Sfdebris.net

https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c129.php

Discovery Season 1 & 2 exposes the inherent problem with doing continuity driven television with a constant spotlight on one character (and one that's not morally compromised like Vic Mackey, Walter White, or Don Draper is even harder). Not only do you risk burnout, but the constant focus on them is a gamble if the audience isn't invested. Even the protagonists I just mentioned still had supporting casts with time on their character development so that if you didn't care for a Don on Mad Men there were other stories to get involved with.

Discovery simply hasn't felt like its gotten to that. Its so convinced of the importance and depth of Michael that everything else feels like it suffers. Its not Kirk in Final Frontier levels of being the most awesome and important person in the galaxy, but its still monotonous.

I didn't notice the window on the blast door, which is indeed stupid, because I couldn't get past both the manual override being on only one side of the door, AND that they couldn't just freaking beam her out after she shut it. What? I understand that if you think too hard transporter technology can break a lot of Star Trek plots, but this would just be using it for what they normally use it for ALL the time, beaming someone outside of an explosion just as it happens. And don't talk to me about shields, they'd be beaming her WITHIN the ship. (And I'm not sure the shields are even up anyway if that that torpedo can get lodged in the hull.) I can't stand such stilted, manufactured "tragedy."

cloudkitt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:23 pm I didn't notice the window on the blast door, which is indeed stupid, because I couldn't get past both the manual override being on only one side of the door, AND that they couldn't just freaking beam her out after she shut it. What? I understand that if you think too hard transporter technology can break a lot of Star Trek plots, but this would just be using it for what they normally use it for ALL the time, beaming someone outside of an explosion just as it happens. And don't talk to me about shields, they'd be beaming her WITHIN the ship. (And I'm not sure the shields are even up anyway if that that torpedo can get lodged in the hull.) I can't stand such stilted, manufactured "tragedy."

Voyager's manual override that is connected to the main power and the NX-01's elevator that takes your fingers off has a new contender. I guess we should also throw in their explosive bridge consoles too.

Honestly, Chuck's joke about the Federation being the worst parody of a communist dystopia in Star Trek V gets proven more and more as time goes on - almost as if the whole of Star Trek is one long capitalist propaganda reel. So much of its technology is so badly designed that it just would not pass a 2020 safety check. All this door needed was its giant red system malfunction light that blinks at you every time you try and open it.

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c129.php

Discovery Season 1 & 2 exposes the inherent problem with doing continuity driven television with a constant spotlight on one character (and one that's not morally compromised like Vic Mackey, Walter White, or Don Draper is even harder). Not only do you risk burnout, but the constant focus on them is a gamble if the audience isn't invested. Even the protagonists I just mentioned still had supporting casts with time on their character development so that if you didn't care for a Don on Mad Men there were other stories to get involved with.

Discovery simply hasn't felt like its gotten to that. Its so convinced of the importance and depth of Michael that everything else feels like it suffers. Its not Kirk in Final Frontier levels of being the most awesome and important person in the galaxy, but its still monotonous.

I would argue the key to any spotlight character is to have a SECOND spotlight character along for the ride that the first spotlight character can bounce off. Naruto/Sasuke. Batman/Robin. Dr Who/his companions. Failing that, having a memorable villain can also accomplish the same task, because you end up tuning in for him just as eagerly as you are tuning in for the spotlight character. Goku/Frieza. Batman/Joker. Dr Who/Master.

If you don't have that, then what have you got left? A character who is bouncing off secondary characters whom the viewer isn't actually meant to be all that invested in by design. At best, you've got a plain show. At worse, you've got a Mary Sue who seems to have the entire universe revolve around her.

I really enjoyed this review, and as someone who does enjoy Star Trek Discovery overall, I do agree with many of the points Chuck made.

Personally I like Michael Burnham just fine, but like Chuck said the series keeps trying to make her so important that many people just get sick of her, and had season two just been about her reconnecting with Spock it would have been fine, honestly that was the most interesting thing going on with her.

In-fact all the personal character stories in season two are great, Saru going through his change and helping his people, Tilly's interactions with May and her adventure in the Mycelial Network, and of course Paul and Hugh relationship, I absolutely agree with Chuck that this was fascinating to explore the repercussions of Hugh's death and resurrection and I really cared what was going to happen, and was happy that they're both back together, Captain Pike was great and I like what they did with him, Spock was also great and I like they they made the somewhat more emotional elements of his early years apart of his character, and it was nice to see Number One make a return.

I felt the sort of stand alone episodes of Discovery are the strongest part of the series, but the whole time travel/Red Angel/Control plot was what drags the series down, it did have my interest, but once it was all said and done as Chuck said, the whole mystery falls apart with to many leaps in logic and inconsistencies, and the villain of Control wasn't that interesting, Star Trek Picard handles it's own villain (the Zhat Vash) and overall story about artificial lifeforms far better because they treat them more than just soulless machines bent on galactic destruction, with a poignant message on not giving into fear and prejudice, while Control is just Skynet with nanomachines (son.)

I will say that a lot of these relationships and stories about Michael have now been resolved and while I'm sure they'll touch on old thinks like finding out about Spock, it is a fresh start for her, I'm not apposed to her being the main character in the same way Captain Kirk or Captain Picard was, for example if it's her just going to help rebuild the Federation (If that's what season three will be about) along with the rest of the crew, that's fine, I'm not going to complain every time shes onscreen, but what I don't want to see repeated is her being the most important character, for example I don't want her to be the only one who can rebuild the Federation, there is a difference.

Also that blast door is stupid... I've got nothing else that Chuck hasn't already said, it's just dumb.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:26 pm

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c129.php

Discovery Season 1 & 2 exposes the inherent problem with doing continuity driven television with a constant spotlight on one character (and one that's not morally compromised like Vic Mackey, Walter White, or Don Draper is even harder). Not only do you risk burnout, but the constant focus on them is a gamble if the audience isn't invested. Even the protagonists I just mentioned still had supporting casts with time on their character development so that if you didn't care for a Don on Mad Men there were other stories to get involved with.

Discovery simply hasn't felt like its gotten to that. Its so convinced of the importance and depth of Michael that everything else feels like it suffers. Its not Kirk in Final Frontier levels of being the most awesome and important person in the galaxy, but its still monotonous.

I would argue the key to any spotlight character is to have a SECOND spotlight character along for the ride that the first spotlight character can bounce off. Naruto/Sasuke. Batman/Robin. Dr Who/his companions. Failing that, having a memorable villain can also accomplish the same task, because you end up tuning in for him just as eagerly as you are tuning in for the spotlight character. Goku/Frieza. Batman/Joker. Dr Who/Master.

If you don't have that, then what have you got left? A character who is bouncing off secondary characters whom the viewer isn't actually meant to be all that invested in by design. At best, you've got a plain show. At worse, you've got a Mary Sue who seems to have the entire universe revolve around her.

That's an interesting point, and I think that's how season three is going to at least start, with the new character Book being the window into this new era, and Michael being the point of view character.

Link8909 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:50 pm

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:26 pm

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c129.php

Discovery Season 1 & 2 exposes the inherent problem with doing continuity driven television with a constant spotlight on one character (and one that's not morally compromised like Vic Mackey, Walter White, or Don Draper is even harder). Not only do you risk burnout, but the constant focus on them is a gamble if the audience isn't invested. Even the protagonists I just mentioned still had supporting casts with time on their character development so that if you didn't care for a Don on Mad Men there were other stories to get involved with.

Discovery simply hasn't felt like its gotten to that. Its so convinced of the importance and depth of Michael that everything else feels like it suffers. Its not Kirk in Final Frontier levels of being the most awesome and important person in the galaxy, but its still monotonous.

I would argue the key to any spotlight character is to have a SECOND spotlight character along for the ride that the first spotlight character can bounce off. Naruto/Sasuke. Batman/Robin. Dr Who/his companions. Failing that, having a memorable villain can also accomplish the same task, because you end up tuning in for him just as eagerly as you are tuning in for the spotlight character. Goku/Frieza. Batman/Joker. Dr Who/Master.

If you don't have that, then what have you got left? A character who is bouncing off secondary characters whom the viewer isn't actually meant to be all that invested in by design. At best, you've got a plain show. At worse, you've got a Mary Sue who seems to have the entire universe revolve around her.

That's an interesting point, and I think that's how season three is going to at least start, with the new character Book being the window into this new era, and Michael being the point of view character.

I'll give a rebooted Discovery a chance because this is an opportunity for a fresh start, but my gut is telling me that we'll get Andromeda. No one wants a female Dylan Hunt.

That point about secondary characters demonstrates why Spock and Bones worked so well even in episodes of TOS where Kirk was the focus. Not only did they make the latter's character better, it was a window for both insight and subtle development for the former two as well.

cloudkitt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:23 pm I didn't notice the window on the blast door, which is indeed stupid, because I couldn't get past both the manual override being on only one side of the door, AND that they couldn't just freaking beam her out after she shut it. ...

(And I'm not sure the shields are even up anyway if that that torpedo can get lodged in the hull.) I can't stand such stilted, manufactured "tragedy."

The shields were down when the same thing happened on DS9. That is what distracted me from the scene, the fact that I'd already seen that scene done before in Deep Space Nine, where Quark and a guest star had to disarm a torpedo lodged in the hull of the Ben Sisko's MfPH. Deep Space Nine did it better. You should never have your show remind the audience of the same thing that was done in a better show.
--
I have no problem with Starfleet taking the Armin Tamzarian option with regard to Discovery's antics across the first two seasons. If I was them, I wouldn't want to admit those idiots existed either. They make the Lower Decks crew seem intelligent by comparison. The problem I have is that CBS won't take the same approach.

Tilly I found just grated on me, like she had all of Season one DS9's Rom and Bashir's irritating quirks combined with Neelix's desperate need for validation. She fulfils one purpose in the show, to me anyway, and that is to make me go "maybe we should check in on Michael again" just to get away from her. I want the character to grow the fuck up, and quiet the fuck down.

Saru, I just found his character so stupid because of S1 that nothing can save him except a noble self sacrifice on the other side of an airlock, one that sticks.

Michael, well, thanks to her Travis on Enterprise is no longer the most boring black character in Star Trek.

And the other drones... are there, I guess. That is the problem with the show, the only series regulars characters' names which I can recall are memorable only because of how irritating they are. That is not a good thing.

Pike was interesting, so was Lorca though, and even Evil Georgiou had something going on. I had zero interest in watching the third season even before they announced they were going to be using it as a reboot of Andromeda. I wasn't that riveted by Andromeda the first time around, so it has no residue of nostalgic goodwill to draw upon to bring me back to see how this bunch of assholes handle it. Not only am I not interested in their hapless blundering around the galaxy, but the very premise of finding a Fallen Federation repulses me so that even if it was Picard, Sisko, Garak, Nemoy-Spock, and Tom Paris doing that show, I still would not want to watch it; so why do they think that seeing this shambles doing so will make it palatable.

It is not hard to put together a watchable show, set it in the Picard timeframe, keep it upbeat and adventurous, ditch the pizza cutter ship design, reduce Michael et al's role [in fact, just bring them back for the season opener to pass the torch], and bring in a new and more interesting as well as functional crew, have them go out and explore somewhere new every week. There, that is a Star Trek show I'd watch.

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:23 pm That point about secondary characters demonstrates why Spock and Bones worked so well even in episodes of TOS where Kirk was the focus. Not only did they make the latter's character better, it was a window for both insight and subtle development for the former two as well.

Indeed, I'm interested if we will see a similar dynamic in Star Trek Strange New Worlds with Captain Pike, Number One and Spock.

And thinking more on the Michael relationships and interactions that Chuck talked about, I feel Star Trek Picard works very well because all the characters do interact with more than just Picard himself, and thinking more on the second spotlight character that clearspira talked about, while only being able to see the first episode of Star Trek Lower Decks, the paring of Ensign Boimler and Ensign Mariner works very well not just for comedy but potential character growth, but in both cases of each series, they don't pile on dozens of different story lines onto one character.