Discovery Season 2 (spoilers likely)

[Bishop149]

By the way, that's a pretty big "cast." Ten, including Pike and the character that first announced current status, who I assume is a regular too? (Got a close-up. ) The idea being that "moar chracters means more storiez." Which... isn't always correct. I have no reason to criticize it, just that it could be difficult to keep focus in some situations.

I don't think ten is excessive, its about par for the course for a ST show. . . just off the top of my head

TNG (8)
Picard, Riker, La Forge, Data, Worf, Crusher, Troy, Rho (I infinitely preferred her to Wesley, I wished she they'd kept her)

DS9 (11)
Sisko, Dax, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Odo, Worf, Jake, Quark, Nog, Garrack . . . . I could keep going, DS9 had a ridiculous number of recurring characters

Voyager (9)
Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Kim, Tuvok, Nelix Torres, The Doctor, Seven/Kes (They literally swapped these two out)

Enterprise (7)
Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Hoshi, Mayweather, Flox

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.
That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

But, that's why he's who he is and I am not. (And, why they had him do that - "Pike is better than you at being cool and commanding.")

Damn right, it was an excellent way to introduce the Pike as an absolutely 1st rate commanding officer.
Hes a pretty damn near perfect balance of competence, authority and personability . . . . . and no I have never met anyone remotely like him in real life.

I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn between Pike and Tilly. . . . I can very much see Pike as the kind of captain Tilly may have the potential to become if she can master her nerves and become secure in her self-confidence.

[Ketraar]

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.
That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

Oversight is putting it rather mildly, considering that any weight put into the choices and effects is pretty much meaningless if you just have drones as crew, why would we care about any of them anyway, they might as well be holograms. Then there is the other part of bad writing, its the inconsistency. Writers cant make up their mind where they want to go and then go for it. I cant shake the feeling that writers are just adding tropes to characters but dont want to hurt anyones feelings. So they want a female lead but make her a schizophrenic robot that keeps contradicting itself on who it is or wants to be. You have a nerd as the "scotty" who is both genius but idiotic at the same time. Then the ultra smart eccentric "biologist" that know everything when needed, but has his character development solely to be the gay dude.

I could go on and on, but I think I made my point and more would be me just ranting some more. The only other thing I'll mention again that in addition to any decent writing wrt to characters, the whole plot is stupid and needlessly convoluted. On top of it, there are no lasting consequences to anything. Georgiou died in S01E01 to then just come back again, then the doctor dies and gets revived miraculously later on and people just moved on like nothing, I'm going to predict that Lorka will be back no too long and even a way will be found to revive Airiam with some magic gimmick with the red angel or something.

In Firefly I had a basic jist of the crew in episode one and come to love any of them after just a few episodes, that is how you write characters and have them add small tidbits over time, but mostly you keep them CONSISTENT for at least a few actions and choices and not flip on a dime for nothing. Anyway, I'll shut up now...

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

On top of it, there are no lasting consequences to anything. Georgiou died in S01E01 to then just come back again, then the doctor dies and gets revived miraculously later on and people just moved on like nothing, I'm going to predict that Lorka will be back no too long and even a way will be found to revive Airiam with some magic gimmick with the red angel or something.

Interesting. That's not how I read it, not at all.

The very reverse in fact.

The two situations are extremely different, but I would say that NEITHER fits the "no lasting consequences" idea. Spoilering just to be sure:

Spoiler

Show

Georgiou died in S01E01. Totally died. Dead as doornail, never to be revived. Eaten by Klingons (ghoulish touch). The alternate Georgiou was brought back from the Mirror Universe - but she's an entirely different character. SOME of the Discovery crew members think she's the same person, but I don't think she fools a lot of them. In fact, she's basically the opposite of her Prime counterpart. I suggest that Michelle Yeoh is rather enjoying herself, actually - Mirror Georgiou is so deliciously evil that she'd be twirling a moustache if she were male, and I know from experience that chewing the scenery as a card-carrying villain is enormous fun.

Culver LOOKED like he was going to be brought back and it would all be happily ever after, but they have played it much more interestingly than that. Instead the writers have explored the common fantasy of anyone who's ever lost someone they cared about - "If only he/she were back with me." But the thing is, when you suffer a bereavement you don't just stay static. Even in the deepest throes of grief, you move on. And whilst Stamets is definitely making an effort to take up where he left off with Culver, it's becoming painfully clear that neither man is who he was when Culver died. They may eventually reconcile, but if they do they may well be creating a brand new relationship from scratch.

No, I would say that the consequences of bringing a dead character back from the dead are very much in evidence in Culver, and although the two share an actor there's not a lot of similarity between prime and mirror Georgiou.

[Ketraar]

I understand you reasoning and as I said, Georgiou is one of the few characters that are credible and yes Yeoh is doing it great. The question then is how do you know to compare the characters at all? My whole point is that you cant because there was no character, even the Doctor is the same, you didnt KNOW him before so how can you have any consideration to the difference on behavior without inferring it? Yes I understand what they are TRYING to do, but they seem to not understand how to set it up and just go for ideas as they rise.

I mentioned the rookie as being bad and me still liking it, well I retract that, its actually good as per the last episode and STD could go and take some notes on the writing from it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I don't think ten is excessive, its about par for the course for a ST show. . . just off the top of my head.

You've done me a great service with that list of main characters. I'll have to go back and do some analysis... But, it has made me think how I view some of these series. The biggest bit would to see how much "screen time" characters get out of each and then drill down to actually, for realz, find out "who the main characters are." For instance, once Seven-of-Nine was added to the cast, Voyager practically became the "Seven-of-Nine" show... Not that I'm complaining.

TNG (8)
Picard, Riker, La Forge, Data, Worf, Crusher, Troy, Rho (I infinitely preferred her to Wesley, I wished she they'd kept her)

A good character, but too strong. She was literally a "ball of fire" on the screen and a scene-stealer, through no fault of her own - She's got "it." She's got a screen presence that demands attention. I don't know if she cultivates it or just got magic pixie-dust sprinkled on her when she was born or what. She also played one of my favorite television Sci-Fi characters of all time, ever - Admiral Cain in "Battlestar Galactica." Definite "command presence" capability, no doubt about it.

DS9 (11)
Sisko, Dax, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Odo, Worf, Jake, Quark, Nog, Garrack . . . . I could keep going, DS9 had a ridiculous number of recurring characters

Keeping with the sort of "Fort Apache" or "Trading Post in Space" theme. Kind of like a hotel where there's an opportunity for a new adventure with every new guest.

Voyager (9)
Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Kim, Tuvok, Nelix Torres, The Doctor, Seven/Kes (They literally swapped these two out)

Small cast, intimate stories of survival of a crew lost and alone, making theirlong way home through dangerous territory... EXCEPT THEY'VE GOTTA BE IN THE MOST POPULATED QUADRANT IN THE GALAXY AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HEADING IN ONE DIRECTION AND THEY KEEP MEETING THE SAME FRIGGIN PEOPLE!

Enterprise (7)
Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Hoshi, Mayweather, Flox

Comparison contrast time - The smallest list, arguably with much more intimate stories of not only "strangers in a strange land" but "learning how to live and work together." Ended up suffering, but not quite as much, from "Voyager Syndrome." I actually enjoyed the show more than most. Favorite actor in the series, Billingsley - "Phlox". Another actor who can summon the camera quite a bit. A lot of "energy" in his acting.

So, what sorts of stories are "good" for small, intimate, casts? At least "dramatic" stories? Larger casts? There's one story that no Star Trek franchise has EVER successfully pulled off - "The Epic." Every time they're widely separated the story sucks. And, when they do a "scope of time" it sucks, always, because they must needs resort to "time travel" 'cause explaining why they're all five-hundred years old now would be difficult...

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.

That's interesting... Do you think it was planned that way? Do you think they may have been planning for Pike to be the character that literally and figuratively "brings the crew together?" From your description, that's blatantly what is happening in that scene. Some of the characters smile as if they're "finally being recognized for the first time." And, Pike is the instrument by which that feeling is being delivered. Maybe he's also being contrasted with a former strong-lead character? (I haven't seen the series, sorry.)

That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

If it is as you describe, I'd say it was what I described as above. Was the former lead/captain/whatever a bit standoffish and/or hyper-professional? Authoritarian? Clearly and firmly planted in their "rank?" Maybe secretly worried about their own capability to command? The Captain Pike character just threw all that out the window in a few seconds...

Damn right, it was an excellent way to introduce the Pike as an absolutely 1st rate commanding officer.
Hes a pretty damn near perfect balance of competence, authority and personability . . . . . and no I have never met anyone remotely like him in real life.

That's because anyone who's really like that "in real life" always has a "fatal flaw" that ends up with them in prison or dead...

Captain Ronald Speirs, "Band of Brothers" -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8

https://wikiofbrothers.fandom.com/wiki/ ... ald_Speirs

Nobody is allowed to be perfect. Speirs is "too perfect." He's also possibly a psychopath... He is shown gunning down a group of German PoWs after giving them cigarettes. Why? He just felt like murdering a bunch of PoWs, I guess. No emotion, no anger, just kept the trigger pressed until they went away to forever-gone-land.. But, the act is maintained by other characters as a "rumor" since none of them were there to witness it. Did it really happen? It seems so - The audience saw it. But, was it a real event or not? Were they just messing with our heads or did "super-soldier" demonstrate the reason he can be so calm, cool, and collected is because he's friggin' nuts? Aaand, now we can be comfortable knowing that Speirs is, thankfully, not "perfect."

Pike will probably turn out to have hemorrhoids. Or, maybe an incurable, but easily survivable with treatment, heart condition or PTSD from being tortured on several different occasions or have a bad relationship with some of his family members... Kinda like another "Captain" we all know.

This is one of the worst scenes ever written for TNG characters - Picard's Rant. It has nothing at all to do with Picard's rant speech, it's the fact that the other character is talking to children in the audience and explaining everything, ever, about what Picard is/was feeling... It's godawful and ruins the scene. It's painful to watch her open up with "and you were almost enjoying it" lines... As IF the audience didn't get that from Stewart's performance. "Oh, golly, we're all mindless toasters here and had no idea that might be what he was thinking, even though you pounded it into our little toaster brains for half the darn movie already..."

^--- This is what Star Trek should never, ever, do. If they can't give the audience a glimpse of a character's internal life without running down a list of darn descriptions hurled by a hollow walk-on character then they do not need to be putting stuff on film and treating the audience like morons.

IF the previous commander ever once mentions the contrast between her insecurity and Pike's leadership, it'll be the same darn thing all over again. If she ever has a "heart to heart" and starts whining about how much better Pike is at what used to be her job (if it was) then they should just stop production and go make commercials for toilet-paper using "Happy Bears" or some crap like that... I'm not joking. This is why I don't like some of the Start Trek series and spinoffs - They treat the audience like they're morons by 'splaining everything when it has already been "explained" on the scree in front of our own faces.

"Better make sure the audience knows that Picard is on a revenge kick."
"But, didn't we already show that?"
"Yeah, but they're a bunch of morons, so we better spell it out..."

I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn between Pike and Tilly. . . . I can very much see Pike as the kind of captain Tilly may have the potential to become if she can master her nerves and become secure in her self-confidence.

Been writing as I read, so am pleased to have guessed she may be a character with some issues with her confidence. Pike, at least from that scene, is a perfect contrast for that and in just a few minutes "fixes" what the previous occupier of that chair couldn't "fix."

..In Firefly I had a basic jist of the crew in episode one and come to love any of them after just a few episodes, that is how you write characters and have them add small tidbits over time, but mostly you keep them CONSISTENT for at least a few actions and choices and not flip on a dime for nothing. Anyway, I'll shut up now...

No, this is interesting.

I never saw the Firefly series. I saw the movie they did, but didn't really "get" most of it since I had no previous connection to the characters/series. Still, it wasn't a bad movie and that says something, at least.

But, fans seem to be falling all over themselves in praise and desperately want a revival. That happened for ST:ToS and was ulimately successful, leading to a multi-bajillion-monies IP that gets automagically shuttled around the world anytime they fart out new material. Star Trek, the I.P., happened because something, somewhere, connected with fans after the very first, relatively short, iteration of the series/setting/theme.

You realize that if people could bottle that and sell it then they would control the Spice that controls the Universe, right?

So, you're not alone and a lot of very vocal fans out there thirsting for the blood of producers and corporate honchos have something passionate fueling them and I, for one, want to know WTF it is.

"How about we do a sci-fi series with a crew of characters with social adjustment disorders that favor criminal behavior and they drive a space-truck around a star-system full of disfunctional people with anger-management issues?"

"PERFECT!"

"Oh, and space-cannibals!"

"WE NEED TO PAY YOU MORE!"

[Ketraar]

I never saw the Firefly series.

Then do yourself a favour and watch it, even if you saw the movie, that basically was made to cram 7 seasons worth of plot so fans could have some sort of closure. Its 13 Episodes of space wild west overflowing with charm from all vents. You can thank me later.

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

I understand you reasoning and as I said, Georgiou is one of the few characters that are credible and yes Yeoh is doing it great. The question then is how do you know to compare the characters at all? My whole point is that you cant because there was no character

I don't think this is a fair judgement. Granted we didn't learn MUCH about Prime Georgiou, but we DID learn that she was a wise and kind commander, who refused to use violence if there was another way to achieve what needed to be achieved. We've seen her in the pilot, and also glimpsed her in the Short Treks episode which focused on Saru's homeworld. Not much, broad brushstrokes only - but enough to give us a baseline, and enough also to make the difference between her and her mirror counterpart stark. I'd agree that we really needed to see more of Georgiou in order to highlight the details of the differences (as well as seeing facets of the two characters which were identical!), and that's a weakness of the show; but no, seeing this as an example of a lack of consequences is not correct.

even the Doctor is the same, you didnt KNOW him before so how can you have any consideration to the difference on behavior without inferring it? Yes I understand what they are TRYING to do, but they seem to not understand how to set it up and just go for ideas as they rise.

I think you might be missing my point here. Although we do expect the doctor to be somewhat different in his new incarnation, that's not really the issue in his story arc. To me the real issue is "How do you deal with the resurrection of someone you love when you've already processed their death?" ADDED to this there's the existential anxiety of the copy (am I really the same person as the one you knew?) and the understandable problem with meeting Tyler (how does a copy of a dead person react to the person that they know killed them?), but the main game is that question of whether a relationship between two people can just pick up where they left off if one dies and returns.

[Bishop149]

YThe biggest bit would to see how much "screen time" characters get out of each and then drill down to actually, for realz, find out "who the main characters are." For instance, once Seven-of-Nine was added to the cast, Voyager practically became the "Seven-of-Nine" show... Not that I'm complaining.

That would be interesting, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had done something like that. I might have a look.
I recently rewatched all of Voyager as well, I'd forgotten (or perhaps I didn't notice the 1st time) that they literally swapped Seven for Kes in the same damn episode. Watching it back its such transparent show running "Swap out the attractive female character, also sex up the new one whilst you're at it"

Comparison contrast time - The smallest list, arguably with much more intimate stories of not only "strangers in a strange land" but "learning how to live and work together." Ended up suffering, but not quite as much, from "Voyager Syndrome." I actually enjoyed the show more than most. Favorite actor in the series, Billingsley - "Phlox". Another actor who can summon the camera quite a bit. A lot of "energy" in his acting.

I agree, I'm always the Enterprise advocate. I think many Trekkies sneer at it in a way it doesn't deserve. . . I don't think they ever got over the sung theme tune TBH.
Phlox is also my favourite character, excellently written and performed. I fact there might be something about Doctors or the actors that play them, The Doctor was my favourite in Voyager too.
Also having recently been having some real life Dr issues whilst rewatching Enterprise . . . just IMAGINE having a Dr that good at your disposal 24/7. . . . some aspirational healthcare right there!

Some of the characters smile as if they're "finally being recognized for the first time." And, Pike is the instrument by which that feeling is being delivered. Maybe he's also being contrasted with a former strong-lead character? (I haven't seen the series, sorry.)

He is meant to be a direct contrast to the former Captain, without giving too much away Lorca was introduced right from the start as a shadowy (literally, it wasn't subtle) man with secrets. He had "reasons" to distance himself from his crew. Funnily enough (given the current plot arc) the first few episodes of Discovery S! had me thinking it was a Section 31 science ship. Lorca was a Section 31 captain if ever I saw one.
There is also the fact that the story is focused on and told through Micheal. . . who is a mutineer, the crew aren't exactly fond of her so she's distanced too.

And yes you should watch Firefly. . . . it's simply the best sci-fi show of the last 20 years.

[pjknibbs]

I agree, I'm always the Enterprise advocate. I think many Trekkies sneer at it in a way it doesn't deserve. . . I don't think they ever got over the sung theme tune TBH.

I don't give half a withered poop about the theme tune, the reason I don't like Enterprise is because it's a massive wasted opportunity, IMHO. Everything was just too similar to the original series, despite supposedly being a century before it--so instead of shields, which are a percentage-based thing that blocks damage, we have "polarised hull plating", which is a percentage-based thing that block damage. The ship originally left dock with practically no weapons, but they had "phase cannons" (aka phasers) before the end of the first season, and "photonic torpedoes" (aka photon torpedoes) at the beginning of season 3. It just struck me as the laziest of lazy writing--everything works exactly as it does in the later series, we'll just call things by different names and hope nobody notices!

[Morkonan]

..I'd forgotten (or perhaps I didn't notice the 1st time) that they literally swapped Seven for Kes in the same damn episode. Watching it back its such transparent show running "Swap out the attractive female character, also sex up the new one whilst you're at it"

Kes was a dead-end character... I really liked the concept, but she was just a "tacked on" addition for Neelix IMO. Interestingly enough, it was a tossup between Kes and Kim according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kes_(Star_Trek) . I never liked Kim as a character. The bumbling naive schoolboy Ensign... It didn't need that. They could have done something different with Kim and gotten better results. Then, there's his whole "blatant obsession with Seven that he thinks nobody knows about" thing. One could catch a pretty crippling case of nanites that can't be cured with a "shot."

I agree, I'm always the Enterprise advocate. I think many Trekkies sneer at it in a way it doesn't deserve. . . I don't think they ever got over the sung theme tune TBH.
Phlox is also my favourite character, excellently written and performed. I fact there might be something about Doctors or the actors that play them, The Doctor was my favourite in Voyager too.
Also having recently been having some real life Dr issues whilst rewatching Enterprise . . . just IMAGINE having a Dr that good at your disposal 24/7. . . . some aspirational healthcare right there!

Everyone loves the "Doctor-as-Counselor" character. The first one I remember seeing was in "Mr. Roberts," which was a sort of fatherly confessor figure. Doctors are anchors around which things occur, sometimes serving as the voice of the reader/viewer, sometimes illuminating a character's feelings, giving the reader/audience the "moral of the story" kind of advice, etc.

The outcry against the soundtrack was real. People crapped themselves over it... I did too, at first. But, then I started watching the series and the opening credit music started to make sense.

He is meant to be a direct contrast to the former Captain, without giving too much away Lorca was introduced right from the start as a shadowy (literally, it wasn't subtle) man with secrets. He had "reasons" to distance himself from his crew. Funnily enough (given the current plot arc) the first few episodes of Discovery S! had me thinking it was a Section 31 science ship. Lorca was a Section 31 captain if ever I saw one.
There is also the fact that the story is focused on and told through Micheal. . . who is a mutineer, the crew aren't exactly fond of her so she's distanced too.

I'll have to watch some of this to understand it. From your description, it sounds like a kitchen-sink soap-opera.

"He's a secret agent of the government that is really working for a Pakistani mob boss to uncover evidence of an Area 51 extraterrestrial time-traveler landing that ended up creating a conspiracy to brainwash American youth by using Bugs Bunny cartoons."

"OK, fine, so now we film a scene with these characters eating lunch. Just lunch. No, nothing else, just friggin' lunch."

"But, that fork looks suspicious! It could be a secrete KGB eaves-dropping device being used fo-"

"IT'S JUST "LUNCH!""

And yes you should watch Firefly. . . . it's simply the best sci-fi show of the last 20 years.

So many things to absorb, so little time... Someone needs to invent a direct-to-brain siphon that doesn't involved a monthly subscription fee.

[pjknibbs]

OK, just watching "Red Angel" now, and am a little puzzled:

Spoiler

Show

We saw a female crewman come onto the bridge, introduced as Lt. Nilsson, who is played by the same actress who played Airiam and took the same bridge posting while everyone gave her significant looks--but I'm assuming she isn't supposed to be Airiam returned from the dead, because that would be ridiculous? [EDIT] Turns out the actress played Airiam in season 1--somebody else took over the role in season 2, so ignore this bit.

I did wonder why nobody raised the obvious issue "But Michael is right here listening to our plans, how come future Michael won't remember this and will fall into our trap anyway?". Oh, and apparently the Red Angel suit isn't future tech but is actually older Starfleet tech? Does not compute.

One other thing: ending is either a massive ****-up, or deeply meaningful. There is no way that Michael's mother would be so close a match to her child that they couldn't tell them apart, so either that's an error, or the pattern they found *was*, indeed, a trap, intended to make them do what they eventually did.

[Ketraar]

I have so many thoughts about that episode but its so confusing that I have not yet found the time to elaborate a proper rant. All I can say is that the over emotional Micheal and the easy give up by the uber spy guy was so infuriatingly bad ad again out of character that I screamed at the screen.

I might get to the point of saying F*** it and just not bother anymore.

MFG

Ketraar

[berth]

Yeah, for an episode with so much "important stuff" happening, I found it entirely lacked drama.

I'll keep watching, I guess, but it is starting to become a bit of a chore

[Olterin]

I was concerned after having watched the "Red Angel" episode. After having subsequently watched the follow-up one, I have to say my concerns were mostly realized. This doesn't feel like Trek anymore, this feels like a terrible overblown drama with shoddy writing (yes, compared to the usual writing Star Trek has). I recently started re-watching Enterprise for a comparison and it's just so much more interesting to watch, despite all the shortcomings. My number one complaint, on a personal level, is the camerawork - this new modern "shaky camera at all times" is actually giving me nausea

Spoilered rant:

Spoiler

Show

As far as shoddy writing goes, the latest episode is a prime example. Michael was within the containment field to catch the Red Angel, and first thing we see is her in Discovery's medbay. Okay, that makes sense, right? But now no-one else can get through the field for some reason? Just so that Michael and her mother can have a "we can't touch each other so we touch the forcefield" moment? Really? I won't even begin with how Control suddenly has nanites to mindcontrol Leeland from who knows where, that's essentially Borg techniques that were seen there. And said nanites somehow make the body immune to "phaser" shots? I'm assuming they were shooting to kill at that point, it should've been vaporized, Control (and the entire Federation) simply do not have Borg adaptive personal shielding at this point. Basically, "let's write Control into an Evil God who can do whatever whenever needed". Restrictions? Nope, not that we've seen so far, not a hint. You'd think the writers would've learned from having the Borg (who were somewhat expanded and "fixed" with Voyager and the "First Contact" movie), but evidently not.

Furthermore, ignoring all the overblown emotions, it just doesn't feel right to have the Discovery crew not think of how to get Michael's mother out of the "time pull" from the moment they figure out that's what's going on. What happened to "Starfleet is a promise: I give my life for you, you give your life for me"? Ugggghhhh, the consistency issues!

[pjknibbs]

I haven't seen the new episode yet, but the last Star Trek series I watched in its entirety was DS9. I found Voyager and Enterprise both disappointing, albeit for different reasons, and I'm seriously considering not bothering with S3 of Discovery when it comes out, unless I read reviews suggesting the showrunners change their direction.

[Morkonan]

I haven't seen the new episode yet, but the last Star Trek series I watched in its entirety was DS9. I found Voyager and Enterprise both disappointing, albeit for different reasons, and I'm seriously considering not bothering with S3 of Discovery when it comes out, unless I read reviews suggesting the showrunners change their direction.

DS9 fans, the ones who really loved the show, tend to not be as enthusiastic about other Star Trek offerings. Just in general, from my own personal, likely flawed, observations.

If you had some kind of spice shaker filled up with the "it" that you liked about DS9, what would "it" be? What was the flavor, mechanics, setting or general theme that you really liked about the show that you might wish other similar television shows had?

Note: Just checked to see if I could start watching Discovery and see the old episodes and kind of catch up. After all, I pay about thirty bajillion monies a month for "Cable Television" and it has a bunch of stuff for all the channels including past shows, series, movies, etc, etc... I can watch so many "series" using it.

Except for this one...

"Can I watch CBS's "Star Trek:Discovery" series? All the guys online seem to like it, so I thought mayb-"
"@%^%@%^ YOU YOU @@$%'IN PLEBE! SIGN UP FOR CBS STREAMING NAOW U DEGERNERATE UNDESERVING MINKEY"
"But..."
"@$^% OFF! PAY US AGAIN U DROOLING !$%$%!"

So, yeah... no. :/

ie:Streaming killed the radio star...

[pjknibbs]

DS9 fans, the ones who really loved the show, tend to not be as enthusiastic about other Star Trek offerings. Just in general, from my own personal, likely flawed, observations.

Yes, it's definitely flawed, because I also watched all of TNG. I do think DS9 is the best Trek series, mainly because it had a bit of darkness to it while still being recognisably Trek--in DS9, people had flaws and occasionally made flawed decisions, which made the whole thing a lot more believable. (And the flawed decisions they made weren't generally along the lines of "I'm going to wipe out 20 years of history just so I can change the past and rescue the couple of hundred people aboard my ship" that Janeway did in the last couple of episodes of Voyager).

[Morkonan]

DS9 fans, the ones who really loved the show, tend to not be as enthusiastic about other Star Trek offerings. Just in general, from my own personal, likely flawed, observations.

Yes, it's definitely flawed, because I also watched all of TNG. I do think DS9 is the best Trek series, mainly because it had a bit of darkness to it while still being recognisably Trek--in DS9, people had flaws and occasionally made flawed decisions, which made the whole thing a lot more believable. (And the flawed decisions they made weren't generally along the lines of "I'm going to wipe out 20 years of history just so I can change the past and rescue the couple of hundred people aboard my ship" that Janeway did in the last couple of episodes of Voyager).

So, maybe it was because it felt more "intimate" and was on a smaller "scale" than the others that you found really appealing? For instance, no matter what happens, somehow something someone does on some Star Trek show before or after this is "gonna affect teh universe and kill it all." Meanwhile, back on DS9, there's an intense, personal, intimate, problem going on with one of the characters and a reoccurring protagonist. Except, this time it's for "realz" and somebody might get hurt.

Something like that?

One of the things Voyager suffered from was thrusting a collection of characters together in an intimate, "us against the galaxy" kind of setting where there camera is going to be focused on their face every darn week. Even "Star Trek" had lots of walk-ons, planetary hops, shore-leave, etc. Then, they were expecting not to have work hard to make those characters sympathetic without pandering to the audience. Add in the curse/bonus/complication of Chekotay's Maqi <sp> (who the F spells this crap right on the first go-round) crew who are supposed to be hyper-angsty teens-with-teeth rebelling against their Federation parents... Yeah, a crap show for at least the first Season.

"Let's pit two teams against each other, but they have to work together to get things done in order to survive in a dangerous setting!"
"Oh, I heard of that show. "Survivor," right?"
"No, no, no, this is a sci-fi show."
"AH! "Lost," then."
"No, dangit! Nobody important can die since we have "contracts" and stuff."
"Then... wtf is it?"
"Something Star-Trekky. But, low impact, not too much drama and something the kids can watch."
"Someone is going to pay for that?"
"Already did..."

[pjknibbs]

One of the things Voyager suffered from was thrusting a collection of characters together in an intimate, "us against the galaxy" kind of setting where there camera is going to be focused on their face every darn week.

If they'd actually remembered the fact that half of the crew were Starfleet and the other half Maquis and played on that rivalry it would have been better, IMHO. Instead, all the ex-Maquis pretty much instantly integrated into the crew, and there was barely any friction even between Janeway and Chakotay--he just slipped into the role of second-in-command and hardly ever questioned Janeway. "Year of Hell" was great until they hit the literal reset button at the end, and the episode where they met other ship that was using aliens to fuel their warp drive was good too, but the dross far outweighed the good bits.

[Ketraar]

Voyager also suffered from inconsistent writing, where Janeway would contradict herself every other decision. She pissed me off the most on that cast for the same reasons STD gets on my nerves, inconsistency. Characters that switch back and forth on their core values with little or no lasting consequence, a captain no less. BUt that was the 90s so they get a pass, but STD should know better, we are in 2019 and people want good writing. If you want to make a story based series you better know the story you want to tell, but I fear STD has no clue what it wants to say or wants to say it all, which has the same result.

Anyway, saw the latest episode and again it was cringe inducing acting from the lead, forced and unearned attempts at emotional payoffs. I mean all life in the universe is at risk of being wiped out, but lets make sure we risk it all so Micheal can attempt to fix her mommy issues. Lets not listen to the person doing it for how many years.

I would have loved for the show to switch the POV for at least one episode so we could see Micheal mother in action around these events and her struggles to cope with the solitude, THAT would have been interesting and add some context and then they could have the cheese emotional moments but earned. But again that would have required some writing and storytelling skills/effort.

I dont even want to go deep on the whole time-line/time-travel issues the writers clearly skimmed over, setting the "clock" back 10 minutes but still landing 950 years in the future for "plot" reasons, then being able to jump in at any time, but not before the attack on her house? So saving the village including the building can be done but her family not? Why not? Does suit require the infinity stones to be able to overcome plot limitations?

This is why people should NOT write time-travel stories unless they KNOW how, its an interesting gimmick that will make your plot have as many holes as a swiss cheese otherwise.

MFG

Ketraar