Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
I agree with every point made by the author.
That was laughable. Pike stands at the window and there's a little flash, and yet, a third of the saucer section was blown away.
kalkamel
Master Member
Another spot on analysis of the finale.
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2019/04/2...-feeling-angry-and-betrayed-editorial-review/
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2019/04/2...-feeling-angry-and-betrayed-editorial-review/
That actually put into words what I've been feeling about this season and the finale.
EXACTLY my previous point:
“But what’s worse, Spock suggests a solution involving an even bigger lie: Discovery never existed. The spore drive never existed. Michael Burnham never existed. All of that news footage of the end of the Klingon War, of Discovery‘s triumphant return to Earth, of Burnham’s heroic speech at the end of season one…just tell FNN to delete it all and never mention it again. “How did Starfleet win the war with the Klingons, daddy?” “Oh, they suddenly surrendered, honey.” “But why did they surrender?” “Um…”
And of course, everyone who knew someone on Discovery has to…what? Say they never knew them? Say they were assigned to another ship this whole time? (“My daughter Sylvia? Oh, you must have misheard me. I said she was serving on the USS Drudgery. Oh, it was VERY boring there!”) All of the ship designers, the research, the construction at Utopia Planitia, the mission logs for Discovery and her sister ship…everything has to be whitewashed, swept under the rug, hidden, locked away never to be seen again. The largest conspiracy in galactic history literally requires tens of thousands, possibly millions of people to agree to keep a secret…”
Beyond lazy and sloppy writing...this show is just a creatively misdirected mess.
Add “Pulling A Red Angel” to the metaphors for failure, sitting right next to “Jumping the Shark” and “Tossing the Lightsaber”.
Last edited:
A lot of that points to this problem I have with STD, but also existed for the Abramsverse too.
We got to the point in the Primeverse, with a few exceptions, where the world seemed to have very clear and realistic rules and parameters.
Between the TOS films, TNG, DS9, VOY, and the TNG films, things tracked. Technology was the same. If one show advanced it, the others would adapt and get it later.
It took time to go from far apart locations, even when the story dictated the Enterprise needed to get back to Earth, they'd drop a line about how much off-camera time was spent.
I've lost track of many times on STD that people seem to arrive at places via shuttles from a quadrant away, or beam places out of range or while shields are up. That's a big one-- beaming through shields happened a lot it feels like, unless they point out you can't for plot purposes for tension.
Events rippled in the Prime shows. The Federation and Starfleet felt like an actual government and service branch that existed outside of the story we were seeing, and the crew we spent time with. Granted, said crews were generally at the source of a galaxy-wide conflict, but you never felt like they were alone in the galaxy.
Is this making sense? I often like to draw analogies between Starfleet and say, the Navy. So in the first Abrams movie, Kirk is essentially a dude that washes out of West Point, stows away on the Nimitz, then gets to take command when the Captain gets kidnapped. Oh, and then most off the Navy is destroyed while the entire UK is nuked by some North Korean expats.
Granted all Trek stories are absurd in some way, but if you did this exercise with a Prime story, as big as they are, you'd never lose sense of a sonewhat built and functioning world that has rules. The time and care spent with the Primeverse meant that even though you had fantastical made up technology, how it worked was consistent, so it felt legit. STD and the Abrams films just made things up as they went. And while at times they are totally fun, when they stray from things that make sense, it falls apart.
We got to the point in the Primeverse, with a few exceptions, where the world seemed to have very clear and realistic rules and parameters.
Between the TOS films, TNG, DS9, VOY, and the TNG films, things tracked. Technology was the same. If one show advanced it, the others would adapt and get it later.
It took time to go from far apart locations, even when the story dictated the Enterprise needed to get back to Earth, they'd drop a line about how much off-camera time was spent.
I've lost track of many times on STD that people seem to arrive at places via shuttles from a quadrant away, or beam places out of range or while shields are up. That's a big one-- beaming through shields happened a lot it feels like, unless they point out you can't for plot purposes for tension.
Events rippled in the Prime shows. The Federation and Starfleet felt like an actual government and service branch that existed outside of the story we were seeing, and the crew we spent time with. Granted, said crews were generally at the source of a galaxy-wide conflict, but you never felt like they were alone in the galaxy.
Is this making sense? I often like to draw analogies between Starfleet and say, the Navy. So in the first Abrams movie, Kirk is essentially a dude that washes out of West Point, stows away on the Nimitz, then gets to take command when the Captain gets kidnapped. Oh, and then most off the Navy is destroyed while the entire UK is nuked by some North Korean expats.
Granted all Trek stories are absurd in some way, but if you did this exercise with a Prime story, as big as they are, you'd never lose sense of a sonewhat built and functioning world that has rules. The time and care spent with the Primeverse meant that even though you had fantastical made up technology, how it worked was consistent, so it felt legit. STD and the Abrams films just made things up as they went. And while at times they are totally fun, when they stray from things that make sense, it falls apart.
Bloop
Sr Member
I also just read this and agree. After I read it, I looked at the author's other posts on Medium.com (John E. Price) and read another of his STD reviews, which was also quite a good read and raised good points:
STD S2, E6: Oh, ffs…
In addition to a great of stream unanswered questions he poses, he also wrote these gems:
"No, you can’t see seven lights at the same exact time over 30,000 light years — you know what a “light year” is, right? You claim you’re writing a science fiction show, you should really know what a light year is. I hate you."
"And of course, let’s skip the fact that shoving the word “Spock” into this pitiful excuse for a narrative is nothing more than a cynical attempt at buying eyeballs for a failed streaming service by preying on the simple-minded consumers who sure do love their Eaglemoss ships but wouldn’t understand a Star Trek episode if the green hand of Apollo himself bet 3,000 quatloos on the newcomer."
Hammer3246
Sr Member
I'm looking forward to everyone's critiques for season 3 (and you know you will all be here), I can't imagine wasting my time watching something I despise but I guess people need to vent somewhere somehow.
I would be curious to hear the Discovery apologist’s defense of the points made regarding the writing, characters, arc of the show—and the season 2 finale in particular—vs. some of the dismissive statements that defenders of the show often make towards the legitimate critiques of the show.
Slap the label of a beloved franchise on your product and you are asking for the attention—and criticism—of that franchise’s fans. It’s not about looking for some random TV show to pile-on and pick apart in a nit-picky fashion.
You don’t get to ride on the franchise wagon for free and reside in a safe space absent of criticism as a show-runner. To the contrary, slapping a franchise label on your work invites greater scrutiny as there is a history and established fan base already there that you are trying to ensnare with your product.
Slap the label of a beloved franchise on your product and you are asking for the attention—and criticism—of that franchise’s fans. It’s not about looking for some random TV show to pile-on and pick apart in a nit-picky fashion.
You don’t get to ride on the franchise wagon for free and reside in a safe space absent of criticism as a show-runner. To the contrary, slapping a franchise label on your work invites greater scrutiny as there is a history and established fan base already there that you are trying to ensnare with your product.
Last edited:
Lest we be accused of not giving it a chance.
Strikerkc
Sr Member
In all seriousness, do they even exist? I know there's folks watching it that hate it, and are just holding out hope that it'll get better. And I know there are certainly folks that watch it, enjoy it, and simply don't see anything to apologize for in the first place. But folks that know it's bad, and try to make excuses for it? I haven't even seen that for Discovery. Have I just missed their posts when I pop in here ever few weeks to look around? Are they exclusively on redit or something?
There are definitely some contrary opinions expressed in the course of the thread. I really do want to hear from those who are delighted with the series, the characters, the writing, and where it seems to be going.
Hammer3246
Sr Member
I'm no apologist, I just enjoy the show. I even know what a lightyear is....I just don't care to let it ruin a TV program.
Hammer3246
Sr Member
Agreed, however its season 2 and people who complained about season 1 are still here complaining. Just keep torturing yourselves, maybe by season 4 will be the charm.
Again, I am curious to hear the fans of the show chime in regarding what they enjoy about this show despite all the legitimate criticisms cited regarding the creative vision being executed.
Also—you don’t have to “love” a show to be permitted to continue to watch it—that is not a prerequisite. I can hate everything they are doing and that does not mean I simply need to “go away” and stop asking for better from the franchise.
Also—you don’t have to “love” a show to be permitted to continue to watch it—that is not a prerequisite. I can hate everything they are doing and that does not mean I simply need to “go away” and stop asking for better from the franchise.
Yes, and this is why the show has been renewed twice already, despite the imposed limitations on viewership. Indeed, Reddit is dramatically more positive about the show, as the audience there has much more in common with normal people, rather than grumpy old farts like many of us tend to be here.
Star Trek: Discovery
Alight, I'll bite. None of this is directly pointed at you, or anybody else here.
Call me an idiot, or an "apologist", all you want to, but I'm one of the ones who has actually enjoyed the show, and I thought the season finale was fantastic. It was exciting, and fun.
It is weird to me how all these people are so upset about this show, and especially for criticizing it for not being hard enough sci-fi.
Star Trek has always invented magical technology to get around the scientific issues. For example, "subspace communications", which allows everybody to instantly talk to each other, regardless of being light-years away. I don't recall anybody ever being upset with Trek for this in the past. If they can magically send data and information through subspace, then there is no reason why they can't simultaneously see events that are light-years apart as well (via magical subspace sensors they have always had too, whether they felt the need to illustrate it or not). Hell, in this case, time travel is involved! Burnham had to go back in time to send the messages, so who is to say that she didn't just go back to the points where the light would have had the time to travel the distance, without the need for subspace communications or sensors. I'm glad that they didn't bother trying to explain that, because it certainly wouldn't help anything. What, if the Klingons commit space crimes 100 light-years away, should it take 100 years for the Federation to "see" it and react? That would kind of ruin the show, wouldn't it? Whether coming from the various show writers, or fan-fiction, or books, Star Trek has very often gone back and tried to invent explanations for bad science and continuity issues. We used to eat it up, and ask for more, without it disgusting us and ruining any of the fun for us.
Especially going back to TOS, which I grew up with and love the same as many of us, nobody trashes the show for any number of ridiculous plot contrivances that it regularly had. Time travel by slingshot around the sun? Humans making up 99% of Starfleet? Transporters that violate the laws of physics, and were only conceived of to deal with a limited production budget? The galaxy being populated with 99% humanoid "alien" species? Parallel development of incredibly Earth-like civilizations that devolved into the "Yangs" and "Comms", where they discover that their past had it's own United States of America, complete with the identical flag? How about "sun worshipers", who actually turn out to be worshipers of "the Son of God"?!? Did we just give all that stuff a pass, because we were younger back then?
Nope, I am convinced that all the "haters", who watch every episode and then immediately feel the need to tear it apart here, week after week, are delusional, and their reactions say way more about them than it does about the show. I see plenty of happy, excited fans on other forums, enjoying the show like I have been. Even when it comes to all this same silly stuff they get "wrong", that Star Trek has always been full of, it might get mentioned and chuckled about, but without all the drama and angst and vitriol.
Even this show doesn't take itself too seriously all the time. One of my favorite moments of the finale was when Pike pointed out his own "plot-armor" of knowing his eventual fate, and I thought it was great. I laughed. And then, I kept on enjoying all the high-budget space battles. I was excited to get to see the "new" Klingon D-7s in action. I thought they did a great job of it, especially with the different warp nacelles that included the weapons we saw phaser/disruptor beams coming from back in TOS. Yay!
I'm glad that Discovery is jumping in time, and that next season will get the show out of the established time period and canon where they can do whatever they want. Maybe they should have just done that in the first place, but I also like that they rooted it in the time period that they did. I like that we got to have a season involving Pike and the pre-TOS Enterprise. I think they did a fantastic job with all of that, even though I like the Enterprise redesigns that John Eaves and Scott Schneider did with the straight nacelle struts over the redesign with the angled refit-style struts that the show's VFX crew changed to. It doesn't somehow ruin the show for me, though. Maybe they will make a mess out of the future too, and maybe they won't. I am still excited to see where it goes.
Bottom line, Star Trek has always had plenty of growing pains, especially with the initial seasons of the various shows. They got criticized every time, and adapted accordingly as seasons passed, and people sure do seem to have a case of selective memory about that. TMP caught hell for resigning the Enterprise and the Klingons, and being a G-rated snore fest, and then adapted for the following movies, and with zero explanation. TNG was heavily criticized when it arrived, and went through years of cast changes and character developments before it turned into the show we eventually loved. DS9 was stuck on a space station, with everybody hanging at the space mall, until they adapted and moved away from that as much as they could. Voyager tried to get away from the monotony and do something different for a change too, and nobody liked it until they put a busty hot chick in a ridiculously tight outfit on the ship. Enterprise was full of continuity problems and bad ideas. Each show generally got better as seasons progressed and they found their stride, and Discovery has certainly been no exception to that. I like how they put it in a recent interview with Jonathan Frakes, where they referred to it as "the show growing it's beard".
Of course we can legitimately criticize the show, just like any Star Trek, or any other sci-fi TV. I just do not personally see how this particular show is somehow held to different standards than the previous shows. I also think that if the "haters" actually got precisely what they wanted, that it would probably be a terrible show that the masses would hate, and get quickly cancelled. It is a TV show, and a business, and always has been. It is not some sacred religious text, that you just got the latest new-new testament for, throwing your carefully held beliefs into disarray against your will. It's just space ships and drama, that occasionally has been great, but just as often has been dumb and contrived. You have to take the good with the bad, just like anything in life. Happiness tends to be a choice that way.
When did we, as a society, become this divisive about everything? It is TV drama, folks! Why does it have to turn into camps of "haters" and "apologists"? Is there no room in between? This is The Replica Prop forum. We're supposed to be talking about the ships and costumes and props, not dividing ourselves into factions that somehow establish our perceived levels of intelligence on the internet. It feels like we are a bunch of nerds, having a contest for who can be the most superior nerd, and that is more laughable than any "writing" we have seen on this latest Star Trek show, in my opinion.
For me, when I watch TV shows and don't enjoy them as much as I hoped I might, I just don't watch them anymore. Sometimes, that is a bummer, but I don't keep watching them and whine about them immediately after each episode, week after week. I really think there is a strange and interesting cultural phenomena happening online with this sort of behavior, and that is what I am personally curious about. Part of me is a little saddened that the good old RPF is where I am coming to to see that these days, where I find people who are in such a bubble that they question the existence of people who still like the latest Star Trek show.
That said,
It is often stated in these conversations that TNG didn't get good until season 3, so DSC should be given the same amount of time. So I am.
Hammer3246
Sr Member
1. I enjoy the show, that's all that matters, I don't feel the need to give a long winded essay to try and sway your opinion. It's yours.
2. You sure don't have to love it, but you do seem to love to hate it.
Similar threads
- Locked
