrong with that of course. Plenty of those too in Hollywood from writing to directing; while the likes of Kurtzmann probably suffers from simple Dunning Kruger and overestimates his ability. But either way, I don't buy that even common hack writers are Machiavellian enough to hide bad work with arbitrary casting decisions.

More to the point, I'd debate if writers even have that power to dictate demographics anyway; I'm not that up to speed with TV production but I'd not be surprised if the writers room have the casting given as a done deal, via the producers or casting director. Especially for extras or walk on parts. Unless the part is kinda immovable regarding race or gender in concept, scripts are probably written completely abstract, casting wise. But that's a guess.

TheIrishGrover · 03-09-2020 9:14pm

I didn't look at this thread really (Apart from that funny DS9 one above). But I assume it's gone along the lines of "Woke" "Feminazi" "Pandering" "Kathleen Kenedy ruined it (Oh wait, wrong Franchise)" "Inside info that it's already been cancelled" "They are gonna suck" "Not My Trek" "Make Trek Great Again" "PC gone mad" Yadda yadda yadda yadda.

All of course within minutes of hearing announcement and without seeing a second of footage of the characters. For a show that is (rightly or wrongly) praised for its openmindedness and progressive thinking it's amazing how this contrasts with so many of its "fans"

For one, I'll wait to see before I make judgement. Radical as that thought is.

Evade · 03-09-2020 9:21pm

pixelburp wrote: »

More to the point, I'd debate if writers even have that power to dictate demographics anyway; I'm not that up to speed with TV production but I'd not be surprised if the writers room have the casting given as a done deal, via the producers or casting director. Especially for extras or walk on parts. Unless the part is kinda immovable regarding race or gender in concept, scripts are probably written completely abstract, casting wise. But that's a guess.

From what I understand of US TV production full time writers and producers tend to overlap quite a bit so they do have some influence. And even if it was just a one off paid script a simple tweet from the original writer saying "I wrote x as gay but they changed it" is not worth the hassle for most companies.

Evade · 03-09-2020 9:24pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I didn't look at this thread really (Apart from that funny DS9 one above). But I assume it's gone along the lines of "Woke" "Feminazi" "Pandering" "Kathleen Kenedy ruined it (Oh wait, wrong Franchise)" "Inside info that it's already been cancelled" "They are gonna suck" "Not My Trek" "Make Trek Great Again" "PC gone mad" Yadda yadda yadda yadda.

All of course within minutes of hearing announcement and without seeing a second of footage of the characters. For a show that is (rightly or wrongly) praised for its openmindedness and progressive thinking it's amazing how this contrasts with so many of its "fans"

For one, I'll wait to see before I make judgement. Radical as that thought is.

I also have a radical thought, maybe read the last two pages of the thread before you put too much straw in that man.

Blazer · 03-09-2020 11:28pm

Inviere wrote: »

Every single character in DS9 was well developed, and had meaning. What they are, who they are, what colour, race, creed, or sex they were was made irrelevant because of that...

I think he was just having a laugh.

murpho999 · 03-09-2020 11:37pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm reading complaints about virtue signalling, woke credentials and pandering; exact words. Caused by a marketing promo. So no, I don't think it's completely uncharitable. Not a universal sentiment to be fair & not aimed at those merely "hmmm"ing at the news, but it's the same theme

I'll admit it's the usual reaction to anything vaguely progressive in terms of casting; there's usually a pushback with the mentioned buzzwords; woke this, PC that. It's not exclusive to Trek.

And let's be honest, at Season 3, minds are made up. This show is pure marmite and if something like progressive casting is something that rankles or annoys - well it's just another reason to hate the show. Woke'ness as further corruption.

So yes, I think there is something of a presumption that intentional casting somehow subverts or corrupts writing; that the choice can only ever be binary.

This should be a "wait and see" scenario but doesn't seem like the prevailing mood.

The problem for me with the show is that it has gone all poitiical and acting as a social justice warrior.

The shows main protagonist is female and black. No other series had a main protagonist before but a collection of characters.

I would not say that Picard, Kirk, Sisko or Janeway were the main protaginists of their shows it was about the whole crew.

The leader of the Klingons who have always been male dominated is now female.
Any white male straight character is ultimately a bad person.

They have included a gay couple in it just for the sake of it. Even at the end of Picard they showed 7 of 9 as being in a gay relationship with other annoying shipmate despite having zero connection with her in previous episodes or being shown as liking ladies in previous episodes of Picard or Voyager. It was just thrown in to show how politically correct they are.

Now the show is pre-announcing a non binary character. Why?

Why not just let the character be introduced in the show and then develop their character and let viewers learn and discover about their sexuality as part of the story?
But no, STD don't do character development like ST used to. It's all about being modern and dark and pushing political agendas and sexualities.

The new producers of this show do not get Star Trek or its morals or values.
They also don't get how the show should be about good stories, characters and entertainment.
Now they're just dark, long story arcs based on social justice and empowered women.

It's just wrong and it's a shame as Star Trek (I'm currently binging DS9 and loving it) has given me some of the greatest entertainment and thought provoking TV moments of my life.

AllForIt · 03-09-2020 11:54pm

^^ I think you do have a point. I would argue all the 'progressive' characters are 'the goodies'. They're not the baddies.

No problem with having them in the show, but they could do it without it looking so forced. Not that big of a deal, it's just that as I say it all seems a bit too obvious, and it's just a bit of a distraction.

Garak of DS9 was a bit on the camp side, him being a dressmaker as well, and I always though he was inferred to be gay, but in one episode he did have a female love interest. I was personally a bit disappointed by that because I read it all wrong. If he was gay that would be the way to do it, not make a big deal of it, not make it so important. It's just a trait rather than anything more serious.

Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Comments

Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]