Star Trek Discovery: Season Three

[Link8909]

Am I the only one who feels that the 13 episodes this season has, are just not enough to do proper worldbuilding, despite the fact that the show is heavily serialized? We're halfway through and so far not much has happened. I don't even get the feeling that they're a millennium into the future, if anything it feels like they're in some forgotten Federation region where everything went to shit, especially with the writers' fetish for scrap yards and scavenging Trek nostalgia. Even the Earth didn't feel like Earth, it felt like some Brexiting human colony that tried to imitate the actual Federation.

I see what you mean, but I feel that if a story is reduced to it's essential beats without the fluff parts, then the whole thing feels like your in fast-forward, for example I can only watch the extended version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy as the theatrical version feels like it's on fast-forward because of those missing scenes, even though some of those scene don't add much beyond world building or explaining thing that the audience can deduce on their own.

[Link8909]

You brought up Tilly, and this is precisely the about-face they made with that character. Sure, she's still a spaz, and you know what? That's fine. There's people like that in the real world. Sure, they're not the people you want to spend an extended period of time around, but I do like that for Tilly, they appear to have said, "Ok, she's a young engineering prodigy who got on the command track, she's a genius, but is also a bit of a spaz as a result, but she deeply cares about her crewmates/friends. She wants what's best for them, but she draws the line at actions that will hurt others."

Not only that, but she does have a keen interest in the mission. And the scene with her manipulating the million ton asteroid chip off the asteroid was pretty amusing tbph.

Agreed, I've personally always like Tilly from the start, has always had some great moments, and has had a very consistent characterisation throughout the series, I enjoyed her bit with Grudge and Captain Saru's talk with her this episode.

Saru is another great example. He's come a long way from a sentient he-cow that "can sense Death" - he's become a competent, rational leader, who values the people around him, and is trying his best to shoulder a huge responsibility that's the result of assisting Burnham with a few too many of her harebrained Fastball Specials.

Indeed, him loosing his "cow senses" was a great writing move, and it's good that we see him growing into the role of Captain.

I'm personally okay with characters like Burnham with maverick tendencies, as long as you have characters like Captain Saru or Tilly around to call them out on their behaviour, that's honestly why I get frustrated with someone like Archer, who kept doing and making stupid decisions but never gets blamed, called out, or deals with those decisions or the consequences, and thus kept making them.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Oh I haven't seen S3 yet btw; just saying 'cause I can't really respond.

[Captain Crimson]

Oh I haven't seen S3 yet btw; just saying 'cause I can't really respond.

Know what I think may have helped 21st century ST somewhat? If it had been made back in the heyday of cable and the age of first run syndication, because even ENT was cleaning up its act later on and becoming quality TV, being another 21st century show. I think the streaming age has helped really expose all the flaws of the television production model up to now. Like everything else in USA, needs reform, probably won't get it.

In that respect, STD is doing remarkably well under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. When the whole industry has evolved, the paradigm has shifted. I know people could bring up TM over on Disney+, but honestly, I'm not seeing it, though that could be unfair since I have my EU novels, so I just expect a lot more from DSW. Because no matter how much you can criticize it, at least it's doing something novel. But then again, STD really should have been made for the KTL. Not the PTL. I never bought it belonged to that universe except late attempts to try to conform to lore.

[Link8909]

Oh I haven't seen S3 yet btw; just saying 'cause I can't really respond.

Know what I think may have helped 21st century ST somewhat? If it had been made back in the heyday of cable and the age of first run syndication, because even ENT was cleaning up its act later on and becoming quality TV, being another 21st century show. I think the streaming age has helped really expose all the flaws of the television production model up to now. Like everything else in USA, needs reform, probably won't get it.

In that respect, STD is doing remarkably well under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. When the whole industry has evolved, the paradigm has shifted. I know people could bring up TM over on Disney+, but honestly, I'm not seeing it, though that could be unfair since I have my EU novels, so I just expect a lot more from DSW. Because no matter how much you can criticize it, at least it's doing something novel. But then again, STD really should have been made for the KTL. Not the PTL. I never bought it belonged to that universe except late attempts to try to conform to lore.

I see what you mean, but I feel that setting Star Trek Discovery and starting this new era for the franchise in the Kelvin Timeline would have been a mistake that opened up more turmoil for fans.

One of the complaints lobbied at Star Trek (2009) was that it "erased the cannon" (which considering multiverse is a thing in-universe makes this an easy argument to ignore), so starting with that universe and not continuing with the Prime Timeline would have lead many fans to believe that the classic Star Trek was forever gone and not coming back, by continuing in the Prime Timeline is showing many fans that the legacy and cannon of Star Trek is still around and isn't going anywhere, as well as continuing to build upon the universe and make new cannon.

But I do agree that when making Star Trek Discovery if they wanted a prequel there should have been more of an attempted to fit the ascetic of the time it's set in (particularly when it came to the Klingon redesigns personally), I do get both sides of the argument of keeping to what we've seen and updating for modern audience, and I personally feel that the Discovery redesign of the Enterprise (both interior and exterior) was a great blend of the two.

And with the benefit of hindsight, I feel that the start this new era for Trek they needed to do what The Next Generation and what they are now doing for Discovery and set it in a new era, stay in the Prime Timeline but move forward and show how the Star Trek galaxy has evolved.

Still, with the plan on having multiple different style series running at the same time, I'm not against the idea of a series set in the Kelvin Timeline, or a series that showcases multiple what-if scenarios for the Star Trek universe.

[Captain Crimson]

And yet that is precisely how, to my bafflement, Mr. Fuller approached STD. I know you gotta lower your standards a bit to give a new SF series time to grow, but honestly, with all the lore and history this IP has had, they needed to do better. Luckily nothing approaches the dreck of STD S1, but I still can't help but feel due to massive serialization, they're still writing a KTL show that cannot fit into the PTL, which is why they went into the future. Now future retcons can explain how the decade before Kirk was so botched with continuity. I look forward to that. Assuming the writers are competent enough.

[Thebestoftherest]

And yet that is precisely how, to my bafflement, Mr. Fuller approached STD. I know you gotta lower your standards a bit to give a new SF series time to grow, but honestly, with all the lore and history this IP has had, they needed to do better. Luckily nothing approaches the dreck of STD S1, but I still can't help but feel due to massive serialization, they're still writing a KTL show that cannot fit into the PTL, which is why they went into the future. Now future retcons can explain how the decade before Kirk was so botched with continuity. I look forward to that. Assuming the writers are competent enough.

I think that would be best just to ignore the continuity of discovery and just focus on good stories.

[Asvarduil]

I'm personally okay with characters like Burnham with maverick tendencies, as long as you have characters like Captain Saru or Tilly around to call them out on their behaviour, that's honestly why I get frustrated with someone like Archer, who kept doing and making stupid decisions but never gets blamed, called out, or deals with those decisions or the consequences, and thus kept making them.

I completely agree regarding Archer. Burnham is better than Archer, but A) that's not a high bar to clear, and B) Burnham does a lot of the same things that Archer does, only she has a stronger moral compass. She hasn't yet committed genocide by witholding a cure for a plague, she hasn't yet tortured anyone that I've seen, and she hasn't broken under the strain of things going on around her. She also isn't responsible for 24 Hours in Sickbay, which greatly helps.

With that said, the reason I dislike Burnham even with the counterweights in the rest of the cast including Mirror Georgiou, is that being "better than Archer" isn't really good enough. I'm OK with my main characters having flaws, like Sisko* or Janeway, but provided that the good in them outweighs their flaws. I want an aspirational main character who is actively working to overcome their flaws.

Burnham is not aspirational. Her stupidity, self-righteousness, and lack of self-awareness ensure that she hasn't learned her lessons, and is unlikely to, about going rogue/throwing Burnham Fastball Specials. Burnham isn't working to overcome her flaws. At any given time, she's convinced she's right about whatever she's set her mind on, thus causing her to not learn her lessons. Burnham has now gotten herself penalized for going rogue twice, the first time after causing a war that got thousands of people killed, the second for a more justifiable and moral reason, but still for a relatively minor benefit that doesn't fulfill anyone's immediate needs.

Burnham is someone who, if someone else said, "I want to be like her!", I would immediately start keeping a very close eye on and coordinating a social response with friends to temper their worst tendencies.

Lastly, I compared Burnham to Donald Trump before. I think she's A) the actual anti-Trump, in that she's a black female scientist/commando with liberal political leanings, but who is still self-centered and self-destructive, and B) she's also the strawman that, when right-wingers want to argue against anything anyone liberal/progressive says, that the right-winger in question will use. She is the prototypical liberal strawwoman.

The first part, is understandable, as Discovery stated production shortly after the Trump administration started; I can understand a liberal crew in Hollywood wanting to refute everything Trump was about on principle. The second part, is just plain unfortunate. In either event, writing a character to be either the anti-Trump or a literal strawman isn't what I think most people would reasonably consider a well-written character. I want a main character who can stand on their own merits and be their own person.

Both Kirks, Picard, Janeway, and Sisko certainly were.

*: Don't tell the Sisko I said he had a flaw, he might just bitch-slap me into an asteroid or something. After all: sharks have a week dedicated to the Sisko.

[clearspira]

I'm personally okay with characters like Burnham with maverick tendencies, as long as you have characters like Captain Saru or Tilly around to call them out on their behaviour, that's honestly why I get frustrated with someone like Archer, who kept doing and making stupid decisions but never gets blamed, called out, or deals with those decisions or the consequences, and thus kept making them.

I completely agree regarding Archer. Burnham is better than Archer, but A) that's not a high bar to clear, and B) Burnham does a lot of the same things that Archer does, only she has a stronger moral compass. She hasn't yet committed genocide by witholding a cure for a plague, she hasn't yet tortured anyone that I've seen, and she hasn't broken under the strain of things going on around her. She also isn't responsible for 24 Hours in Sickbay, which greatly helps.

With that said, the reason I dislike Burnham even with the counterweights in the rest of the cast including Mirror Georgiou, is that being "better than Archer" isn't really good enough. I'm OK with my main characters having flaws, like Sisko or Janeway, but provided that the good in them outweighs their flaws. I want an aspirational main character who is actively working to overcome their flaws.

Burnham is not aspirational. Her stupidity, self-righteousness, and lack of self-awareness ensure that she hasn't learned her lessons, and is unlikely to, about going rogue/throwing Burnham Fastball Specials. Burnham isn't working to overcome her flaws. At any given time, she's convinced she's right about whatever she's set her mind on, thus causing her to not learn her lessons. Burnham has now gotten herself penalized for going rogue twice, the first time after causing a war that got thousands of people killed, the second for a more justifiable and moral reason, but still for a relatively minor benefit that doesn't fulfill anyone's immediate needs.

Burnham is someone who, if someone else said, "I want to be like her!", I would immediately start keeping a very close eye on and coordinating a social response with friends to temper their worst tendencies.

Its funny because I guarantee the script writers started the show out with a ''we need black female role models!!'' mindset. And I know this because from all the counter-shit they threw at haters before the show aired, calling them racists and INCELS for not accepting her.

[Asvarduil]

I'm personally okay with characters like Burnham with maverick tendencies, as long as you have characters like Captain Saru or Tilly around to call them out on their behaviour, that's honestly why I get frustrated with someone like Archer, who kept doing and making stupid decisions but never gets blamed, called out, or deals with those decisions or the consequences, and thus kept making them.

I completely agree regarding Archer. Burnham is better than Archer, but A) that's not a high bar to clear, and B) Burnham does a lot of the same things that Archer does, only she has a stronger moral compass. She hasn't yet committed genocide by witholding a cure for a plague, she hasn't yet tortured anyone that I've seen, and she hasn't broken under the strain of things going on around her. She also isn't responsible for 24 Hours in Sickbay, which greatly helps.

With that said, the reason I dislike Burnham even with the counterweights in the rest of the cast including Mirror Georgiou, is that being "better than Archer" isn't really good enough. I'm OK with my main characters having flaws, like Sisko or Janeway, but provided that the good in them outweighs their flaws. I want an aspirational main character who is actively working to overcome their flaws.

Burnham is not aspirational. Her stupidity, self-righteousness, and lack of self-awareness ensure that she hasn't learned her lessons, and is unlikely to, about going rogue/throwing Burnham Fastball Specials. Burnham isn't working to overcome her flaws. At any given time, she's convinced she's right about whatever she's set her mind on, thus causing her to not learn her lessons. Burnham has now gotten herself penalized for going rogue twice, the first time after causing a war that got thousands of people killed, the second for a more justifiable and moral reason, but still for a relatively minor benefit that doesn't fulfill anyone's immediate needs.

Burnham is someone who, if someone else said, "I want to be like her!", I would immediately start keeping a very close eye on and coordinating a social response with friends to temper their worst tendencies.

Its funny because I guarantee the script writers started the show out with a ''we need black female role models!!'' mindset. And I know this because from all the counter-shit they threw at haters before the show aired, calling them racists and INCELS for not accepting her.

To be 100% fair: the people who were hating Burnham before we knew anything about her were being douchebags, and almost certainly included at least a few actual racists and incels.

Judging someone based on their biology or heritage? Not OK, not helpful, and probably not accurate. The biology and heritage of someone are, at best, their least important characteristics - you can extrapolate very little of someone based on their biology and heritage. It's not logical to base an assessment of someone based on such limited information.

Now, when someone reveals that they're harmful/dangerous/toxic, and that turns someone off (e.g. Burnham irritates me), I'd say that's justifiable - you've seen the behavior of the person in question, and, based on the relative merits of that system of behaving, have decided that it's wanting and that they're not someone you'd want in your life.

Put differently: I think people were being unfair to Burnham before DISCO's premier, but aren't being unfair now. "Fair" in this context means that you don't pre-judge people based on information that doesn't let you make an accurate assessment of what kind of person they are.