Star Trek: Discovery - spoilery thoughts?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I still haven't watched the show, but it's interesting that the backlash has translated into actual low fan ratings on sites like IMDb or tv.com. It's not unusual to hear a lot of backlash from fans about the awfulness of new takes on old franchises. We heard plenty of that with JJ-Trek, but JJ-Trek ultimately received enough positive reviews and ratings from fans and critics to suggest that the haters were a loud minority.

New shows tend to get a pretty big boost over older classics on IMDb, but Discovery currently sits with a 7.3, lower than Enterprise's 7.5. Only 57% of fans "like it" on rottentomatoes.

So, what I'm concluding from all that is not necessarily that the show is horrible (critics like it), but that it hasn't really hit a note that resonates with fans yet. Not enough to drown out the naysayers, anyway.

[Deledrius]

Is the show really meandering that much, that one doesn't know what the show is about already? That'd be a fairly fatal flaw

So, what I'm concluding from all that is not necessarily that the show is horrible (critics like it), but that it hasn't really hit a note that resonates with fans yet. Not enough to drown out the naysayers, anyway.

Again, it's largely a problem with the format they chose. It's one long story, and not a simple one either. They're playing the entire season as a single story with several substantial mystery elements. It's impossible to have a grasp on it enough to make a firm determination, let alone say what the final themes (and how well-executed they are) until it's all said and done. This is the sort of thing you do in a season 2 when you already have an audience, but as a relaunch of a dormant franchise it's a huge risk, especially when the apparent tone (regardless of whether it ends up reconstructing the optimism by the end) is so at odds with the franchise.

The very premise of the show, as a prequel that doesn't fit in the established history of the show, means that the show's justification for itself is in a limbo state of "does this even make sense existing?" until we're given all the pieces of the puzzle. That's the sort of thing that makes even the less involved audience feel subconsciously uneasy and uncertain.

[Durandal_1707]

Is the show really meandering that much, that one doesn't know what the show is about already? That'd be a fairly fatal flaw

So, what I'm concluding from all that is not necessarily that the show is horrible (critics like it), but that it hasn't really hit a note that resonates with fans yet. Not enough to drown out the naysayers, anyway.

Again, it's largely a problem with the format they chose. It's one long story, and not a simple one either. They're playing the entire season as a single story with several substantial mystery elements. It's impossible to have a grasp on it enough to make a firm determination, let alone say what the final themes (and how well-executed they are) until it's all said and done. This is the sort of thing you do in a season 2 when you already have an audience, but as a relaunch of a dormant franchise it's a huge risk, especially when the apparent tone (regardless of whether it ends up reconstructing the optimism by the end) is so at odds with the franchise.

Yes, because ongoing story arcs featuring mystery elements were total disasters in such critical flops as the first seasons of Twin Peaks, the Battlestar Galactica reboot, Orphan Black, and Westworld. Starting the way DS9 and Babylon 5 did is where it's at.

[Deledrius]

Yes, because ongoing story arcs featuring mystery elements were total disasters in such critical flops as the first seasons of Twin Peaks, the Battlestar Galactica reboot, Orphan Black, and Westworld. Starting the way DS9 and Babylon 5 did is where it's at.

You're answering a different question than the ones I was responding to. It's not that this style of storytelling can't be popular, but in the case of Star Trek it has an existing audience to convince in addition to being engaging and resonating in some way.

Also, there's the matter of the type of mysteries it presents. Twin Peaks was pretty straightforward at the start. It's a murder mystery. The famously Lynchian elements creep in slowly. BSG didn't start with a story arc, it just had continuity. The premise was "fleet on the run from a superior enemy force", and the ongoing elements were mostly character-driven. I haven't seen Orphan Black or Westworld to comment on them. All of these shows at least have a pretty simple premise, even if they veer off from it at some point.

LOST is a good example of a complicated show with a simple and obvious premise at the start. It was advertised as being "survivors of a plane crash find themselves on a tropical island" and quickly turns into "survivors of a plane crash find themselves on a mysterious tropical island" by the end of the pilot, and at the end of the second season this changes drastically as it largely stops being about the survivors trying to stay alive and escape the island at all as the landscape (both literally and figuratively) changes. But it started as something that was easy to grasp and engaged audiences very well.

Discovery's initial premise is a lot harder to pin down for people. "An officer accused of mutiny finds herself aboard a ship involved in an experimental drive system they hope will win a war they think the mutineer helped start" is a bit lengthy, and not especially concise as a premise. The show is character driven, so perhaps the premise is "An officer who makes a command mistake goes on a journey to redeem herself", except that Burnham has no (conscious) desire for redemption or acceptance. Maybe we're watching a show about "A captain who slowly pushes the boundaries of ethics in order to win a war" but he's not been the focus at all. All of these are possible valid readings, but there is no focus, and that's not true of BSG (per-season) nor I suspect of Orphan Black or Westworld. Twin Peaks started with one before it devolved into an art film. TOS and TNG were adventure shows with the simple premise of "A crew explores the strange and wonderful galaxy". DS9 was a "life on the frontier" show. Voyager was "a stranded crew tries to get home". Enterprise was "the early years of the federation" overlaid on top of TOS and TNG's premise (surprise! Mixing them like this was not as successful). Discovery is telling a story that it feels like we'll only know the type of story they're telling when it's done. That's a hard sell to a general audience.

What I'm really trying to say is that starting Discovery so differently than previous Treks, in addition to having a muddy premise, and then giving the show essentially two pilot episodes, and on top of all that taking several more episodes before the characters are all in place and the season's story finally comes to the surface, is very awkward and probably largely responsible for the show's reception. Putting it behind a paywall gives it an even higher bar to pass for a lot of people as they need to justify that expense. High production values are great but that's not convincing to a viewer's wallet if they aren't hooked by the show.

I'm enjoying Discovery, but I admit it's not an easy show to get into, and I can see why a general audience (and many existing Trek fans) are going to have a tough time of it. They didn't just change one or two assumptions; they flipped the table and the one they've put in its place isn't exactly the most well-constructed. Only time will tell if they're able to build it up into something stable and capable of holding up a new ongoing series.

[Durandal_1707]

Twin Peaks was pretty straightforward at the start. It's a murder mystery. The famously Lynchian elements creep in slowly.

Twin Peaks oozed mystery from every pore of its being from day one, not only in the overall plot but also in pretty much all of the characters, all of whom come across as particularly strange people with a lot of secrets from the get-go. I'm not just talking about the Lynchian elements, although those do start showing up as early as Episode 1, with Cooper's "Red Room" dream (and, really, Cooper's weird quasi-mystical investigative style in general).

BSG didn't start with a story arc, it just had continuity. The premise was "fleet on the run from a superior enemy force", and the ongoing elements were mostly character-driven.

The premise was: The Cylons Have A Plan. What is this plan? Why did they attack the colonies? Why are they rebuilding them now? What is their endgame? What's the deal with Baltar? Who are the other Cylons in our cast? Can we trust anybody? And what is The Plan???

Of course, the Plan turned out just to be "Kill All Humans!", but we didn't know that when Season 1 aired. At that point, it looked like killing the humans was only going to be one part of some grand cosmic Xanatos chess game, to accomplish God knows what. And as the initial mystery diminished, so did the appeal of the series.

I mean, look at the first regular episode. They didn't even confirm whether that ship Lee blew up was actually compromised, or if so, how they did it. The Cylons appeared to have almost godlike abilities; they were invisible, unseen, and terrifying. It was paranoia to the extreme.

I haven't seen Orphan Black or Westworld to comment on them. All of these shows at least have a pretty simple premise, even if they veer off from it at some point.

Haven't seen Westworld, but I understand it to be a mysterious show. Orphan Black is about as far from your description as you can get. The entire first season is basically the audience, along with the protagonist, wondering what the hell is going on. The drama is driven by paranoia caused by the incredibly weird and WTF situation the protagonist has found herself in. And it's absolutely gripping. Later on, when the premise crystallizes into something more straightforward, it loses a lot of its momentum.

Discovery's initial premise is a lot harder to pin down for people. "An officer accused of mutiny finds herself aboard a ship involved in an experimental drive system they hope will win a war they think the mutineer helped start" is a bit lengthy, and not especially concise as a premise. The show is character driven, so perhaps the premise is "An officer who makes a command mistake goes on a journey to redeem herself", except that Burnham has no (conscious) desire for redemption or acceptance.

I'm not sure why you'd say that; she obviously desires redemption—who wouldn't?—but at least right now, is realistic about her chances of attaining it. If that desire weren't there, though, there's no way Lorca's speech about helping end the war that she helped start would have hit its mark. The overall plot is obviously a redemption arc.

[Alasar]

Just heard someone say this about the latest star wars movie:

"It didn't do that thing where I could be as smart as the writers,..."

That is basically the opposite feeling I have with this STD. Even if there is some discussion here about whether the story arc is good or not. It is predictable and cliche.

I'm not sure why you'd say that; she obviously desires redemption—who wouldn't?—but at least right now, is realistic about her chances of attaining it. If that desire weren't there, though, there's no way Lorca's speech about helping end the war that she helped start would have hit its mark. The overall plot is obviously a redemption arc.

I also think this might be a redemption ark but my problem with that is whether or not she deserves to have redemption. The biggest reason why I stopped watching is because I do not think she deserves any redemption and while she may be a sulking, stoic mess most of the time, I think her actions were out of bounds and frankly stupid. The thing I had hoped for after the pilot episodes was that she actually was sent to the prison world and she was used as an example of how not to behave like an idiot and how to use the training, education and common sense that even a starfleet cadet has to never do anything as stupid and incompetent again.

[cilantro]

Okay, I'll admit I thought the Discovery Klingons looked weird too at first. But, people on the Internet have Photoshopped hair onto them, and look what happens:






When they have hair... they suddenly look like TNG Klingons. So the change in their look isn't really a change to the species look; it's a fashion change, and those do change in relatively short periods of time. Just look at the difference between hairstyles in the 70s, 80s, and 90s for example.

Basically, shaving one's head is in vogue in Klingon society during this period of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only real thing to complain about is if you actually wanted that Augment Virus crap to show up in here, in which case... ehh, no thanks.

So they shaved their heads and eyebrows off?

[Admiral X]

No, the old makeup actually allowed the actors to act. For as much shit as people give Star Trek for bumpy-headed aliens, that is the entire reason for that. The new make-up doesn't allow for them to properly act or even just speak, really.

[LavarosVA]

No, the old makeup actually allowed the actors to act. For as much shit as people give Star Trek for bumpy-headed aliens, that is the entire reason for that. The new make-up doesn't allow for them to properly act or even just speak, really.

I'd disagree with that assessment, given the multiple cast interviews and the performances themselves, the make up and suits actually helps the actors get into the character even more. What irks me about the redesigned Klingons is that there's no real balance here. They don't remind me of the Klingons of any era.

[cilantro]

No, the old makeup actually allowed the actors to act. For as much shit as people give Star Trek for bumpy-headed aliens, that is the entire reason for that. The new make-up doesn't allow for them to properly act or even just speak, really.

I'd disagree with that assessment, given the multiple cast interviews and the performances themselves, the make up and suits actually helps the actors get into the character even more. What irks me about the redesigned Klingons is that there's no real balance here. They don't remind me of the Klingons of any era.

Well, it's STD (even the name speaks for itself, IMO). Visually it doesn't look the classic Trek that is supposed to even be set only for 10 YEARS before TOS. This isn't even the JJ Timeline and at least the JJ Timeline had uniforms that were more aline with what we know that Kirk, Spock, Sulu, etc... all wore. Instead, this show is so far off on the mark on a lot of things. Not just Klingons and uniforms but even tech and style. NOTHING seems to be lining up nicely with the whole series:


youtu.be/UDFh8Ieoty0