My review of Star Trek: Discovery season one and two

[Yukaphile]

On the other hand, you got weakness to light, changes to the Klingons, and all the other retcons they needed to purge that make it frankly unwatchable.

[Yukaphile]

Again, I really just think DISCO is the "big shiny new toy" for Trek fandom, so it will take its proper place in history once time has passed, and I think Season 1 will be DISREGARDED. And for the best.

[CharlesPhipps]

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY is a fascinating behind-the-scenes story that will probably enter fandom lore the same way that STAR TREK: VOYAGER did with Ron Moore, Beltrane, Mulgrew, Taylor, Ryan, and other creators' many opinions on the subject. In the case of Star Trek: Discovery it's actually amazing the work is as good as it is because the problem is not bad writing. It's generally very good writing, it's the fact that the creators have completely contradictory visions that they were forced to compromise repeatedly.

BRYAN FULLER had a very specific vision that was basically written in the Battle of the Binary Stars. The Klingons are based on a combination of ISIS and Trump (which even I feel is unfair to Trump) with the idea of religious anti-immigration ethno-nationalists versus the embodiment of Trekkian cosmpolitanism as well as tolerance in the Federation. Fuller was promptly canned and the people who replaced him had no interest in his concept: which was to do anthologies of Trek stories with new crews. CBS wanted something very different, which was "Basically, do it like other Star Treks."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-ep-bryan-fullers-original-plan-1026074

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-ousted-showrunner-details-clash-cbs-discovery-1025147

There's also the fact T'Kuvma's actor was charged with rape and sexual assault.

The subsequent show-runners wanted to do more episodic episodes but Fuller had already scripted and written out the Klingon Arc that they promptly had to wrap-up after a bunch of completely irrelevant episodes. The character of Captain Lorca was also not someone they wanted to deal with and they wrote out by making him an evil imposter all along.

I think it's roughly akin to someone taking over Game of Thrones and writing out the Lannisters and Daenerys to focus on Arya and Jon Snow's adventures wandering around the North. It's STILL the same characters (minus a few) but not where the show was originally going.

[CharlesPhipps]

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY season two review

Original Post: https://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2019/10/star-trek-discovery-season-two-review.html

I binge watched Star Trek: Discovery with my wife and it's lent me an interesting perspective on the show, one that I might have not normally have had. I think this is one of those shows that lends itself well to binging with plotlines better appreciated in the serialized format over episodic content. Ironically, I feel like the Short Treks are doing a better job with the episodic writing and kind of wish they would have all be expanded to full episodes. There will be some mild spoilers in the review but nothing that is going to ruin anyone's enjoyment, IMHO. Consider yourself warned.

As I mentioned, the problem with the show has never been its characters, its actors, or even its ideas: its problem has been that it jumps around so much that it never really commits to anything so audience investment is hurt. There have been three major captains headlining the Discovery by the start of season three and poor Saru gets replaced every time he thinks he's going to sit in the big chair permanently. I actually felt sorry for the guy by the end.

The premise is that Captain Pike (Anson Mount), captain of the Enterprise in pilot "The Cage", has been assigned to temporarily captain the Discovery after the disastrous reign of two psychotic Mirror Universe nutbars. Pike immediately proves to be a popular, if out-of-step, officer who assigns them to investigate bizarre red lights that have appeared across the galaxy. Each of these lights appears over a crisis that our heroes have to involve themselves in. They also prove to be somehow connected to the recently incapacitated Lieutenant Spock (Ethan Peck).

Here, the story and characters are much more consistent. The Red Lights storyline is all connected with the subplot about Section 31, Michael's past, her relationship with Spock, and other details. Indeed, it's a little too neatly connected as we get another example of "small universe" syndrome with Michael. She's not only Spock's foster sister and blamed for the start of the Klingon-Federation War but we find out her biological parents were incredibly important as well. Indeed, as game changing as the Spore Drive is, it is nothing to the invention they create. But more on that latter.

Really, Captain Pike and Spock are the highlight of this season and that's something of a problem with this story as you shouldn't have your guest stars be the most enjoyable part of the story. Captain Pike brings a much needed TOS levity to his character and a lighter idealism that contrasts him sharply against the grimmer harder crew of the U.S.S Discovery. While Spock goes through a terrible crucible, Peck manages to give a dignified performance with several standout moments. My favorite is when he has Spock successfully deconstruct Michael Burnham's savior complex in what is probably the season's best scene.

Ansom Mount's Pike also incorporates a good deal of the character's brief TOS history. This is post "The Cage" and we have scenes taken from the original episode. Pike longs for his lover from Talos IV while also being terrified of his future quadriplegic status (that he gets a glimpse of with some Klingon relics). He's an interesting character to put on the discovery, being of a slight mystical bent that isn't so quick to dismiss the inexplicable as Michael Burnham. I really liked him and am in agreement with those who say they would watch a Star Trek: The New Original Voyages series starring him, Rebecca Romijn's Number One, and Peck's Spock.

The villain for this season proves to be Section 31, though it's not actually the ideological extreme of the Federation this time but an evil computer controlling it ala Person of Interest. A similar plotline existed in the Star Trek novelverse but this is apparently two people coming up with the concept independently. Control is not a particularly interesting villain and I'm not sure I buy his ability to wipe out all life in the galaxy. Did he gain control over the Omega Particle somehow? You'd think Q or the Borg would have something to say about that.

I like Section 31 as a concept but purely in the context of being villains for our heroes to oppose. I prefer it to be more like James Bond's SPECTER or Mass Effect's Cerberus than treating it as Starfleet's black ops division. That's the way it's presented here with none of the previous series' secrecy. Of course, given how they nearly get the entire galaxy Skynet-ed, I'm of the mind that this would be a good reason to disband the organization. Another being Admiral Cartwright being its head during The Undiscovered Country but that's only true in my Star Trek Adventures campaign.

Overall, I think this season is slightly better than the previous one. I didn't dislike season one but I felt that it suffered from an insufficient commitment to its Klingon Arc and having a problem with its main characters: Michael Burnham and Gabriel Lorca. The former suffered from going from multiple personality extremes while the latter had a very interesting character tossed out for the revelation he was not who he said he was.

Another matter is the story contains a fairly large bit of Empress Georgiou from the Mirror Universe vamping it up. I find Michelle Yeoh entertaining in just about everything she does and she's clearly having a ball. Yet, I'm not sure the characters would indulge her the way they do with her casually admitting to multiple counts of genocide (and she's the LESS racist ruler of her universe). Whenever Gul Dukat was entertaining on DS9 (and he was frequently very entertaining), Sisko could never manage more than tepid politeness since he knew Dukat was a mass murderer.

Season two feels like the writers tried to address some of the fans' complaints. The Klingons have hair now, which looks better but makes the redesign even less necessary. We also get some explanation of the various bridge officers' backstory (some of which is quite good). The fact that the adventure is based around exploring strange new worlds and visiting new planets is also a welcome relief from the disjointed Klingon War and Mirror Universe episodes of season one. The horrible death of Hugh Culber in the first season is addressed, which is fortunate since that was a poor way of treating Star Trek's first gay couple (not counting Trill).

Unfortunately, I do feel like the show is a bit too crowded as is with all the new characters to develop the cast as well as they could. Also, it all ends up being about Michael in the end as well. I like her but less is more sometimes. To use an analogy, Blofeld doesn't have to be James Bond's brother to make their relationship interesting and personal. Spock and Michael have some great scenes but their incredibly intense relationship and animosity comes from the fact the latter once called him a racist name once. I mean, seriously, Spock. Be like Elsa and let it go.

The best episodes of season two are definitely "New Eden" which deals with the conflict between faith and science as well as the episodes dealing with Saru's homeworld ("The Sounds of Thunder" and "Light and Shadows"). Unfortunately, these are the episodes that have the least to deal with the actual main plot of the game. We also have the climax of the story deal with events using a character from Short Trek's first episode, which really should have been incorporated into the main plot.

I think it summarizes the problems with this show that the best part of the season is the individual personalized episodes as well as the guest stars. This isn't because Discovery's cast is bad or even underwhelming. No, I want more Tilly, Ash Tyler, Stamets, and Saru. Lots more. I want more bridge officers too. It's just that the show keeps throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the wall in hopes something will stick. It feels way too try hard. Why visit Talos IV? I dunno, because it's that thing you remember and liked if you're a hardcore Trekkie. Why is the ENTIRE UNIVERSE at stake? Because that makes the story bigger and this show is obsessed with bigger and bigger.

Still, Discovery's second season is never boring. It's always entertaining. The fact there's too much stuff going on isn't the worst flaw for a space opera to have. The characters are entertaining, everyone seems to be having fun, and if Michael's history is approaching Chris Claremont's X-men's Summers Family Tree levels of ridiculousness then it's in good company. I just wish the writers would slow down and stop being so loud as Taylor Swift would say (my second musical reference in this review).

8/10

[CharlesPhipps]

That was why I was curious why he thought of TNG Season 1. If he'd rate it lower.

I think that Star Trek: The Next Generation Season One is far too underrated to be honest. Yes, it had some genuine stinkers ("Code of Honor", "Angel One", "Skin of Evil", "Justice") but I actually really liked the cast and felt they had a lot going for them. They were finding their footing but I loved Denise Crosby and think that they implied a lot more interesting series of personal relationships (Data/Tasha, Troi/Riker, Picard/Crusher w/ Wesley possibly his son) than came out. The sets, the effects, and more meant that even when it was bad, it was entertainingly bad.

I dunno, because we have 2/10 episodes alongside mostly solid 8/10 so 6/10?

I strongly recommend watching DISCO's first season because it's entertaining Star Trek, has lovable characters (Tilly! Saru), and some great actors (Yeoh, Isaacs, Frain). I love the Klingon Tombship, the conflict between two fundamentally ideologically opposed powers, and the Klingons returning as bad guys. It's just that the Klingons as villains prove to be mostly nothingburgers because no one wanted to do the Klingon War plot. The Mirror Universe plot was also a much better put down of Donald Trumpian populism than T'Kuvma ever could be and actually gives a decent argument (Which is, "I am promising a lot of bullshit but just out for myself") without being heavy handed.

The special effects are awesome and the set-up well. I have complaints like Lorca getting dumped and the lack of good Klingon follow-up but it is definitely watchable at its worst.

That was a good review. It's nowhere even approximately near my thoughts but it makes sense for a more tolerant fan.

I won't launch a diatribe (Edit: That lasted a while, didn't it?), I'll just say this: Discovery wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants a monstrous race of Trump stand-ins and it wants the Klingons for their name-value and brand. It wants to pander to nostalgia with endless references and it wants the freedom to completely jettison continuity. It wants to be taken seriously as an authentic piece of Star Trek and it wants to be a rip-roaring pew-pew Abrams-style action film.

If Discovery were slow and sober science fiction with a nostalgia aesthetic based on "The Cage", I'd probably have loved it. I understand all the arguments in favour of it being what is but I don't accept that disliking it makes me less of a Star Trek fan or that I owe them a chance to improve after they've been so hostile to the fan base (aggressively going after fan games and fan films and pandering to the press with outright lies about Star Trek).

It definitely feels like it comes from the "Mass Effect" style treatment of Star Trek that I use when discussing the Abrams movies. The science fiction is so concerned with spectacle that it feels a bit more like Star Wars than it does Star Trek at times. Mass effect being the Big Budget Action movie in a hard science fiction Trekkian universe example that I tend to use.

The thing is that I like BOTH Trek and Wars as well as shows that merge the two.

That is really good and balanced review that points out equally both good and bad in season 1. Bravo.

Thank you!

While I'm here though I should say (to Charles, I mean) that struck me as a very well expressed review. Myself I'd probably have knocked another half a point of the rating out of ten just because the Ash/Michael relationship... I dunno, it never clicked. I love both actors, while they're on screen I buy whatever they're saying and doing in the moment, but as soon as it's over and I think back I just can't find my footing with the whole idea of those two having a connection (which kind of extended into Ash in season two for me as well - great acting, weak character). Thanks for taking the effort, it's made me think I really should watch through s1 over a weekend sometime.

Thank you! Very grateful. Ash and Michael is actually something that I didn't mind but I feel like it also petered out a bit. The show suffers from the fact Michael acts at the speed of plot. She's the most emotional Vulcan who ever lived and is the Science Person one minute, the ideologue the next, and then the guilt-stricken angry action heroine the next. They never quite gel into a single character and thus it's hard to get invested in a romance. Yet, Ash is also suffering Klingon torture, traumatized, and more so it's interesting to follow that up. They're both looking for a human connection but the thing is, neither knows the other at all.

Were I a writer on the show I'd actually ditch 60% of Michael's personality traits and have her play the Spock and human raised by Vulcans deal full time. There's a lot to mine there by the fact that she tries to be logical but there's no point since she's not a raging Krogan underneath like most Vulcan and has emotional needs like those that would work in a romance.

[Simplicius]

It definitely feels like it comes from the "Mass Effect" style treatment of Star Trek that I use when discussing the Abrams movies. The science fiction is so concerned with spectacle that it feels a bit more like Star Wars than it does Star Trek at times. Mass effect being the Big Budget Action movie in a hard science fiction Trekkian universe example that I tend to use.

The thing is that I like BOTH Trek and Wars as well as shows that merge the two.

At risk of veering off topic, I'm a big fan of "Mass Effect". I think it's a great piece of Trek, almost like a TNG movie done right. It's got the exploration, Trek's medium (as opposed to soft or hard) science fiction and the chance for Shepard to play as a gung-ho ladies' man (a la Kirk), an eloquent diplomat (a la Picard), a no-nonsense tactician (a la Sisko), and even a bipolar train wreck (a la Janeway).

I don't like "Mass Effect 2" or "Mass Effect 3", however, because that's when the action spectacle really kicked into overdrive (at the expense of exploration, decent science fiction, continuity and story logic).

However, when all is said and done - I think season one of Discovery is better, on average, than season one of TNG. Yet, I cannot bring myself to rate it higher because I never get the feeling, whilst watching it, that the people writing TNG held me (or people like me) in contempt or that they were trying to dupe me.

Here are a few examples:

1) The Klingon Redesign. Taken on its own, it's just a bad stylistic choice, a misfire. In context, however, it is a part of the lie of the "visual reboot". The writers wanted Star Trek fans to buy into the idea that continuity hadn't been upset by their choice - rather than owning it.

2) & 3) The Spore Drive & Spock's Secret Sister. On their own, they're just examples of really bad continuity. The solution would've been to fix them or acknowledge that Discovery is a reboot (which it clearly was, in season one). Instead, we were told that everything would make sense and that the transition between Discovery and TOS would be seamless.

These things get back to my main issue with Discovery. The writers want to have their cake and eat it too. If you're a fan of Klingons, what does season one have to offer you? If you're not a fan of Klingons, what does using Klingons as the main villains do for you?

Or, put another way ... What if the Ferengi (look, culture, acting and so on) of TNG were, in fact, presented by TNG as "the Romulans"? What if the writers said that it was a "visual reboot" that didn't actually change the story? That's what it would take to put those two first seasons on par, in my opinion.

[CharlesPhipps]

At risk of veering off topic, I'm a big fan of "Mass Effect". I think it's a great piece of Trek, almost like a TNG movie done right. It's got the exploration, Trek's medium (as opposed to soft or hard) science fiction and the chance for Shepard to play as a gung-ho ladies' man (a la Kirk), an eloquent diplomat (a la Picard), a no-nonsense tactician (a la Sisko), and even a bipolar train wreck (a la Janeway).

I don't like "Mass Effect 2" or "Mass Effect 3", however, because that's when the action spectacle really kicked into overdrive (at the expense of exploration, decent science fiction, continuity and story logic).

However, when all is said and done - I think season one of Discovery is better, on average, than season one of TNG. Yet, I cannot bring myself to rate it higher because I never get the feeling, whilst watching it, that the people writing TNG held me (or people like me) in contempt or that they were trying to dupe me.

Here are a few examples:

1) The Klingon Redesign. Taken on its own, it's just a bad stylistic choice, a misfire. In context, however, it is a part of the lie of the "visual reboot". The writers wanted Star Trek fans to buy into the idea that continuity hadn't been upset by their choice - rather than owning it.

2) & 3) The Spore Drive & Spock's Secret Sister. On their own, they're just examples of really bad continuity. The solution would've been to fix them or acknowledge that Discovery is a reboot (which it clearly was, in season one). Instead, we were told that everything would make sense and that the transition between Discovery and TOS would be seamless.

These things get back to my main issue with Discovery. The writers want to have their cake and eat it too. If you're a fan of Klingons, what does season one have to offer you? If you're not a fan of Klingons, what does using Klingons as the main villains do for you?

Or, put another way ... What if the Ferengi (look, culture, acting and so on) of TNG were, in fact, presented by TNG as "the Romulans"? What if the writers said that it was a "visual reboot" that didn't actually change the story? That's what it would take to put those two first seasons on par, in my opinion.

0. I like ME 2 the most because I tend to love stories about antiheroes, heroes with severe baggage, and lawless frontier regions. That's pretty much what I hoped to get from Andromeda when they said it would be the Wild West IN SPACE but instead it felt like Dragon Age: Inquisition IN SPACE and I hated DA:I.

1. The thing about the Klingons in Discovery is they don't act different, they just look different. I don't even have to point out that cultures have variety in them, even in Star Trek. The Klingons under T'Kuvma are a bunch of religious fanatics that are trying to get the Empire to join together to instigating a war with the Federation. This is a very Klingon-esque plot as the Empire is ALWAYS falling apart due to corruption, in-fighting, and chaos. Yes, these guys are dressed like Ancient Egyptian Klingons but they're meant to be a weird Taliban-like sect in-universe.

The thing that sells me on the Klingons in DISCO is the fact that T'Kuvma's plan DOESN'T WORK. T'Kuvma dies heroically in battle and enters the anals of Klingon history forever but Kor immediately takes over, murders all of T'Kuvma's followers, plays on the other Klingon's racism to continue the war, and the Federation starts losing the war because they're NOT fighting together but in an incomprehensible series of guerilla attacks.They also lose entirely because L'Rell threatens them and not because of anything resembling honor or dignity.

And yes, the re-design is butt ugly. I mean, does anything have to be said beyond that?

2. The Spore Drive is nonsensical and would actually make more sense if it was said to be powered by magic because at least then we wouldn't have to pretend it makes any sort of scientific sense. The implications of it and the Red Angel Suit are both ridiculous in the same way that the Transwarp Beaming of Into Darkness and the "Transporters can reverse Aging" stuff is. Even so, Season 2 wraps up them both so that we don't have any reason to wonder why Starfleet never uses them again. They wrapped up the plot in a way that makes sense-ish so I don't see any further reason to worry about it.

3. Spock having a sister is something that I feel like was unnecessary but I don't see it as something terribly worrisome either. Spock has a history of announcing relatives we never have heard of before. We never heard of his father being a famous ambassador and having a human wife until he showed up, we never heard of Sybok until he showed up (and it's hilarious there's no mention of him in Burnham's story), and I wouldn't be too anxious to mention that Michael Burnham BENEDICT ARNOLD OF THE FEDERATION was my sister either. Really, Michael's relationship with Sarek would have been the same if he'd just been Random Vulcan Ambassador Who Adopted Human childTM in Season One.

However, Season 2 really did an amazing job working with a bad idea. It's like Darth Maul in Rebels and The Clone War cartoon. Bringing back Darth Maul was a terrible idea but they treated it seriously and worked it for a lot of pathos and some great scenes in the cartoons. Same with Peck and Ms. Greene.

[Simplicius]

I like ME 2 the most because I tend to love stories about antiheroes, heroes with severe baggage, and lawless frontier regions. That's pretty much what I hoped to get from Andromeda when they said it would be the Wild West IN SPACE but instead it felt like Dragon Age: Inquisition IN SPACE and I hated DA:I.

I actually preferred "Andromeda" to "Mass Effect 2 & 3" in every aspect but the aliens (Andromeda's aliens were generic and crappy). I imagine I'm in a very small minority on that count, however.

The thing about the Klingons in Discovery is they don't act different, they just look different. I don't even have to point out that cultures have variety in them, even in Star Trek. The Klingons under T'Kuvma are a bunch of religious fanatics that are trying to get the Empire to join together to instigating a war with the Federation. This is a very Klingon-esque plot as the Empire is ALWAYS falling apart due to corruption, in-fighting, and chaos. Yes, these guys are dressed like Ancient Egyptian Klingons but they're meant to be a weird Taliban-like sect in-universe.

Eh, if the Discovery writers actually wanted to explore the idea of cultural diversity amongst the Klingons they could've developed Enterprises' ready-made "fall out of the augment virus" plot line.

The Spore Drive is nonsensical and would actually make more sense if it was said to be powered by magic because at least then we wouldn't have to pretend it makes any sort of scientific sense. The implications of it and the Red Angel Suit are both ridiculous in the same way that the Transwarp Beaming of Into Darkness and the "Transporters can reverse Aging" stuff is. Even so, Season 2 wraps up them both so that we don't have any reason to wonder why Starfleet never uses them again. They wrapped up the plot in a way that makes sense-ish so I don't see any further reason to worry about it.

I don't worry about it in terms of its effect on continuity (that's a done deal), it's just one more thing I feel is compounded in its awfulness by the writers' insistence that everything would make sense. You have to believe either that they were blatantly lying and came up with a cop-out when they got bored or that their plan for a "seamless" transition was "let's just do whatever we want and have Starfleet classify anything that screws up continuity". As in, the writers were either being deceitful or stupid. That's something I don't have on my mind when I'm watching TNG because ("Code of Honor" excepted) nothing was done with cruel intention.

Spock having a sister is something that I feel like was unnecessary but I don't see it as something terribly worrisome either. Spock has a history of announcing relatives we never have heard of before. We never heard of his father being a famous ambassador and having a human wife until he showed up, we never heard of Sybok until he showed up (and it's hilarious there's no mention of him in Burnham's story), and I wouldn't be too anxious to mention that Michael Burnham BENEDICT ARNOLD OF THE FEDERATION was my sister either. Really, Michael's relationship with Sarek would have been the same if he'd just been Random Vulcan Ambassador Who Adopted Human childTM in Season One.

I've never been one for the "one of the worst pieces of Trek ever produced did this, so it's okay when we do" argument. Who's Sybok? Not ringing a bell, sorry. Is that something you just made up?



I do think Spock's character is tainted by Discovery (darkened at the very least). It's even more than that, however. It all felt like a cynical attempt to drum up interest in Michael Burnham who, on her own, is a pretty unlikable character.

Imagine if Will Riker had been Kirk's grandson or something.

[CharlesPhipps]

I have to admit I find the Augment Virus one of the most ridiculous things in Trek. I basically start tunning out anyone who talks about the differences between Klingons because I don't think there is any. Kor, Klang, and Koloth look the same as whatever Klingons are supposed to look like at the time. I suspect this may have a DIRECT impact on my appreciation of Discovery.

I do think Spock's character is tainted by Discovery (darkened at the very least). It's even more than that, however. It all felt like a cynical attempt to drum up interest in Michael Burnham who, on her own, is a pretty unlikable character.

Michael is Discovery's biggest issue and that's because the show wants us to like her and doesn't seem willing to let that happen naturally. It's also notable that the show has a lot of characters people do like: Tilly, Saru, Pike, Stamets, and so on. I also think Michael is a great character for people to bounce off of.

They have yet to sell her as a lead, though, because some idiot seemed to miss the Stoic Science GuyTM is not usually the best lead in a Trek film.

Season 3 looks like they're continuing with their Michael The Messiah story, though.

[Mecha82]

I do think Spock's character is tainted by Discovery (darkened at the very least). It's even more than that, however. It all felt like a cynical attempt to drum up interest in Michael Burnham who, on her own, is a pretty unlikable character.

I don't think her existence taints Spock anyway. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean that some how now Spock is tainted. That is irrational way of thinking and doesn't resemble logic. At least Earth logic.