DIS - Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

[sandangel]

Can we please please please please have a Star Trek show that's not a season spanning Conspiracy Mystery Plot? I am so done with serious plots in my stupid scifi shows. I just want a cast of interesting characters visiting random new worlds and having strange and exciting adventures again, is that too much to ask for?

At least in a fun series, a world shattering explosion that doesn't even tousle the leading man's hair is kind of funny, not further proof of poor writing and narrative structure.

[Mabus]

the ripping off of Iron Man

Don't forget Interstellar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GCQHFjrOP4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqEIuncGlmk

[FrozenRoy]

Honestly, I am shocked that given Chuck has brought up people like Maurice Hurley before, he hasn't brought up one of Discovery's biggest issues: Alex Kurtzman. Maybe because it is still ongoing? We're talking about someone who has a truly AWFUL series of credits to his name (Revenge of the Fallen, Cowboys & Aliens, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, The Mummy 2017 and Star Trek Into Darkness) which tend to have many issues I find endemic to Discovery: Shallow characterization, action-driven plotlines that take precedence over it, plots that are usually very stupid and unoriginal ideas. Not that he's never been on anything of value, but he has a LOT of flops he is involved in where I see the same issues in Discovery and Picard.

And he has in interviews pretty repeatedly shown lacking knowledge of the series, from simple stuff (like Vulcan) to more complex stuff. This feels like a case where the fish kinda rots at the head and I wonder if Kurtzman taking more of a step back could help.

I'll also add on to this episode that Control in this and the AI in Picard really have me exhausted, between Picard's lame Mass Effect-esque plot and this, it feels like Star Trek has taken a very dim view on AI which just feels so at-odds with so much of the series exploration of both life and artificial life. Why do we now need future evil AI stuff that casts a shadow on the entire franchise's perception of artificial life? Being different isn't bad, but there's nothing about the plots that particularly interests me or feels like it has much of a positive effect at least on me. If nothing else, it feels like something you could build up over a lot longer period of time than what happened if you did want to do it.

I think this adds to the feeling of disinterest that Chuck mentioned: The plot itself really isn't interesting a large portion of the time, so it has to be carried entirely by its characters. A stronger plot would mean even during times it feels like too much Michael (or w/e problem one might have with the show), you are getting something out of it worthwhile. But with such a bland plot, there is little to distract yourself when something you don't like is on display. It just enhances the pre-existing issues, I feel.

[Cheerilee]

I'm not sure if the Alex Kurtzman situation is entirely understood (despite some groups attempting to paint him as the cancer behind everything that's wrong with modern Trek).

I won't say he's a good writer, but the writing on Bayformers 1&2 was very much dominated by Michael Bay, and it never got any better after Kurtzman & Orci left the franchise (not until Michael Bay left). On the contrary, the K&O-produced Transformers Prime is debatably the best Transformers ever. For ASM2, Kurtzman was hired by Sony to salvage a broken mess, and he failed. For The Mummy, Universal hired him and asked him to deliver their own Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he failed. As a producer (not a writer), it's been suggested that Kurtzman knows what it's like to write for overbearing producers, so he doesn't want to be that kind of producer, and he gives the writers a lot of creative freedom, which makes the writers like him.

Star Trek Discovery wasn't created by Alex Kurtzman, it was created by Bryan Fuller, Kurtzman was kept around "as insurance" by CBS because he had experience working on Trek movies (like STID), and CBS was worried about their huge investment. Then Bryan Fuller had an explosive fight with CBS and was fired. Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts took over, but then they were abusive towards the writing staff, until they too were fired. Kurtzman didn't create Discovery, he just stepped up and did the job after everything around him exploded repeatedly. And he carried S1 of the show to a successful completion, CBS loved him because he wasn't Bryan Fuller, while the writers loved him because he wasn't Gretchen & Aaron. IIRC, someone (might've been Chuck) said that in the comic book industry, you can either be talented, well liked by your co-workers, or get your work done on-time and under-budget. If you can land two of the three, then your job is secure.

For S2 of Discovery, it wouldn't really have been Kurtzman's place to flip the table on the entire show (which Kurtzman didn't originate), especially not while it's commercially successful as-is. In that case, the smartest thing to do would be to let the Discovery writers keep on writing Discovery, because they know more about making "Discovery" than Kurtzman does, which is allegedly Kurtzman's MO anyways. Let the people do their jobs. And, S2 of Discovery did wind up being a bit better than S1.

For "Picard", one could say that show's all Michael Chabon. There's no indication that he got any pushback from Kurtzman. Picard is kind of distinct from Discovery, and love it or hate it (I personally hate it), one could say that Kurtzman let Chabon make the show that he wanted to make, and that's admirable.

And then Lower Decks is again an entirely different animal. It doesn't feel like Discovery or Picard, it feels like exactly what you'd expect from Mike McMahan, the guy who used to write the "TNG season 8" parody twitter account (and I think it's great, the best new Trek by a massive amount, even better than the JJ Abrams movies).

Basically, assuming that the theory is true, that Kurtzman gives writers a lot of creative freedom, then his own personal failings as a writer aren't to blame for the things people hate about modern Trek. Although you could blame him for not being a strict enough gatekeeper. In any case, I wouldn't expect Chuck to comment on such poorly-sourced rumors and innuendo.

[Link8909]

I'm not sure if the Alex Kurtzman situation is entirely understood (despite some groups attempting to paint him as the cancer behind everything that's wrong with modern Trek).

I won't say he's a good writer, but the writing on Bayformers 1&2 was very much dominated by Michael Bay, and it never got any better after Kurtzman & Orci left the franchise (not until Michael Bay left). On the contrary, the K&O-produced Transformers Prime is debatably the best Transformers ever. For ASM2, Kurtzman was hired by Sony to salvage a broken mess, and he failed. For The Mummy, Universal hired him and asked him to deliver their own Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he failed. As a producer (not a writer), it's been suggested that Kurtzman knows what it's like to write for overbearing producers, so he doesn't want to be that kind of producer, and he gives the writers a lot of creative freedom, which makes the writers like him.

Star Trek Discovery wasn't created by Alex Kurtzman, it was created by Bryan Fuller, Kurtzman was kept around "as insurance" by CBS because he had experience working on Trek movies (like STID), and CBS was worried about their huge investment. Then Bryan Fuller had an explosive fight with CBS and was fired. Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts took over, but then they were abusive towards the writing staff, until they too were fired. Kurtzman didn't create Discovery, he just stepped up and did the job after everything around him exploded repeatedly. And he carried S1 of the show to a successful completion, CBS loved him because he wasn't Bryan Fuller, while the writers loved him because he wasn't Gretchen & Aaron. IIRC, someone (might've been Chuck) said that in the comic book industry, you can either be talented, well liked by your co-workers, or get your work done on-time and under-budget. If you can land two of the three, then your job is secure.

For S2 of Discovery, it wouldn't really have been Kurtzman's place to flip the table on the entire show (which Kurtzman didn't originate), especially not while it's commercially successful as-is. In that case, the smartest thing to do would be to let the Discovery writers keep on writing Discovery, because they know more about making "Discovery" than Kurtzman does, which is allegedly Kurtzman's MO anyways. Let the people do their jobs. And, S2 of Discovery did wind up being a bit better than S1.

For "Picard", one could say that show's all Michael Chabon. There's no indication that he got any pushback from Kurtzman. Picard is kind of distinct from Discovery, and love it or hate it (I personally hate it), one could say that Kurtzman let Chabon make the show that he wanted to make, and that's admirable.

And then Lower Decks is again an entirely different animal. It doesn't feel like Discovery or Picard, it feels like exactly what you'd expect from Mike McMahan, the guy who used to write the "TNG season 8" parody twitter account (and I think it's great, the best new Trek by a massive amount, even better than the JJ Abrams movies).

Basically, assuming that the theory is true, that Kurtzman gives writers a lot of creative freedom, then his own personal failings as a writer aren't to blame for the things people hate about modern Trek. Although you could blame him for not being a strict enough gatekeeper. In any case, I wouldn't expect Chuck to comment on such poorly-sourced rumors and innuendo.

I absolutely agree, and while I agree that he's not the best writer, I have a lot of respect for Alex Kurtzman for allowing this creative freedom with all the current Star Trek series, and as you say love or hate them, that allows a lot of new ideas that one person might not have thought of, something that under Rick Berman was sorely lacking with the franchise, specifically with Voyager and Enterprise, Deep Space Nine was able to be what it is in-spite of Berman, and ultimately it caused more harm to the franchise in the long run, I'd rather have a series take a chance and try something new or different with that risk of success or failure, rather than a series that plays it so safe that it becomes boring and stale.

Honestly I'm also just tired of people demonising people who made or work on media people felt wasn't good, something sadly has become acceptable behaviour in fandoms that leads to disgusting results (Ahmed Best as a reminder), I'm ok with calling out if someone made a bad decision, but I'm not going to act like they're the worst person in the world for making a mistake, if idiocy was a punishable offence then everyone would be in prison.

I'm also glade you mentioned Transformers Prime, that was a fantastic series, with great characters, interesting stories that continued on from one another, and it took some of the elements of the films and made them work very well, I highly recommend people check it out.

[Ikiry0]

It was nice of them to promote Ash to the head of a terrorist organization.

[CrypticMirror]

And then Lower Decks is again an entirely different animal. It doesn't feel like Discovery or Picard, it feels like exactly what you'd expect from Mike McMahan, the guy who used to write the "TNG season 8" parody twitter account (and I think it's great, the best new Trek by a massive amount, even better than the JJ Abrams movies).

Picard is obviously better than LD, but I agree that LD is parsecs better than DSC or JJmovies 1&2[Beyond was actually, mostly, okay]. However, saying it is better than those is damning with faint praise. LD is a show that might have potential if it dropped the artstyle for something a bit more real looking, I hate that particular type of animation stylisation [yes, all animation is stylised to some degree, it is just that particular type I hate. The blob and noodle style of animation needs to DIAF]. And if it improved the storytelling to the heady heights of ENT Season 1.

So does this mean that there couldn't be a good Star Trek show largely focused on one character that's say a solo freighter captain that travels from system to system within well known space? No. But where you don't, or can't have certain "Trek" elements, that just means you have to work even harder at the others. In this example, that would be focusing heavily on the world, or bringing the audience in. As the character leaves Earth, the familiar mushroom of Spacedock passes the window, at a stopover on Coridan, an Intrepid class is in orbit. To the latter, the captain's brother has a young teenage son who dreams of nothing more than spaceflight and being "out there" "unencumbered" by Starfleet rules and regulations so the captain has him onboard every few episodes.

Did you just pitch an Okona Trek show?

[Deledrius]

What exactly was the reason why Control decided to go full Skynet?

My reading was that it was a rampancy issue, due to information overload from the Sphere data in the future (which also causes a nice predestination paradox). In the end it never really goes there, so who knows. I don't think it's meant to add up.

I guess Kurtzman and his boy band must have realized a bit too late that they forgot to give the main villain of the story a proper motivation, so they decided to ignore this problem, hoping people won't notice it, after all, season 2 is just a gish gallop plot.

Absolutely, and "Gish Gallop Plot" is the perfect description. I've been lamenting for years a modern TV plot problem with the shift everyone's taken into serialized formats but not being up to the task: nothing makes sense as a whole, and they hope you won't notice by the end because they keep refocusing the attention window in each episode so that you forget all the dropped questions and plot threads. And not just minor things, but things that were crucial in the moment, except they're interrupted by the next one, and the next... until you get to the end and they only ever resolve the final conflict, and maybe the very first thing from the start of the season. Everything else was just mechanical with the hope of distracting the viewer with so much that they become inundated and unable to recognize how little anything fits together.

[Worffan101]

I have ZERO respect for Kurtzman. It's very clear which episodes he had the most influence on in season 2--the first episode and the last 2. And those are the worst, most incoherent episodes of the lot.

This is what that worthless waste of life DOES. He writes a shitty opener full of mystery boxes, a shitty climax full of cliches, and expects the writers to fill in the middle with whatever so long as they get from point A to point B. The problem is that (a) this provides no room for organic character development and (b) Kurtzman is just a straight-up bad writer whose writing, much like his directing, is a nonstop torrent of tired genre cliches lazily pasted together with shallow, hammy characterization and a few random fanboy references to appease the hardcore fans of whatever franchise he's defiling today.

This idiot learned at the feet of JJ Abrams and he's twice as dumb. I'm surprised this congenital incompetent can breathe without fatally injuring himself.

Kurtzman is so bad, in fact, that I now instinctively groan and avoid literally anything that has his vile name attached to it. He's stuck in a world of shitty '90s low-budget schlock with formulaic plots every week, and he doesn't have the character or plot writing skills to overcome that incompetence.

[Thebestoftherest]

Yeah, I feel like it better to come out and say what the villians are than the mystery boxes format.