Being a long time ST fan, I've tried and tried to like Discovery. The visual effects and sound design are good and the sexual orientation of the various crew members fits in with core ST philosophy. Nothing is made of it, which I enjoy. But this horrid Michael character is destroying it for me. If I see her smile with tears in her eyes (or outright cry) one more time, I'm going to be sick. Shame, since she started out as a powerful and interesting woman. Though she's not the captain, she always gets the last word in any crew gathering. And the word is always sappy and self-oriented. "I" this and "I" that. Ugg. And she "loves" this crew member or another. The actress is fully capable of portraying a memorable character but the writers seem more interested in Oprah-fying her.
I agree that the third season (or series) is more problematic-it seemed to me they were going down the road of Bryan Singer’s “Federation” proposal but it’s like they turned down the wrong street and are a bit lost.
Ahh, I see the "Anti-'woke'-Society" is up... I think the real issue at play - and has been for several versions of the franchise - is that, the fans have one idea of what the show is "about" in their mind...but the showrunners and production company has another. To a viewer, it's about the thrill and the conflict in the same manner they've already experienced the show. But to the producer - and the network - it's more about making more of the audience feel like they have a place in the storyline, and what that place might be. I think this has come into a disconnect about the "idea" of Star Trek ever since they put an African "receptionist" onto the bridge in the first episode (and for that matter, since Galactica gave us a female "Starbuck", and Ghostbusters became women). Or, to be exact, who "owns" the thing: the fans, or the people producing the product, looking to reach a wider audience of fans. If you can be patient that you have 3 TOS seasons, two animated seasons, seven seasons each for TNG, DS9 and Voyager, four for Enterprise, and almost as many movie treatments as Medea got...perhaps you can just come to grips with the notion that the producers were looking to engage a wider swatch of a different audience who has not yet exposed themselves to the full range of characters possible in the 23rd Century and the Federation, and perhaps, 54 years later, the public and available audience may have changed a little in their expectations of what makes them bond with a television narrative. The cult of appreciation for all things Trek - which I readily admit I am a part of - has taken their jealous possession of the franchise a bit too far, doubtless from the decades of ribbing the "outside world" has always shown toward their affection for shows that automatically distance these superfans from the general public. It's cool to have an affinity for The Golden Girls, yet it's just a cool apparently, to make fun of those with the same passion for redshirts and Andorians. And I think this makes us over-protective of the things that make Trek different from other franchises...the same way bonding with Trek makes us different from those who do not. 54 years of living-long and prospering, people...when are you finally gonna admit you have to join the "mainstream" sometimes? Or, even let the "mainstream" in?
My complaint is that the parallel universe theme has been done to death. Also is Burnham becoming more ‘shouty’ these days or is it just me?
I don’t mind it being used as Discovery did with Lorca but here it’s so cartoony to be absurd. Yes she is.
Same thing happened on Supergirl. The actress that plays her sister is supposed to be an authority figure in a big government organization. She started crying in Season 2 and hasn't stopped. Long story short, I don't think I'm the target demographic for these shows anymore. I love genre shows, just not the new variety. Stories aren't focused. Too many characters to serve. Too much padding. Most story arcs could be finished in three or four episodes. Most long time Trek fans love all the subtle, and not so subtle, references to past shows. I don't. Been there done that. I guess my biggest issue with Discovery is that it isn't original enough for me. I don't need, or want, constant call backs to classic Trek. Had the same issue with Voyager. Even in the Delta Quadrant we still had the Borg, Romulans and Ferengi.
Oh, woke is me. But I hear what you're saying. However, beyond the considerations of "ownership", fans or producers, there's the simple issue of good story-telling. Break all the Star Trek rules you want but keep to the basics of linearity and relatable motivation. Given how the Michael character was introduced, very little of how she behaves now makes any sense. She disobeys orders when the mood strikes for her but questions the loyalty of others, including the captain. She receives a demotion (more tears, god almighty) but still acts as if she's in charge. The show centers around the least interesting character and that's the key problem. If Michael were simply written out of the show, the whole thing would improve immediately. For me, the show doesn't stink, the lead character does and it's sinking the whole starship. [Oh, and the speeches... I HATE speeches. Writers write speeches when they run out of ideas. Everyone on the show eventually delivers a speech about how important and inspiring Michael is to them. They're selling the character TO us and not writing a good character FOR us.]
Well then, lucky for you, the first two seasons of Discovery take place years before any major leadership figure in a Star Trek show caps off any weekly episode with any speeches... Because, once you get to that Kirk character, I'm sure you're just gonna haaaate him...! We are in our 5th decade of watching the Federation establish their gold standard for capable leadership qualities, and we know what to expect. Then, somebody starts back at the front of the history of the organization...and suddenly everybody is mad that this woman isn't acting like, what, Katherine Janeway? Or, any other standard Starfleet officer who is at least 75 years ahead of her orientation in command structure evolution? This is a human who was thrust into the Vulcan way of life, at a time when the Vulcans had not yet even established how they were going to establish their relationship with what was a very young Federation at that point. Sarek was still the New Guy From Corporate at that point in history...and fans seem to still focus on how Michael Burnham doesn't react to common Earth-centric command structure as all the other characters they know have...despite that those characters are in many cases, decades after the time in which Burnham comes from. I'm just not buying the endless charges of how "poorly-written" this show seems to strike more seasoned fans, who for some reason expect these characters to exist with the ethics and experiences of a Federation that is actually years into their future. I'm more curious as to why I never see Burnham compared, instead to a real Vulcan from more within the range of her own history...but you never see anybody bring up T'Pol, either favorably or not so favorably as a benchmark as how one would expect Micheal to be "written".
Yeah, Kirk is all about the ridiculous speeches. Delivered like somebody whose brother's best-friend's roommate studied under Lee Strasberg.
To me Discovery is just a soap opera. When the show "Lost" was at the height of it's popularity I had the audacity to describe it as Gilligan's Island re-imagined as a soap opera. The things that the people did were not what you would do if you were in a survival situation. What seemed to be more important was whether or Kate was going to pick between the Doctor or the bad boy. I have these problems with most modern TV. I simply don't care about the characters in Discovery. I don't care about Burnhams relationship with her mother. I don't care about her relationship with her adoptive parents. I don't care about her complicated relationship with evil Phillippa due to the fact that good Phillippa was her mentor. I don't care about Tilly's nerousis. Just boldly go somethere... anywhere... anywhere but a planet of Mary Sue's.
I feel like starting a Discovery criticism drinking game, where everytime you read a certain oft-repeated catchphrase (in this case, "Mary Sue") you take a shot. But I'd probably end up in a coma after reading thru a single Discovery thread anywhere on the Internet.
My question, which may have been asked years ago during season one, is how do the “spores” exist in the vacuum of space? I’m all for sci fi technology, but could we at least make some half-hearted effort to make it plausible?
If that one guy is so spore-a-tocious, why aren't they cloning him and putting a couple of him on every ship? The spores are such a dumb-butt concept.
Agree. Just call it “hyper-warp drive” or something. The idea that there’s a mushroom network in the vacuum of space through which the ship can travel is so beyond stupid, and it didn’t have to be that stupid.
This puts me in mind of a recent experience. I attended a mini Star Trek convention against my better judgement. A dear friend of mine is an admitted Trekkie and asked if I'd go along with her. So I relented, despite my snobbery toward all the nerds that I figured would be there. At one of the celebrity tables sat Marina Sirtis who was a major character in the Next Generation series. My friend knew her and they started a brisk conversation. Marina reminded me a bit of Adele, a classy-looking lady with a thick, bawdy accent. The subject quickly turned to William Shatner who Marina described as a "pain in the ****!" which my friend laughed knowingly at hearing. Cripes, I don't know what on earth possessed me but suddenly I found myself going into a full, bad Shatner impression, saying and Shatner-gesticulating to Marina, "You, YOU are the pain in the ass! Mr. Spock says you're a pain in the ass. Bones says you're a pain in the ass!" While I was doing this inexplicable thing, nerds from around the room began congregating to check out the guy doing a cool William Shatner impression. Pathetic. Marina Sirtis just glared at me with an expression of total shock. When my friend and I walked away, I turned to her and whispered in her ear, "How'd I do?" "Spot on," she reassured me. Anyway, later I out-nerded everyone when I found a vendor who sold very authentic-looking Star Trek communicators and excitedly bought one. Oh, well.
My problem with Season 3 is it’s just dull. Turns out 900 years forward isn’t all that interesting. Who knew? Sure seems like it could have been. For whatever reason I have a hard time caring about what happens to the characters. Michael is fine, but a victim of so-so writing. I like Tilly, because she’s written as an underdog and it will be interesting to see the last episode situation resolve, but she doesn’t carry the show. The recipe that’s missing for me is a protagonist with a deep history that makes me care and that that character faces a moral conflict that is tangible that I again care about. I’ll keep trying to give it a go because I respect what came before and the first couple of seasons were interesting. It surely seems this should be so much better though.
