(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[Koriani]

Yea that's the problem..

The show takes no risks - everyone "important" in more than a single episode - has come back.

Pike can't come back because the actor left the show, so they had to wind him up one way or another - and I always expected him to end up in the chair as every other ST storyline *always* ends with Pike in the chair; that's not changed. LOL

So no, they aren't about to write off the star of the show after two seasons. She's not dying. Sorry. I wish the show wasn't so safe, but it is. Whether its a good idea or not - they've turned ST into the Burnham story, so they aren't about to kill her off.

So whether the entire 3rd season becomes a redo of ST:Voyager (For the Discovery half of the story), while the Enterprise tries to "find" them lost in the wheres/whens or whether that gets resolved 3rd Season 1st Episode remains to be seen. Hell, we could wind up exactly where Season 1 Episode 1 started - only with a parallel universe Empress Captaining the Discovery (original character parallel character lol), and the characters on loan from Enterprise are back on Enterprise to only make guest plot appearances... (I hear Robot Chicken voice: "What a Twist!")

Or as the above poster suggested - ST:Voyager: The Burnham Years and just leave the native timeline universe behind entirely. Again.


Me and hubby have enjoyed the show - but much more popcorn-fun (I.e. no brain cells involved) than all the prior Trek series. CGI is awesome, but the ability for the writers to write for an ensemble cast is poo - they don't seem to know how to break out of a mostly-single-character story arc. At least First Season included more of everyone, even if it started with the shark-jumping plot of parallel universes. But unlike old star trek - no risk in the stories - all tension is gone outside of "how are they gonna wind up this problem in an hour" because we know they will and we know no one we know will die, at least for long.

:/

CGI won't hold it forever...

[Mavick]

Yea that's the problem..

The show takes no risks - everyone "important" in more than a single episode - has come back.

Pike can't come back because the actor left the show, so they had to wind him up one way or another - and I always expected him to end up in the chair as every other ST storyline *always* ends with Pike in the chair; that's not changed. LOL

So no, they aren't about to write off the star of the show after two seasons. She's not dying. Sorry. I wish the show wasn't so safe, but it is. Whether its a good idea or not - they've turned ST into the Burnham story, so they aren't about to kill her off.

So whether the entire 3rd season becomes a redo of ST:Voyager (For the Discovery half of the story), while the Enterprise tries to "find" them lost in the wheres/whens or whether that gets resolved 3rd Season 1st Episode remains to be seen. Hell, we could wind up exactly where Season 1 Episode 1 started - only with a parallel universe Empress Captaining the Discovery (original character parallel character lol), and the characters on loan from Enterprise are back on Enterprise to only make guest plot appearances... (I hear Robot Chicken voice: "What a Twist!")

Or as the above poster suggested - ST:Voyager: The Burnham Years and just leave the native timeline universe behind entirely. Again.


Me and hubby have enjoyed the show - but much more popcorn-fun (I.e. no brain cells involved) than all the prior Trek series. CGI is awesome, but the ability for the writers to write for an ensemble cast is poo - they don't seem to know how to break out of a mostly-single-character story arc. At least First Season included more of everyone, even if it started with the shark-jumping plot of parallel universes. But unlike old star trek - no risk in the stories - all tension is gone outside of "how are they gonna wind up this problem in an hour" because we know they will and we know no one we know will die, at least for long.

:/

CGI won't hold it forever...

"no risk" in the stories, after just completing a storyline involving the possibility of an AI wiping out all sentient life in the universe......

/rolleyes

[Koriani]

There's the plot given "risk" of the possibility of AI wiping out all sentient life in the universe... yes. Please tell me you're not that dense...

There's no feeling of "risk" watching the characters deal with their reality or even "risk" from the viewer worried about the death of favorite characters (or even bad consequences at this point lol).

Because so far in two seasons - no one "important" has died. There has been "risk" of death many times - that never came to fruition. Hell even Saru's "my species dies now" one arc episode - he didn't die. Not only did he not die - but he went back and, of course with Burnham to help, freed his entire species and lost no one important to him or the show. Also in a single episode.

That's no risk.

There's no risk when you know the writers aren't going to kill them off. So they can put "risk" in the plot - but when you know everyone's protected by plot armor - then there's no real risk that it won't turn out OK.

Putting this up against shows like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead - shows that not only kill major beloved characters but do so multiple times a season to the point that the joke meme is in the other direction - that is actual "risk" and "tension" that gets the viewer caring. Which is why this season of GoT has everyone who watches freaking out every episode and all personally involved and emotional - and ST: DISCO does not, even among its fans (here). I'm a fan. No risk. Not worried, at all. GoT? Much more engaging to watch.

That's the "Risk" I refer to. Not the plot risks, the viewers feelings of risk/tension as they watch the show.

Both styles have pros and cons - but, historically, ST has taken those risks - and has killed off characters. It makes a dramatic show (that involves people dying) better if there's some idea that maybe, just maybe, some XYZ favorite character might die - even if it only happens once a season.

This Star Trek - no risk. The characters they killed off, came back - one way or another. The only one that has stayed dead (so far) was the cyborgian woman who was the subject of the episode they killed her off in (cuz of course).

So no - even us fans sitting here watching the season finale - have no real "cliffhanger" feel. We aren't sitting on the edge of our seats, hoping XYZ will or will not die or whatever. Didn't watch a minute of the last two episodes worried any character we may care about would get significantly hurt or not be back next season (except for those we already knew left the show).

[Independent voter]

They killed off the first Captain of the Discovery.

[BeepBoo]

They killed off the first Captain of the Discovery.

And what a shame I really liked Lorca as a captain.

[Koriani]

Interesting, killing off someone I don't even remember being on the show last year =D What episode was that..2? Honestly, I don't even remember him being around!

I thought Georgiana was the first Captain of the Discovery? (WHo did die but then her parallel universe self came back so not really... to me that counts LOL).

[Endus]

Interesting, killing off someone I don't even remember being on the show last year =D What episode was that..2? Honestly, I don't even remember him being around!

I thought Georgiana was the first Captain of the Discovery? (WHo did die but then her parallel universe self came back so not really... to me that counts LOL).

Well, thanks for admitting you never watched the first season.

[Mavick]

There's the plot given "risk" of the possibility of AI wiping out all sentient life in the universe... yes. Please tell me you're not that dense...

There's no feeling of "risk" watching the characters deal with their reality or even "risk" from the viewer worried about the death of favorite characters (or even bad consequences at this point lol).

Because so far in two seasons - no one "important" has died. There has been "risk" of death many times - that never came to fruition. Hell even Saru's "my species dies now" one arc episode - he didn't die. Not only did he not die - but he went back and, of course with Burnham to help, freed his entire species and lost no one important to him or the show. Also in a single episode.

That's no risk.

There's no risk when you know the writers aren't going to kill them off. So they can put "risk" in the plot - but when you know everyone's protected by plot armor - then there's no real risk that it won't turn out OK.

Putting this up against shows like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead - shows that not only kill major beloved characters but do so multiple times a season to the point that the joke meme is in the other direction - that is actual "risk" and "tension" that gets the viewer caring. Which is why this season of GoT has everyone who watches freaking out every episode and all personally involved and emotional - and ST: DISCO does not, even among its fans (here). I'm a fan. No risk. Not worried, at all. GoT? Much more engaging to watch.

That's the "Risk" I refer to. Not the plot risks, the viewers feelings of risk/tension as they watch the show.

Both styles have pros and cons - but, historically, ST has taken those risks - and has killed off characters. It makes a dramatic show (that involves people dying) better if there's some idea that maybe, just maybe, some XYZ favorite character might die - even if it only happens once a season.

This Star Trek - no risk. The characters they killed off, came back - one way or another. The only one that has stayed dead (so far) was the cyborgian woman who was the subject of the episode they killed her off in (cuz of course).

So no - even us fans sitting here watching the season finale - have no real "cliffhanger" feel. We aren't sitting on the edge of our seats, hoping XYZ will or will not die or whatever. Didn't watch a minute of the last two episodes worried any character we may care about would get significantly hurt or not be back next season (except for those we already knew left the show).

It's honestly pretty absurd to insinuate that a show has to be famous for killing off important characters in order to make people "care" about them. You listed 2 shows that are famous for doing it while obviously ignoring hundreds of others that didn't. Just such a laughable criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, thanks for admitting you never watched the first season.

Exactly. If you don't remember Lorca there's no credible way you could convince me that you had any clue what happened in season 1.

It's completely fine to be critical of something, but not when it's just completely unfounded as has been all too common in this thread about this show. Too often it seems like people just repeating some shitty review/social commentary they found that lined up with their initial expectations of the show without actually knowing much about what actually happened on it.

[Mavick]

Game of throne literally ruined TV shows. Now everything has to be dark, edgy and full of twists (also boobs) other wise it isnt enjoyable.

Star trek is just the latest victim.

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty sure he was the second captain

Not familiar with the entire history of the ship itself, but in terms of the show he was the captain from the start. The other poster is confusing Captain Georgiou of the Shenzhou. And I'm pretty sure Discovery was a pretty new ship, because of the spore drive, and Lorca was indeed it's first captain.

[Endus]

True. The best captain in the series is a tie between Georgiou who was killed to soon and Saru. They are the only captains that actually embody the spirit of star trek.

Honestly, it's one reason I'm hoping S3 sees Saru as captain, flexing his new predatorial muscles. They eliminated the one issue that would have warranted keeping him out of the captain's chair, this season.

My main complaint about this series is it is too dark. Star trek was always about looking towards a brighter future despite adversity. Discovery just fails to capture that

I think this is mostly just cultural. The '60s, for TOS, were marked by a lot of internal strife; TOS was a look at a brighter tomorrow. TNG was set around the collapse of the USSR; we again needed to have some positive "where can we go from here" kind of fiction. Once we got into DS9 and Voyager, things had settled a fair bit in the real world, so people were hungry for more-challenging, darker stories. And we're still basically there, today. Nothing they've done with Discovery is really any darker than the Borg episodes in TNG, and definitely not even as dark as the Dominion War stuff in DS9. There was one "bad guy" this season; Control. Not even Section 31, just one rogue AI. Compared to DS9 showing the dark undertones in Starfleet itself, and the choices Sisko is forced into out on the edge of Federation space, I'd argue Discovery is lighter fare.

The big issue, I guess, is that the Federation of Discovery's era is already the shining beacon on the hill; there's little darkness for it to overcome. In S1, that darkness was the rise of the Klingon Empire, and it was resolved peacefully, in a way that made both sides uncomfortable allies; that's a really positive outcome. Second season's been challenging, but they're saving the galaxy as a whole. And seem to have done so, in the end. In both cases, it's preventing an encroaching darkness from taking root, rather than bringing light to an extant darkness, but I think the dark tone of the show is significantly oversold.

[Rampant Rabbit]

Pretty sure he was the second captain

Who would have been the first then?

[Mavick]

I'm looking forward to s3. I haven't disliked discovery. But it is just lacking in light hearted humor and episodes. It is all plot driven with no filler. Some of the best star trek episodes are filler. We have half as many episodes per season now.

Star trek never avoided getting dark. I mean Janeway was pretty close to committing genocide. But at the same time we had light hearted episodes that fleshed out the world and characters.

I guess my complaint isnt there arent episodes like in TNG where people get addicted to a stupid video game. Or like in ds9 where everyone is basically just hanging out because they might die or O'Brien is being tortured in some new and inventive way.

I miss the star trek that didnt have to drive the main plot forward constantly.

I guess it depends on your definition of filler. There were several episodes this season that revolved around them arriving at a signal, having no idea how what they're witnessing related to the signals and having to deal with a totally unexpected set of circumstances. Tho it all directly tied into the main plot at first they had that "filler episode" feel to them. Personally I'm much more of a fan of a driven over-arching storyline tho. My favorite episodes from all the previous Trek's are almost always the 2-part episodes dealing with a bigger story than could be handled in a single episode.

Additionally, I think that the long story archs were also a big part of DS9's success, and this feels closer to DS9 in that respect.

[rogueMatthias]

Not gonna lie, I've actually enjoyed season 2 a LOT more than season one.

Definitely still too much Burnham, and they need to flesh out the other characters a lot more, but on the whole its pretty enjoyable now.

[Rampant Rabbit]

Not gonna lie, I've actually enjoyed season 2 a LOT more than season one.

Definitely still too much Burnham, and they need to flesh out the other characters a lot more, but on the whole its pretty enjoyable now.

Same. Still too much quirky humor and 'intense' emotional moments and revelations though. You'd think the crew of one of the most advanced Starfleet vessels would be a bit more grounded..

[Gallahadd]

Definitely still too much Burnham, and they need to flesh out the other characters a lot more, but on the whole its pretty enjoyable now.

I’m hoping that with them now being stranded in the ass end of nowhere, they’ll take the time to get to know the full crew. We’ve had a few episodes based around the “core” cast: Tyler, Saru, Tilly, Stamets. But now I’d like to get to know the rest of the crew. Fill in the blanks, so to speak.

[Endus]

I’m hoping that with them now being stranded in the ass end of nowhere, they’ll take the time to get to know the full crew. We’ve had a few episodes based around the “core” cast: Tyler, Saru, Tilly, Stamets. But now I’d like to get to know the rest of the crew. Fill in the blanks, so to speak.

They've also taken away some of the "worse" storylines; as much as I like Culber as a character, he and Stamets were getting toxic, and they thankfully cleared that up before the jump. Tyler's left behind, thank god, and Burnham's never coming back, so that's a pretty final ending to their romantic entanglement, which was eh. It was the least interesting thing about the two of them, and its only purpose was the gut-punch when we learn Tyler is Voq. Also, no more Spock; as much as the actor was great in the role, they can end everything here and we can assume a year or three goes by before Pike's out and Kirk's in and TOS kicks off. Anson Mount's Pike was fantastic and I'd be up for a spinoff with him and Spock on the enterprise, but that's unrelated to Discovery at this point.

But yeah; it's a full Starfleet vessel. And they've got a skeleton crew. And tech that they can't risk getting into the wrong hands; both the sphere data AND the spore drive, so they won't be taking on a whole lot of future crew, I expect. We'll probably get to dig into the remaining cast a bit more, which is good. It might also be interesting to see if they take Discovery in a less Federation-standard direction; they've got space to spare, room for everyone to have spacious, luxurious quarters, potential to stretch out and personalize the ship, since it isn't officially Starfleet any more; it's officially destroyed and they're all officially dead. It's a chance to be what Voyager always should have been but generally failed to achieve.

[Gallahadd]

It's a chance to be what Voyager always should have been but generally failed to achieve.

Indeed, they’ve cut away so much dead weight, and they’ve totally changed the setting... this is the perfect chance to essentially soft reboot the series. They’ve now got endless potential and are far enough away from what we know that they’re not really bound by established canon (not that they ever really were XD). I have a feeling that season 3 is going to be a very different show, to what we’ve had before.

I’d like a more Farscape like feel too the show. Skeleton crew, on a ship they can’t quite handle, in an area where they don’t understand wtf is going on, and they’re just trying to survive.

I would also like a captain twist, like Farscape, where it’s NOT the plucky lead, but the alien best bro that ends up in charge. Saru is a fantastic character, and I think seeing him try to balance his new role with his new predatory instincts could lead to some very interesting plots.

[Koriani]

Well, thanks for admitting you never watched the first season.

I did. I watched it last year, as it came out. Sorry my memory isn't up to snuff.

So let's see.. that means Death of First Captain (who actually was a villian...)and Death of Cyborg lady.

- - - Updated - - -

They've also taken away some of the "worse" storylines; as much as I like Culber as a character, he and Stamets were getting toxic, and they thankfully cleared that up before the jump. Tyler's left behind, thank god, and Burnham's never coming back, so that's a pretty final ending to their romantic entanglement, which was eh. It was the least interesting thing about the two of them, and its only purpose was the gut-punch when we learn Tyler is Voq. Also, no more Spock; as much as the actor was great in the role, they can end everything here and we can assume a year or three goes by before Pike's out and Kirk's in and TOS kicks off. Anson Mount's Pike was fantastic and I'd be up for a spinoff with him and Spock on the enterprise, but that's unrelated to Discovery at this point.

But yeah; it's a full Starfleet vessel. And they've got a skeleton crew. And tech that they can't risk getting into the wrong hands; both the sphere data AND the spore drive, so they won't be taking on a whole lot of future crew, I expect. We'll probably get to dig into the remaining cast a bit more, which is good. It might also be interesting to see if they take Discovery in a less Federation-standard direction; they've got space to spare, room for everyone to have spacious, luxurious quarters, potential to stretch out and personalize the ship, since it isn't officially Starfleet any more; it's officially destroyed and they're all officially dead. It's a chance to be what Voyager always should have been but generally failed to achieve.

We can hope.

I just don't see the writers of the last two seasons pulling that off. I HOPE they do. It could otherwise be such a great show, if they could tighten up some of these bigger issues. I for one will be thrilled to see if they can pull of "Its not about Burnham" Star Trek now... if I allow myself to believe she's actually really gone. Which I don't believe yet =D

They had a chance first season to take this show in a whole other direction - as they had already jumped universes (achieving the same thing jumping timeline does), and they took that nowhere.

I'll be pleasantly and happily surprised if they actually soft-reboot this into the better version of Voyager. I won't be shocked at all if 3 episodes into Season 3 somehow everyone comes back to the "original" (Season 2) timeline and its all made better...

I do hope to be surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

It's honestly pretty absurd to insinuate that a show has to be famous for killing off important characters in order to make people "care" about them. You listed 2 shows that are famous for doing it while obviously ignoring hundreds of others that didn't. Just such a laughable criticism.

No, I didn't say that. I just used those examples of well known shows that do that. Honestly, I think TWD has gone way overboard - which has resulted in the same problem as killing no one off. Instead of not feeling the tension because you know XYZ is safe, you don't feel it because no one left has enough development to give a shit what happens to them. =D

Tons of excellent tv shows, and dramas, exist without killing people off. So no, I don't feel that's required.

I do feel some sort of consequence is required for any show that builds almost every episode around putting major characters in mortal danger, only to 99.9% of the time, make it so that whatever consequence a character suffered is undone.

And i'm not saying its a horrible show, in the first place. Just that, for me, because the formula is so "old", and because this particular series seems to like to make each mortal danger scenario even more mortally-dangerous-impossible-sounding then the one before - it gets just as old as the trope is. Disappointing to see CBS choosing to go that way, vs. another way.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. If you don't remember Lorca there's no credible way you could convince me that you had any clue what happened in season 1.

It's completely fine to be critical of something, but not when it's just completely unfounded as has been all too common in this thread about this show. Too often it seems like people just repeating some shitty review/social commentary they found that lined up with their initial expectations of the show without actually knowing much about what actually happened on it.

[/quote]

Once Lorca was revealed to not be Lorca but instead an alternate-universe-version that was never the original character - he no longer mattered to me. (ooh what a twist! *Robot Chicken Voice*) He became a standard villain and of course, he was going to die. I dont get why that would confuse or upset anyone.

The only expectation I had was that this was going to be crapola (cuz CBS put it online only) and, like Enterprise and other false starts for Star Trek - end up being nothing much. This is actually the FIRST and ONLY thread I've read about STISCO - sorry if you feel I'm echoing other things you care about reading. Because I don't care - about reviews and all that. I watch the show because we decided we liked it and it was good enough to keep watching. So far.

And I WAS pleasantly surprised about that.

But if you just want an echo chamber - why are you here? I can be critical and feel that all the parallel-universe character hopping (regardless of how much I may like some of those characters - lookin at you crazy empress georgiana) storyline is cop-out crap. That a person who was actually a villian - getting killed off - isn't saying anything about RISK to the REAL characters of the show. To me its crappy writing gimmick - and, to me, - there's been way too much of that in these two seasons. Lots of gimmicks without letting characters play out real loss and change - which would lead them to actual character growth.

We (hubby and I) still enjoy the show, for what it is.

And I'm still hoping that the crappy plot armor gimmicks and mary sue-isms can be played down in the Seasons to Come. There's nothing wrong with standard ST Drama storylines and character development. Every other episode or every Season Arc doesn't HAVE to be a bigger, more pressing, threat to the universe - every time. We've got dozens of years of Star Trek plotlines that prove they don't need to do that to have a good show. So I'm hoping they stop - or at least spread it out.

[Koriani]

Ok watched the 2nd Season Finale -

Really liked how they ended this season and, to me, nicely "wrapped up" the timeline issues - allowing Spock/Pike/Enterprise crew to go off to fulfill their own destiny separate from ST: DISCO in the future.

I'm hopeful that STISCO will get back to being about DISCOVERY and not con't to interweave "canon" timeline stuff with Enterprise and trying to shoehorn it all into fitting.

Not sure why some of you think Burnham is "gone now"?? Did the actress quit the show and I've just not heart about it? Because to me - this COULD (and more probably will) continue to be ST:Burnham Years Voyager Style; or they could use the opportunity to actually develop everyone else too and make it about "The Crew and Discovery Adventures In the Unknown Future Place"

Course, like I said before - they could also bring them back to "current enterprise timeline" by the 2nd episode of the next season. But I'm hoping they don't do that. Lots of more plot opportunities by going off on their own into undiscovered country (see whut I did thar). I wouldn't even expect that to be a possibility - except for all the parallel-universe time-hopping plot armor of the last two seasons by these writers has taught me not to rule ANYTHING out.

But am hopeful and looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

Just one question - and maybe its just my lack of understanding the time-travel "science" of this particular Star Trek.
This is about the exact end and how it played out in the last 20 minutes - so spoiler tags just in case



-- It was my understanding they only had enough time-crystal energy stuff to make ONE WAY jump to the future - and never come back. But right before that jump, Burnham ends up having to make 5 backwards-time-jumps to setup the red signal for themselves that she had setup for them before (to ensure that timeloop).

Is that just another example of crappy writing violating their own logic/science from this show? (Since she only had enough for one jump?) Or did I miss the explanation somewhere that back-time-traveling within your own lifetime (Go Sam Beckett...) takes much less energy and isn't a concern?

Cuz I honestly have no idea- other than the whole "I thought they only had enough energy for one jump?!" crux of the whole reason for the cliffhanger...? Was just really confused when she started doing that - how she had the energy for now 6 jumps and not just one.

[Endus]

Not sure why some of you think Burnham is "gone now"?? Did the actress quit the show and I've just not heart about it? Because to me - this COULD (and more probably will) continue to be ST:Burnham Years Voyager Style; or they could use the opportunity to actually develop everyone else too and make it about "The Crew and Discovery Adventures In the Unknown Future Place"

She's definitely not gone. The big question is whether she or Saru will end up being Captain, next season. I favor Saru; I think Burnham serves better as a critical voice than as the leader.

Just one question - and maybe its just my lack of understanding the time-travel "science" of this particular Star Trek.
This is about the exact end and how it played out in the last 20 minutes - so spoiler tags just in case



-- It was my understanding they only had enough time-crystal energy stuff to make ONE WAY jump to the future - and never come back. But right before that jump, Burnham ends up having to make 5 backwards-time-jumps to setup the red signal for themselves that she had setup for them before (to ensure that timeloop).

Is that just another example of crappy writing violating their own logic/science from this show? (Since she only had enough for one jump?) Or did I miss the explanation somewhere that back-time-traveling within your own lifetime (Go Sam Beckett...) takes much less energy and isn't a concern?

I would have to re-watch to be sure, but the reason Burnham's Mom couldn't come back is she was "stuck" at her new time; she can "pop" back, but time rubber-bands her back to the future. The jump Burnham's making, here, is that same kind of initial jump; setting a new "home"; if she "popped" forward with Discovery, it would just rubber-band back to the present in an hour or so. It's breaking that "rubber band" that takes the time crystal; the "pops" back in time for a short moment don't require it. Burnham's mother had a different fuel source, but was similarly burnt out after her initial jump; the time crystal is them trying to jury-rig an alternative.

In short, short-duration hops that toss you back to your "present" don't take massive power.
Changing your "present" to your new point in time after the jump does. Two different types of time-jump.