(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[Spaceboytg]

Ok yeah this one is trash. Possibly one of the worst Trek episodes ever made.

How do you think it stacks up against this gem?:



I think people easily forget that Trek has a small handful of the sublime, a smattering of the very good, a good number of watchable, and still too many of the not-so-great to utterly-terrible. Discovery is NOWHERE near as bad as people in this thread try to make it out to be, despite their picking of every possible nit. If you treated the entirety of TNG the way people in this thread treat Discovery (and people did, in the 80s) then even the very best can be made out to be implausible, silly, outrageous and ... when compared to TOS, most decidedly NOT TREK.

Disco has some meh episodes, some silly plot contrivances, and cases of outright forgetting what just happened last week. It's also got some excellent episodes, some great action (something 90s Trek absolutely lacked) and it's own stories to tell. The episode of Adira remembering how she was joined ranks right up there for me with The Measure of a Man for telling a worthy story that reflects our own society.

If I wanted I could bash every Trek, every Star Wars, every MCU movie that's ever been made in some way or another. Instead I just enjoy them all and find joy in my fandoms. I don't know what most of the people in these threads get out of their film-watching, but it doesn't seem very fun to me.

[Wilfire]

Disco would be nicer if it didn't have Burnham doing her agitated whispering thing in every scene. Normal people don't talk like that.

[Spaceboytg]

Actually, in that vein here's a nice slice of terrible from Trek's past all neatly wrapped up in one article

Top 10 Least Threatening Star Trek Villains

[Biomega]

I think people easily forget that Trek has a small handful of the sublime, a smattering of the very good, a good number of watchable, and still too many of the not-so-great to utterly-terrible.

Primarily a TNG problem, I feel. Highest highs and lowest lows, all rolled into one. Things got more consistent after that, but yeah, shows like VOY also have their share of utter shite.

Discovery is NOWHERE near as bad as people in this thread try to make it out to be, despite their picking of every possible nit. If you treated the entirety of TNG the way people in this thread treat Discovery (and people did, in the 80s) then even the very best can be made out to be implausible, silly, outrageous and ... when compared to TOS, most decidedly NOT TREK.

Disco has some meh episodes, some silly plot contrivances, and cases of outright forgetting what just happened last week. It's also got some excellent episodes, some great action (something 90s Trek absolutely lacked) and it's own stories to tell.

To me, I just didn't find anything DIS did interesting or engaging, or even particularly entertaining. None of the characters interest me, the plot lines seemed mostly boring or contrived, and the aesthetic is, to me, simply off-putting. It doesn't FEEL like Star Trek to me, it feels like some other vaguely similar SF show, and I was never interested in stuff like the new Battlestar Galactica either. Maybe that's just personal, could well simply come down to taste.

[Spaceboytg]

Disco would be nicer if it didn't have Burnham doing her agitated whispering thing in every scene. Normal people don't talk like that.

Did you just discover TV?

'Cause no one talks like people on TV do. Any TV show. Or movie. No one. Not even the news. Fuck, there's an entire website devoted to TV Tropes.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, I just didn't find anything DIS did interesting or engaging, or even particularly entertaining. None of the characters interest me, the plot lines seemed mostly boring or contrived, and the aesthetic is, to me, simply off-putting. It doesn't FEEL like Star Trek to me, it feels like some other vaguely similar SF show, and I was never interested in stuff like the new Battlestar Galactica either. Maybe that's just personal, could well simply come down to taste.

Nothing wrong with that. If the show doesn't grab you, it doesn't grab you. And like I said, LOTS of people in the 80s felt exactly the same way about TNG. I'll never excoriate someone for stating how something feels to them personally, I only get upset when people try to impose their feelings on reality. Like saying only two characters on Discovery have gotten character development or Burnham does the whisper thing in every scene. Things like that are just absolute bullshit.

I can't stand the Star Wars prequels. They feel slow and unlike the original trilogy in every way to me. But I understand they were made for a new audience that would not have enjoyed the original trilogy in the way I did. Movies and TV are a product of their time and speak to an audience of that time. You can either hop along for the ride or walk away and find something that does appeal to you. To me, all the bitching about Disco and The Last Jedi and even The Phantom Menace all amount to nothing more than "back in my day ... !!!" If I don't like something I don't spend all my time talking about how awful it is and hate-watch it. I just move on to something I do enjoy.

[Ara Myrr]

Character Development:

And considered one of the worst episodes ever, that's not news.

For both of these: they're episodes, not a whole season. Whatever their flaws, they didn't carry over to the next episode.

[Elim Garak]

We are talking character development, not "which series had which bad episodes"

[Saltysquidoon]

I think people easily forget that Trek has a small handful of the sublime, a smattering of the very good, a good number of watchable, and still too many of the not-so-great to utterly-terrible. Discovery is NOWHERE near as bad as people in this thread try to make it out to be, despite their picking of every possible nit. If you treated the entirety of TNG the way people in this thread treat Discovery (and people did, in the 80s) then even the very best can be made out to be implausible, silly, outrageous and ... when compared to TOS, most decidedly NOT TREK.

When you have 25 episodes in a season and 3 are great, 12 are good/watchable, 7 are bad/filler/forgettable and 3 are 'what were they thinking' tier on the whole you have a better season where 3 episodes were good, 2 were inoffensive and 8 were bad. Although obviously at the cost of more of your time.

Discovery's main structural issue (all other terrible problems aside) has always been episode count. Half the appeal of Trek is knowing the characters and being interested in how that character responds to the situation (e.g how Genocide responds to the ship being compromised compared to Picard). When you only have 13 episodes you're trying to cram character building in with the plot and ultimately both suffer.
I know it's a meme but the bridge crew is a perfect example, in every other show they were the show, in discovery they unironically didn't have names (said in the show) till season three and I bet most people still don't know their names.

[Spaceboytg]

I know it's a meme but the bridge crew is a perfect example, in every other show they were the show, in discovery they unironically didn't have names (said in the show) till season three and I bet most people still don't know their names.

This is balderdash. We knew most of their names in season 1 if you were paying attention and they literally did a roll call in the first episode of season 2. If you don't know their names, that's on you.

Now, using only what was shown in episodes of TOS tell me everything there is to know about Uhura. How about Sulu? Other than "he can fence". What character development did Chekov get? Where did any of them grow up?

By contrast, in Discovery we find out the Owo grew up in an atheistic, Luddite community. She's also close friends with Tilly, Detmer and (sadly) Airiam. She is also an accomplished free diver.

Here, I'll make it even easier. These are characters that get ANY airtime repeatedly with speaking parts:

Recurring Cast of TOS: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Chapel, Rand.
total: 9

Recurring Cast of TNG: Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, LaForge, Yar, Troi, Crusher, Barclay, Pulaski, Guinan
total: 11

Recurring Cast of DS9: Sisko, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Dax x2, Odo, Quark, Nog, Rom, Leeta, Jake
total: 12

Recurring Cast of Voyager: Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Torres, Kim, Tuvok, Neelix, Kes, Seven, EMH
total:10

Recurring Cast of Discovery: Burnham, Lorca, Giorgiou x2, Tilly, Stamets, Saru, Tyler, L'rel, Pike, Spock, Cornwell, Culber, Reno, Vance, Book, Adira, Gray, Osyrrah, Ryn, Owosekun, Detmer, Airiam, Landry, Nhan, Sarek, Amanda
total: 27

And that's just off the top of my head. The fact that you can't remember their names or anything about them is a YOU problem, not a show problem. I enjoy the show so I remember them and pay attention.

Now, maybe you could make the argument that so many characters makes it harder to give each decent screen time ... but the truth is that in TOS, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, and all it was mostly about maybe three characters while the rest got individual opportunities to shine. Just like in Discovery. Contrary to claims, it's not "The Burnham show" even if it does center around her. But was TOS any less centered around Kirk? Was TNG any less centered around Picard? How about DS9 and Sisko, or Voyager and Janeway? There's ALWAYS the "main character".

[Ivanstone]

Here, I'll make it even easier. These are characters that get ANY airtime repeatedly with speaking parts:

Why you no like ENT?!?!?!

Recurring Cast of TOS: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Chapel, Rand.
total: 9

I should point out something about TOS that people continually forget. It had only two Main Cast actors: Shatner and Nimoy. Kelley was elevated to Main Cast in the second season. Most episodes will revolve around these three characters.

Everyone else is a recurring character to one degree or another. Scotty is probably the most developed. The rest had talking parts but how much were they really given to do? Not as much as they should've. Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Chapel all did less than any main cast TNG crew. Pulaski got more development than all of them and she was only around for 1 season.

[Ara Myrr]

Recurring Cast of TOS: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Chapel, Rand.
total: 9

Recurring Cast of TNG: Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, LaForge, Yar, Troi, Crusher, Barclay, Pulaski, Guinan
total: 11

Recurring Cast of DS9: Sisko, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Dax x2, Odo, Quark, Nog, Rom, Leeta, Jake
total: 12

Recurring Cast of Voyager: Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Torres, Kim, Tuvok, Neelix, Kes, Seven, EMH
total:10

The overwhelming majority of all these characters had at least one or multiple episodes center around them and lived for the duration of their respective series.

Recurring Cast of Discovery: Burnham, Lorca, Giorgiou x2, Tilly, Stamets, Saru, Tyler, L'rel, Pike, Spock, Cornwell, Culber, Reno, Vance, Book, Adira, Gray, Osyrrah, Ryn, Owosekun, Detmer, Airiam, Landry, Nhan, Sarek, Amanda
total: 27

Which frankly cannot be said about disco's cast, a fair number of them have either been killed off or written out of the show. Or, like Owo/Detmer etc get a line every now and then and that's it.

btw, you forgot Rhys, Bryce & Linus. Thought you knew the names?

[Ivanstone]

Which frankly cannot be said about disco's cast, a fair number of them have either been killed off or written out of the show. Or, like Owo/Detmer etc get a line every now and then and that's it.

btw, you forgot Rhys, Bryce & Linus. Thought you knew the names?

Recurring characters are going to have less development than main cast characters. Even more so in shorter seasons. I really don't see why this is controversial.

Ensign Gates was TNG Helmsmen, has 47 appearances and never spoke a line that I can think of. The DSC recurring bridge members generally have had it better than poor Mayweather ever did.

[Elim Garak]

Again. Character development! Not how many characters there were, how main they were, and whose names we can remember.

[Spaceboytg]

btw, you forgot Rhys, Bryce & Linus. Thought you knew the names?

I intentionally left them out because these few have really done not much more than respond as appropriate to their bridge station and been present for things that have happened. Would have felt like I was padding it out to add them in. But I do know their names :P

I'm more surprised that anyone hasn't complained about who I've left out in the other shows. Why no outcry for Alexander?!

Again. Character development! Not how many characters there were, how main they were, and whose names we can remember.

I'll ask the question again, since you have steadily ignored it: What character development was there for Chekov? Uhura? Sulu, beyond "he can fence"?

And also, yet again, if you think there's been no character development in Discovery then that's only because you're not paying attention. People bitch about Tilly being made First Officer ... but it's been a development for that character and she's had to reckon with her failure at it. Season 4 may explore that further. And goddamn, how could you have missed all the development of Saru? His home planet has figured in mightily in the last two seasons. His journey from second officer to XO to Captain has been a large focus of the show. What about Culber? He came back from being fridged and grappled with how he felt about being resurrected and is now moving into a very modern version of a family with Stamets, Adira, and Gray. We learned quite a lot about Book this season and his people, including an episode that featured him while still developing the threat of the Emerald Chain.

I'm sorry, but to claim there's been no character development only tells me you're hate-watching and not paying attention to anything other than the nits you think you can pick.

[Elim Garak]

I'll ask the question again, since you have steadily ignored it: What character development was there for Chekov? Uhura? Sulu, beyond "he can fence"?

I didn't watch TOS, so I don't know. Better to look at more successful series than TOS, anyway.

And also, yet again, if you think there's been no character development in Discovery then that's only because you're not paying attention. People bitch about Tilly being made First Officer ... but it's been a development for that character and she's had to reckon with her failure at it. Season 4 may explore that further. And goddamn, how could you have missed all the development of Saru? His home planet has figured in mightily in the last two seasons. His journey from second officer to XO to Captain has been a large focus of the show. What about Culber? He came back from being fridged and grappled with how he felt about being resurrected and is now moving into a very modern version of a family with Stamets, Adira, and Gray. We learned quite a lot about Book this season and his people, including an episode that featured him while still developing the threat of the Emerald Chain.

You are describing events that happened to characters, not character development. A lot has happened to Tilly - Tilly didn't develop, Culber came back from the dead - still the same Culber, still the same relationship with Stamets, Adira, and Gray - are new characters that had no development yet. Saru's species development was cool, but he is still the same Saru. Hell, even the She-Michael had no development, still the same person. Book? What about him? A new character, no development yet. Learning a character's history is not character development.

I'm sorry, but to claim there's been no character development only tells me you're hate-watching and not paying attention to anything other than the nits you think you can pick.

I didn't claim there's no character development. I said there's very little of it.

[Ara Myrr]

I intentionally left them out because these few have really done not much more than respond as appropriate to their bridge station and been present for things that have happened.

I'm done. No point arguing with you.

I'll ask the question again, since you have steadily ignored it: What character development was there for Chekov? Uhura? Sulu, beyond "he can fence"?

Stop using TOS as an argument. You're comparing a show made 50 years ago with comparatively less than a quarter of the budget to the one made today. Audience expectations are different.

Recurring characters are going to have less development than main cast characters. Even more so in shorter seasons. I really don't see why this is controversial.

Ensign Gates was TNG Helmsmen, has 47 appearances and never spoke a line that I can think of. The DSC recurring bridge members generally have had it better than poor Mayweather ever did.

Gates wasn't part of the main cast and was simply a background character, a substitute for when one of the mains wasn't on the bridge for whatever reason.

Detmer & Owo are given screen time despite basically serving the same purpose. Detmer suddenly being an elite pilot capable of flying an alien ship a millennia more advanced (nevermind dealing with an unresolved case of PTSD) then Discovery and taking on Osyrah's flagship, like.. where did that come from?

[Ivanstone]

Gates wasn't part of the main cast and was simply a background character, a substitute for when one of the mains wasn't on the bridge for whatever reason.

Detmer & Owo are given screen time despite basically serving the same purpose.

And yet she still had a lot of screen time. How do we know she deserves to be there? Taking the helm of the Federation's most important ships! She wasn't taking the place of a main cast character. None of TNG's main cast was a Helmsmen. Sulu, Paris, Mayweather and Detmer all have the specific duty of Helmsman. No equivalent cast member did the same on TNG.

So fucking what? They're still bit characters played by fresh actors. Hell DSC taking a bit of time to flesh out the no-name crew we always see in the background is actually a plus.

Detmer suddenly being an elite pilot capable of flying an alien ship a millennia more advanced (nevermind dealing with an unresolved case of PTSD) then Discovery and taking on Osyrah's flagship, like.. where did that come from?

You don't pay attention do you? It was all stated before hand. How the controls work, the inside information they had, the direction of someone else and last but certainly not least, Starfleet Fucking Academy.

[Spaceboytg]

I didn't watch TOS, so I don't know. Better to look at more successful series than TOS, anyway.

"Stop pointing out the thing that refutes me easily. Use only the things I think help my case"

You are describing events that happened to characters, not character development.

Go back to the salamanders. What did that change for Janeway and Paris? When was it later referenced? How did it change them?

It didn't. Nothing ever did. Outside of Seven and maybe Data no Star Trek character ever really grew over the course of a series (can't speak for Enterprise, never watched it yet). Which, of course, is because they were episodic and you couldn't change the characters from week to week without leaving the viewers behind. DS9 went more serialized and got away with it to a degree (especially with Nog) because of that decision but it lost viewers badly because of it. Discovery actually has more character development than any of the other series despite you choosing to believe that Saru moving up the chain of command and changing because of it every time isn't development somehow.

I'm done. No point arguing with you.

Good. I'm quite exhausted with you haters. If I can exhaust you in return maybe this thread can turn into people talking about the show with joy rather than hate-boners

Stop using TOS as an argument. You're comparing a show made 50 years ago with comparatively less than a quarter of the budget to the one made today. Audience expectations are different.

Ah, another "stop referencing that which refutes me!" argument. TOS IS Star Trek. It's the most purest form as it was the first. With this argument you all but admit you just want the Trek of your youth only (80s-90s TNG/DS9/Voy) and will dislike anything different.

But your right, partly. Audience expectations HAVE changed ... which is why we have Discovery and Picard and not TNG Remix and Deep Space 10 This is Star Trek for todays audience, just like TNG was for a 1987 audience and TOS was for a 1966 audience.

- - - Updated - - -

Learning a character's history is not character development.

This must be why Tapestry is one of the most boring of TNG episodes of all time, right? Learning about Picard's history and how it affected him does nothing to develop his character, I guess. And it was never even referenced again (episodic nature and all) so it can't be important! Even though Book's history is referenced more than once, it's clearly not important to understanding the character and developing him, as you say. Plus, he's NEW! So he doesn't even count!

[Ivanstone]

Which, of course, is because they were episodic and you couldn't change the characters from week to week without leaving the viewers behind.

But your right, partly. Audience expectations HAVE changed ... which is why we have Discovery and Picard and not TNG Remix and Deep Space 10 This is Star Trek for todays audience, just like TNG was for a 1987 audience and TOS was for a 1966 audience.

Very often the people who wield the "Character Development Cudgel" aren't interested in character development, they just want something to bash things they don't like. Picard really didn't have that much development but he was still a great character.

Unfortunately that is the problem with DSC. It started off as an action-adventure in space show and is still sometimes exactly that. I still expect certain things like exploring the shit out of stuff and diplomating the shit out of stuff and general weirdness. The occasional poisoned crossbow shooting or doublehand hammer fisting is fine.

[Ara Myrr]

"Stop pointing out the thing that refutes me easily. Use only the things I think help my case"

Oh dear god, the projection is real.