Topic: Star Trek Discovery S3

[olliebean]

A lot of it feels rather like "come up with some cool visual effects" came before "come up with a story to fit them into."

[Wonderful Butternut]

The finale ended up not being quite as bad as I thought it'd be. Like many episodes of Disco, I can't really say it's bad or good, it was just bizarre.

This post is getting long, so I'm not going spoiler text it as it'll be a hideous eyesore on the forum.


So... DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS



Might as well start with most egregious decision and that's putting Burnham in the command chair. Discovery's been the Burnham show from day 1. That's fine. Can deal with it. What's been unnecessary is that Burnham, already the most prominent character in season 1, has gradually consumed steadily more plot and screen time season on season. It reached a zenith this season where none of the characters have had much of a chance to breathe at all. As I said earlier in the thread, it's fine her being the ultimate hero. As long as you let the rest of the crew do something once in a while. In season 3 of Disco, the rest of the crew did nothing important until the very end, which I'll get to.

As an example, what's Tilly's development been in season 3? "Why are you bringing me on this important mission?" in episode 1 to becoming First Officer (which she relinquishes in the final episode, although she may get it back again with Saru gone), done in about 4 or 5 scenes over the season? And she's the probably the 2nd most important character in the series.

I suppose it was only natural that Burnham would end up in command considering, but unfortunately for the writers, they've made two mistakes on the way.
First off, Burnham has never come across as captain material. Too reckless, repeatedly has disobeyed orders, selectively chooses between the greater good and the personal good, and flips between being enormously self centered and overconfident, and not believing in herself at all.
Secondly, along the way they to making Burnham captain, they created a very good captain in Saru, who they've had to discard from the command chair. He's sensitive, diplomatic, and puts his own wants[1] behind Starfleet's needs, and shows a backbone when he needs it, Saru is awesome. I'd actually put him ahead of Sisko and Janeway. But now he's not in command anymore.

So how does he come back in season 4, since we have to assume they're not dropping a main character? As Burnham's First Officer? As captain of another ship so he's only recurring? Burnham relinquishing command or being demoted? That'd probably just reset Burnham to the rebellious but ultimately good hearted and annoyingly always right Starfleet officer she's been for 3 seasons, and undo any character development. Maybe there'll be an arc about her struggling with the responsibility of command and ultimately accepting a demotion when Saru re-appears. But I doubt it.[2] And in any case, I don't trust the writers to deal with any of those things in a non-deranged fashion anymore, so it doesn't matter. It's not going to be good.

I'm also sure that if there's any lasting reprecussions between Stamets and Burnham, they won't handle that in a non-deranged fashion either.

I mentioned above that non-Burnham characters only got to do one big thing. All the time we see Burnham's determination to trace the true source of the Burn so the Federation can be rebuilt, persuading the Vulcans to give up their data, using her massive sciency brain to figure stuff out, and kicking everyone's ass and retaking the ship in the finale, but actually it's Saru who prevents another Burn by connecting with Su'Kal and persuading him to leave the dilithium planet. Saru has saved the Federation. Not Burnham. Something tells me the writers arrived there accidentally.



Rest of the episode falls into the "wat?" category:

The turbolift scene was just nonsense where the turbolift cars fly around in a massive void that makes the interior of the ship look about the size of a borg cube. And even disregarding that the set couldn't fit in the ship, it's not exactly enthralling. Between conception and storyboarding I cannot fathom how many people that ridiculous bullshit went through and none of them said "ah lads, for fuck's sake". The CGI budget on Picard was seemingly so tight that they couldn't give Commodore Oh anything more than a low resolution green screen background instead of a bridge, but they can afford this bollocks.

What was Osyraa's intended end game before Vance broke of negotiations cos he wanted to put in her in jail? It's presumed she was going to do nasty mean things cos she's a bad person and her offer to ally with the Federation was cover for that, but it's never revealed. To be honest, Vance came across as more unreasonable in the breakdown of negotiations, he even admits that the Chain were willing to make a lot of concessions just for a formal armistice. And if Osyraa's offer to ally with the Federation was genuine, why does she bring Discovery to Starfleet HQ. Why not fly it somewhere else and then just waltz up to their forcefield in her own ship and ask to negotiate? They'd probably at least hear her out. And then if the negotiations break down, as they did, Starfleet won't know she has Discovery, and won't be able to recover it when they find out it's missing, leaving Osyraa all the time she needs to reverse engineer the Spore Drive in peace.

Aurellio was a waste of screen time. He was set up as someone who might betray Osyraa in the first part, but then ultimately has no influence on Disco's crew taking back the ship at all, and if he's there to show that Osyraa's not all bad why did they have Burnham shoot her? That's usually reserved for people who are all bad. And he doesn't show any reaction to Burnham's announcement that she killed Osyraa. Incidentally, remember when killing people, even bad people, was a big deal in Star Trek and now it isn't? Now tbf, I don't think Disco started that, I'd argue it started in DS9 when Worf and Garak both killed a Weyoun basically for their own personal satisfaction. But Burnham's awfully casual about saying she did it.

All of a sudden Stamets isn't the only one who can operate the spore drive. How convenient that happened all of a sudden. So can all Kwejian empaths operate the spore drive now, or just Booker? Could other empaths and telepaths of other species potentially do it?

Discovery goes from being so flimsy that Osyraa has to order her ship to ease up on the shooting when their staging a chase to being able to withstand an attack from several Starfleet vessels and an explosion set off inside the programmable matter connecting the nacelle, and still have enough shields to withstand the Viridian's attempts to retake it a few minutes later.

Also if they were going to jump out of it with the Spore drive, why did they need to eject the warp and destroy the Viridian (and narrowly avoid destroying themselves) first?

More weirdness with characters played by Sara Mitich. Nilsson disappears as they re-take the ship and a hitherto unseen Lt. takes a line that presumably meant for her, and then she reappears at the end.

DOT-23s can fuck off. If I wanted to see cutsey droids, I'd watch Star Wars. At least the sentience of the sphere data was already established and they didn't pull it out of their arse for this episode.

I think the best sum up I've seen of that episode is Bernd Schneider from Ex Astris Scientia saying it's the best finale Disco has done, to the best season Disco has done, and then rating it at 4/10.


I dunno what I'll do with season 4. Any time this series shows potential to get good it shits out 3-4 absolutely crap episodes in a row so I should really just drop it, it's not going to go anywhere. Might wait to see how it'll review.

1.	I think the only black mark against him is his tantrum with Pike to be allowed beam down in the Kaminar episode. But he wasn't captain in that one. As a captain? Flawless.
2.	I read an interview with one of the show runners which seemed to suggest that's a permanent change. Saru was the right captain at the start, but not anymore apparently. Wonder will they flip flop on this based on fan reaction?

[Malcy]

Too big to quote and edit but yeah good post.

Nilsson disappearing and reappearing. The fuck?

Discovery not getting it arse handed to it on a plate by the might of Starfleet? Bullshit.

Dot(Any Number) - Absolute non-Trek shite.

Emerald Chain, just one ship destroyed and a massive organisation falls?

The Warp Core - nevermind the size of the engine room, it banging off every wall of the chute which was inexplicably deep and not exploding?

And so so so much more. You only have to watch the credits for DSC & Picard and see that the credits are only that long to fit in the dozens of producers to know that it's going to be shit.

Im more disgusted with all the Trek vets involved in these shows. Can they not step up and said "wait a minute this is shite"? Nah, I doubt it. Patrick Stewart was praising the arse off his show's writing and it was fucking dog shit. Just admit it Patrick, you turned down chances to bring back Picard for years as you've told us. Only this time they threw a massive amount of cash at you and you said hey fuck it I'll endorse and promote any old shite for this amount.

Jonathan Frakes is worse. Licks arse massively and keeps getting directing gigs and tells fans who call out the shit that they are "in the wrong and don't know what they are talking about".

Think it's time to admit that Trek ended with ENT in '05. For me REAL Trek did anyway apart from Lower Decks, which as annoying and self referential as it was, shits on anything that claims to be Trek these days.

Lower Decks & Orville keeping the torch burning.

[Mobbd]

Think it's time to admit that Trek ended with ENT in '05.

My partner and I are doing a complete Star Trek re-watch this year. "The Cage to Endgame" was our stated plan. It's gonna be fun on the bun.

We don't consider the CBS shit to be canon. It just obviously isn't, no matter how many times we're told that it is (and we're essentially told that it isn't canon just as many times through the events on screen). It's completely incompatible and, in any event, it's no fun.

When starting the re-watch, we genuinely forgot about ENT. Haha. If we're still enjoying ourselves at Endgame, we'll try to rehabilitate it in an act of Prime Timeline Solidarity.

As of last night, we're on "Errand of Mercy" (TOS S01E26)  It's bliss.

[Two Headed Sex Beast]

My partner and I are doing a complete Star Trek re-watch this year. "The Cage to Endgame" was our stated plan. It's gonna be fun on the bun.

We're working through TNG for the first time, and Discovery really doesn't stand up to the comparison.

I don't think I'll bother with next season, which is a bit sad. There's just too much that annoys me or doesn't make sense in the show now. The parts I do like (Saru, Tilly, Stamets + Reno) just get squeezed out in favour of Burnham's messianic character arc, whisper emoting and blasting countless minions. The body count must be crazy for this season, it doesn't feel very Starfleet to mow your way through hundreds of bad guys even if you are in the far future.

What I like about TOS and TNG was the feeling that you're watching a competent and self-reliant team of smart people figuring their way out of tricky situations. Most situations in Discovery have been solved by someone going behind the crew's backs, or over their heads, or by sheer luck, or action movie fighting/shooting, or because the plot says so. It feels just like any sci-fi show now.

[Wonderful Butternut]

Nilsson disappearing and reappearing. The fuck?

The weirdness of what they're doing with Sara Mitich's characters in this genuinely fascinates me even though it's so minor. Maybe it's indicative of how little of interest there is in Discovery.

For those not familiar:
Mitich plays Airiam in season 1 where she's a background character who has practically no lines, despite seeming to be Discovery's second officer. The only other Lt. Commander aboard in season 1 was Landry, who snuffs it early on, and we see Airiam in the command chair more than once. But her synthetic appearance leads to a lot of fan speculation about what she actually is. An alien, an android etc?

But then Hannah Cheesman comes into play Airiam in season 2 where she also does very little until the episode where her background is revealed and she gets killed. That being possibly the best directed scene in the entire series.
 
Nilsson, a new background character is created for Mitich to play in season 2. Again she does very little. Other than very conspicuously take Airiam's station in the episode after her death.

It was assumed there was some reason for swapping Airiam's actress and keeping Mitich in the cast. Maybe Nilsson might become more prominent in season 3? But she doesn't. If anything in season 3 she does even less than before. But you can say that for a lot of characters.

And then she goes missing in the finale. Like... what is the actual purpose of this character?

Maybe Mitich is just a terrible actress who can't be given a real job, but has pictures of Alex Kurtzman in a compromising position with an inflatable C3PO and some Dutch sailors and can't be let go.

What I like about TOS and TNG was the feeling that you're watching a competent and self-reliant team of smart people figuring their way out of tricky situations.

But they're totes on board with that in Discovery. They say they "like science" and go on about the "power of math" and stuff.

[Mobbd]

What I like about TOS and TNG was the feeling that you're watching a competent and self-reliant team of smart people figuring their way out of tricky situations. Most situations in Discovery have been solved by someone going behind the crew's backs, or over their heads, or by sheer luck, or action movie fighting/shooting, or because the plot says so. It feels just like any sci-fi show now.

Yeah, that's spot-on. Just how we feel too.

An early observation about Discovery (we watched Season 1 together and then I watched maybe 6 episodes of Season 2 alone) was that the crew members are essentially careerists. Tilly and Michael seem to want to be Captains, even though (if memory serves) they're newly-minted Ensigns. They don't seem to be interested in the inherent value of space exploration or doing a good job in their current role or the kind of self-improvement we've seen on Star Trek previously. It struck us as pretty vapid and surely not what anyone watches Star Trek to see. Maybe Discovery would be the story of how Tilly and Michael learn to become patient and to internalise (the hard way maybe) the values of Starfleet then? Hah!

A later observation while watching random TNGs before the Great Canonical Re-watch is that (for all my disliking of the careerist attitude of Tilly and Michael) Star Trek is almost a workplace fantasy: your boss (be it the Captain or the Chief Engineer or whatever) is worthy of the title, competent and compassionate, and they're going to help you to be better. Sigh. Good stuff.

[Wonderful Butternut]

An early observation about Discovery (we watched Season 1 together and then I watched maybe 6 episodes of Season 2 alone) was that the crew members are essentially careerists. Tilly and Michael seem to want to be Captains, even though (if memory serves) they're newly-minted Ensigns. They don't seem to be interested in the inherent value of space exploration or doing a good job in their current role or the kind of self-improvement we've seen on Star Trek previously. It struck us as pretty vapid and surely not what anyone watches Star Trek to see. Maybe Discovery would be the story of how Tilly and Michael learn to become patient and to internalise (the hard way maybe) the values of Starfleet then? Hah!

Burnham was stripped of rank for mutinying in ep. 1 and spent most of season 1 with as a specialist with no rank. She had been a Commander before that and is re-instated to that rank in the season finale.

To be absolutely fair, I don't really remember her doing much in the way of gunning for the top job herself, it's probably one of the few positive things you can say about her character. She never looks to usurp Saru or Lorca or Pike from their jobs. The writers ultimately did it for her, despite her saying about three times she didn't want it. This is potential for some good character development as perhaps she might struggle with the responsibility, but as above, I don't trust the writers to handle something like that intelligently.

In season 1 she's just coaching Tilly on how to get onto Command Track, since that's what Tilly said she wanted to do, and Burnham presumably had done that in her earlier career having previously been a Commander and First Officer aboard the Shenzou and knew the ropes.

I didn't mind Tilly wanting to become a Captain some day. I actually found it one of the more normal and relatable things in the series.[1] Yes they're all meant to love their jobs and be self-improving future Star Trek humans, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that some people come in with the ambition of having the big chair one day.

I suppose the problem is that we don't see the crew doing their jobs normally very often. As said above, everything is solved with phasers, or magic anomalies, or ludicrous technobabble that's quite often explicitly stated to be exceptional within the universe. No one seems to re-align the mains sensor array or crawl through a jeffries tube on that ship.

1.

To bad they cranked up her neuroticism to 11 in season 2 and started making her out to be some sort of super-brained prodigy. And then assigned her the First Officer role still as an Ensign instead of showing a more gradual development, maybe with her having to make a difficult decision about leaving the sciences division or something

[Mobbd]

Burnham was stripped of rank for mutinying in ep. 1 and spent most of season 1 with as a specialist with no rank. She had been a Commander before that and is re-instated to that rank in the season finale.

Gah, you're right. I'd forgotten all about that. What a bore. Just a different bore to the one I'd misremembered.

[Bently Sheds]

"Let's fly" - fucking hell, I'd pilot a course into the nearest black hole upon hearing that, especially after they had a whole "comedy" scene in a previous episode where Tilly was choosing her "phrase".

[olliebean]

"Let's fly" - fucking hell, I'd pilot a course into the nearest black hole upon hearing that, especially after they had a whole "comedy" scene in a previous episode where Tilly was choosing her "phrase".

I hope it was a one-off, but I've a horrible feeling it's going to be her "Engage" or "Make it so."

[Malcy]

I hope it was a one-off, but I've a horrible feeling it's going to be her "Engage" or "Make it so."

Combined with that annoying head shake thing she does.

[Bleeding Kansas]

I hope it was a one-off, but I've a horrible feeling it's going to be her "Engage" or "Make it so."

"Up and let's go!"

[mothman]

The Sara Mitich/Hannah Cheeseman/Airiam/Nilsson thing is very odd and remains unexplained. One doesn't want to be as crass as to suggest she's sleeping with someone important, but it wouldn't exactly be the first time, would it Majel?

Incidentally, one notes that the actress who voices the Sphere Data as Zora in that Short Trek and as the DOT-23s is the partner of Chris Pine. I don't know if that is a coincidence. It may well be.

Further incestuousness can be found in that Ryn the antennae-less Andorian was played by Mary Wiseman's (Tilly) husband - he also Dungeon Masters the cast's Zoom D&D group..!

Aurelio is played by Ken Mitchell, a recurring guest actor popular with the cast (he played various Klingons in s1 and s2) before being diagnosed with ALS. So the casting is a nice touch and quite sweet, even if the character was half baked. It's quite shocking how quickly he's going downhill though. It's a shame.

The thing we still don't know is, what kind of show Discovery was MEANT to be. Bryan Fuller came up with the idea, pitched it and got it greenlit. And then he was gone before the show even aired. The true reasons for that remain uncertain, nor is it known how much of "his" vision remains. There have been suggestions that he wanted a show with a look more in keeping with a TOS-or-just-before setting (I remember him Tweeting a picture of a rack of yellow, red and green tunics) and that it was that disconnect with CBS's desire for a modern-looking show which ultimately led to his departure. I note that Mobbd's post doesn't name Fuller as one of the asset-strippers (I don't think?); was he one, or did he truly want to bring Trek back to the small screen, stronger and better and for for the 21st century? I certainly don't view his participation in rose-tinted terms - his true vision perverted by the soulless minions of orthodoxy, that sort of thing.

So, if one views DSC as some sort of patchwork of ideas and (plot) course-corrections and reboots and just making it up as they go along, it explains a lot.

But then there are plenty of nasally-voiced YouTube videos saying this kind of thing, about how CBS and Netflix are furious and so on and so forth and the show is about to be cancelled any second (even while it's being renewed before the latest season has even aired). These kinds of criticisms are also favoured by the RW elements looking to bash the show because it has too many women and gays and ethnics in it. One day it'll all come out, some sort of "Chaos On The Bridge" style expose.

Picard was... awful. An utter car crash. And it may well be that the next live action Trek we'll see will be PIC s2. And that that'll be next year, now. They've gone from their much-hyped 23 Weeks Of Trek to now facing a year with potentially No Trek At All. Unless Lower Decks s2 and the other cartoon show - Prodigy? It has Janeway in it. Um... hooray? - appear this year. I remain optimistic about Strange New Worlds (the Pike/Spock/Una show) and its reported return to a more episodic format. I know I'm curely setting myself up for a fall there, but I have to believe something good can come of this dumpster fire.

[Mobbd]

The thing we still don't know is, what kind of show Discovery was MEANT to be. Bryan Fuller came up with the idea, pitched it and got it greenlit. And then he was gone before the show even aired. The true reasons for that remain uncertain, nor is it known how much of "his" vision remains. There have been suggestions that he wanted a show with a look more in keeping with a TOS-or-just-before setting (I remember him Tweeting a picture of a rack of yellow, red and green tunics) and that it was that disconnect with CBS's desire for a modern-looking show which ultimately led to his departure. I note that Mobbd's post doesn't name Fuller as one of the asset-strippers (I don't think?); was he one, or did he truly want to bring Trek back to the small screen, stronger and better and for for the 21st century? I certainly don't view his participation in rose-tinted terms - his true vision perverted by the soulless minions of orthodoxy, that sort of thing.

I'll confess I didn't know the full extent of Fuller's involvement. I didn't see that uniforms tweet (I will seek it out). Interesting though and I think you're probably right; that Disco is a mess because the myriad suits who wanted a more modern look built their vision on top of Fuller's foundational work despite it being completely incompatible.

I can't get dewy-eyed about whatever Fuller's vision might have been though: even if it had come off without a hitch I wouldn't have been happy. I mean, another fucking prequel? Seriously? After Enterprise depressed everyone (though post-Disco, I am in awe of Enterprises' efforts to respect canon and still have high production values) and JJ's films have remained un-rewatched since they came out?

This prequel-mania drives me up the wall. Aren't Trek viewers inherently interested in the future? Isn't the small gap between the present day and the time of TOS quite small and not really worth drawing attention to? Weren't we kinda promised a return to Alpha and Prime for the duration of Voyager? Aren't today's Trek writers interested in expanding their inherited universe instead of treading old ground? Why so many prequels? Oh. Because Spock. The asset strippers just love those pointy ears.

But then there are plenty of nasally-voiced YouTube videos saying this kind of thing, about how CBS and Netflix are furious and so on and so forth and the show is about to be cancelled any second (even while it's being renewed before the latest season has even aired). These kinds of criticisms are also favoured by the RW elements looking to bash the show because it has too many women and gays and ethnics in it. One day it'll all come out, some sort of "Chaos On The Bridge" style expose.

I hate those right-wing self-appointed pundits and glorified say-havers. I have slowly learned to identify them and I won't give them views. There is a problem, however, with the so-called inclusivity of Disco. I dislike the way they bang that drum. Star Trek was always, always inclusive. It's baked into the pie. CBS can share that legacy if they want to but they just ignore it and act like they're breaking new political ground or correcting past wrongs or something. As soon as they announced that Disco would revolve around a Black non-Captain character I thought "like DS9 then. 20 years ago."

I'm re-watching TOS. '60s sexism aside, they really did make efforts on this front. As well as the obviously diverse core cast, we are repeatedly shown Black doctors, scientists and commodores. They sometimes have African names and accents. That's deliberate. It's wonderful and must not be forgotten. Much better than having one central Black character who is a prick while asking for a pat on the head for it.

People criticise Trek for not having gay characters. But Sulu is clearly gay. I know this has been debated but I'm watching it now and he's queer-coded to the rafters. His first scene is beautiful. Janice Rand is being letched on by about four male crew members as she carries an officer's lunch tray through the corridors. It turns out she's going to Sulu's quarters, where she is safe. And can be surrounded by exotic plants. They were winking at it.

Picard was... awful. An utter car crash. And it may well be that the next live action Trek we'll see will be PIC s2. And that that'll be next year, now. They've gone from their much-hyped 23 Weeks Of Trek to now facing a year with potentially No Trek At All. Unless Lower Decks s2 and the other cartoon show - Prodigy? It has Janeway in it. Um... hooray? - appear this year. I remain optimistic about Strange New Worlds (the Pike/Spock/Una show) and its reported return to a more episodic format. I know I'm curely setting myself up for a fall there, but I have to believe something good can come of this dumpster fire.

Agree on all points. I love the title "Strange New Worlds" (it's what I want from Trek! Exploration with a slice of cheese!) but episode 1 is written by Akiva Goldsman. Yes, the writer of Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin, The Dark Tower movie, winner of multiple Golden Razzies for screenwriting, and of course for his stake in Star Trek Discovery for which his watch words according to his interview on After Trek are "conflict" and "violence". And that's verbatim, kids!

[Mobbd]

There have been suggestions that he wanted a show with a look more in keeping with a TOS-or-just-before setting (I remember him Tweeting a picture of a rack of yellow, red and green tunics)

https://twitter.com/bryanfuller/status/771872524619489280?lang=en

[Malcy]

The music thing wasn't picked up on again was it?

[Mobbd]

"Let's fly" - fucking hell, I'd pilot a course into the nearest black hole upon hearing that, especially after they had a whole "comedy" scene in a previous episode where Tilly was choosing her "phrase".

Haha. I listen to a funny podcast called Greatest Generation. It was originally a re-watch of TNG but because it was successful they continued into DS9 (almost done!) and will carry on into Voyager. I like it because the hosts' attitude to Trek is much like my own. They take the piss in a very loving way, add their own silly headcanon, and dwell on strange minutiae like the triangular pillows. They also clearly just love Star Trek in an intelligent way. Recommended.

Anyway, they have a spin-off podcast now called Greatest Discovery in which they review the new CBS Trek output. I don't usually listen to it because they seem to generally like these new shows too much and also because the new shows don't provide fertile ground for their usual comedy (Disco and Picard being too serious to have fun with and the cartoons already being made for laughs and as such not in need of comedic commentary). I get that they want to stay positive about it all though because they don't want to make a downer of a podcast. I get it. That's fine. But sometimes what they profess to like... I just think "how could you like that? Are you the same boys?"

After reading Malcy's summaries here and being intrigued by the terrible finale, I decided to listen to the Greatest Discovery episode about it. Surely they couldn't like this dreck? Well, they did. But their approval was tempered and they alluded to problems with the season that they must have discussed in earlier episodes. But the note of desolation was that they singled out "Let's Fly" as a positive. I thought of the comments here at CAB and laughed.

I mean... starships don't "fly".

Not unless they're in an atmosphere. Which they should never be.

[Nobody Soup]

But then there are plenty of nasally-voiced YouTube videos saying this kind of thing, about how CBS and Netflix are furious and so on and so forth and the show is about to be cancelled any second (even while it's being renewed before the latest season has even aired). These kinds of criticisms are also favoured by the RW elements looking to bash the show because it has too many women and gays and ethnics in it. One day it'll all come out, some sort of "Chaos On The Bridge" style expose.

I've noticed this and hence my knowledge of what went wrong is a bit thin on the ground because I can't stand listening to the sort of people that like to complain about discovery on youtube, it's certainly not a rabbit hole I want to fall into. I watched one beardo cunt make a big point of how book was a "person of colour" and switched it off.

the thing about this is, while the cast is certainly diverse (and I still argue that overall this is a good cast to work with) there is nothing politically challenging about this show at all, they skirted around any real criticism of capitalism this entire series and made a few, wishy washy nods to an environmental message (if the burn was any sort of parable for the reliance on fossil fuel, what was the message? ) they have a trans characters and non-binary characters but there's little actually done about the issue.

the show is a centrists dream. Kurzman's history is in writing bombastic hollywood schlock, the fucking gall of him to pass this show off as politically progressive.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

There is a thread about Discovery on a French message board that I follow. At some point, I realized that the same guy, who is some kind of a driving force there, would write week after week reviews where half the paragraphs were about how terrible an actress Sonequa Martin Green is. Then, he would blame all the flaws of the show on her, as he regards her as a diversity hire that prevents the show to be great, which would naturally happen if it decided to focus on Doug Jones instead.
For the third season, the guy started to accuse her of being a diva responsible for the overall plot. He would just pepper his takes with phrases such as "we now have to deal with a second uncharismatic black woman" and put emphasis on every character played by a minority actor. I tried to call him on his bigotry, but the message board was already beyond that.

The interesting thing with this cunt(*) is that he does put all the blame for Discovery on Netflix, while Prime Video, to his eyes, has kept the spirit of Star Trek intact with Picard. He had no clue that Netflix and Amazon have simply bought international rights for individual shows supervised by the same crew, and have no say in their production, including the tone and the casting. Talk about a self-appointed expert...

And this is all the more glaring as, indeed, Discovery, like Picard, has no clue about taking real advantage of the diversity of the cast, apart from saying that in the future being black/female/non-binary, etc. won't matter. But it's already too much for people who look for convenient scapegoats instead of realizing that the show is simply poorly written by some kind of committee that doesn't take a lot of creative risks.

* I choose to use the word because the guy has an obvious problem with women lead in fiction (and because cunt in French is a much more generic insult, similar to moron, and the connection to female genitalia is mostly lost)

[sirhenry]

I finally got round to watching this (had to finish off watching the bizarre Magicians first) and then found that my reaction to every episode was much the same as Malcy's (except without the encyclopaedic knowledge of Trek history). I was getting severely pissed off with Michael, God-Queen of the Universe, at the beginning of the last series, so this one was jaw-droppingly crass. Every episode seemed to have a speech by someone to her, saying "O Michael, you are so much better than the rest of us, please tell me what I must do!" And for someone who taught Spock everything he knew, she seems to have developed and outgrown her entire upbringing amazingly well, having thrown out logic in any of her decision making, relying instead on whatever would push the story further into conflict.

My partner got so used to my increasingly vocal outbursts that by halfway through this series they were bursting out laughing at every trigger point in the script before I could even open my mouth. So, all in all, this series turned out to be a huge improvement on the previous because the scripts were so much worse and the logical flaws so egregious. Presumably trying to reach the comedy 'heights' of The Orville while, if only it had more writers and ideas, The Orville could be so much better than Discovery (and Below Decks) at both drama and comedy.

[mothman]

I see that the show has picked up a couple of GLAAD award nominatuons for its portrayal of transgender and nonbinary characters. And that's great. Sure there are less in-your-face ways to promote diversity on TV (cf Mobbd's shout-out to TOS above) but I'd sooner see it being done than not at all.

And yet... there's that cynical little voice, honed by many past years of advanced CaBery, saying "Yeah. Shame though they couldn't make a show that didn't suck while they were at it."

And I HATE having to say that. I'm fifty years old. I've been watching Star Trek since I was three. I think I'm entitled to have an opinion on the state of nuTrek - I don't challenge anyone else's claims to do the same, however much less experience they have than mine, though. But what I hate almost as much is that saying something like that instantly lumps me in with a bunch of CUNTS who probably would never watch the show anyway but now use its plummeting in quality as a stick to beat it with.

These people - let's just call them haterz - you can't give them any chance to do that. You don't spend years banging on about the importance of an open Irish border, then threaten to slam it shut the instant it looks like some stuff you want might get to go through it. You don't wave a Little Red Book at PMQs when you have a voraciously right-wing press gagging for examples to portray you as a Trot. Nor should you become leader of the Labour party then announce you're really all about the family unit, and flags. And - sorry, got carried away there a bit - nor should Star Trek be reduced to saying "Yes, we're crap, but inclusive." It's all grist to the mill for people who're out to get you.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

"nuTrek"[1] sounds like some sort of pharmaceutical drug.

1.	Side effects may include headache, confusion, anger and tiredness.

[Mobbd]

I see that the show has picked up a couple of GLAAD award nominatuons for its portrayal of transgender and nonbinary characters. And that's great. Sure there are less in-your-face ways to promote diversity on TV (cf Mobbd's shout-out to TOS above) but I'd sooner see it being done than not at all.

And yet... there's that cynical little voice, honed by many past years of advanced CaBery, saying "Yeah. Shame though they couldn't make a show that didn't suck while they were at it."

And I HATE having to say that. I'm fifty years old. I've been watching Star Trek since I was three. I think I'm entitled to have an opinion on the state of nuTrek - I don't challenge anyone else's claims to do the same, however much less experience they have than mine, though. But what I hate almost as much is that saying something like that instantly lumps me in with a bunch of CUNTS who probably would never watch the show anyway but now use its plummeting in quality as a stick to beat it with.

These people - let's just call them haterz - you can't give them any chance to do that. You don't spend years banging on about the importance of an open Irish border, then threaten to slam it shut the instant it looks like some stuff you want might get to go through it. You don't wave a Little Red Book at PMQs when you have a voraciously right-wing press gagging for examples to portray you as a Trot. Nor should you become leader of the Labour party then announce you're really all about the family unit, and flags. And - sorry, got carried away there a bit - nor should Star Trek be reduced to saying "Yes, we're crap, but inclusive." It's all grist to the mill for people who're out to get you.

Might print and frame this post. We're on the same page.

[JamesTC]

Discovery has a lot of making up to do to be seen as progressive in my eyes after this.

"Earlier this year, I had just finished with the Snowfall writers’ room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network. I’d been in the new room for a few weeks when I got the call from human resources. A pleasant-sounding young man said, 'Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you used the n-word in the writers’ room,'" Mosley wrote in the Times. "I replied, 'I am the N-word in the writers’ room.'"

Mosley went on to explain that the individual in HR said that while he was free to use that word in a script, he "could not say it." Mosley then clarified, "I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all n---ers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in n---er neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it."

Far Beyond the Stars being mentioned in the writers' room must be a fireable offence.

This just makes me deeply cynical that any progressive moves from the production is just passive hand waving. I hope I'm wrong, but I guess it doesn't make a difference if it leads to increased diversity and representation either way.

[Mobbd]

Far Beyond the Stars being mentioned in the writers' room must be a fireable offence.

[Mobbd]

Aw jeez. I googled "far beyond the stars" to grab that image and there are so many lovely shots from the episode and its production. What an excellent, excellent moment in Star Trek history.

Avery Brooks, man. Just love him.

[mothman]

The music thing wasn't picked up on again was it?

Actually, you’re right, it wasn’t. That’s just half-arsed writing. Put in a line about the tune being a Kelpian nursery rhyme at least, that got propagated through the galaxy like the Dilithium Go Boom thing (Jesus, that’s not getting any less stupid over time). But then Saru would have recognised it. I don’t know what I expecting really, I’m still trying to understand the Red Angel bursts. They happened all at once... and then happened again individually, at convenient intervals. And Burnham did them when she went forward in time - but only had time crystal enough for one trip - and then zipped all over the past setting off those bursts... HOW?? With WHAT?? Fuck’s sake.

[Bently Sheds]

Trailer for Series 4 is out. New uniforms and nowhere near enough Burnham, she's not in every scene - which is a disappointment.