Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
19,292
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
After having revisited the season a couple times, I’ve grown to like much more than I dislike.

The Lorca thing, for me, just felt like a missed opportunity. I think from a storytelling point of view, the “persona” represented a kind of damaged captain we’ve never seen as a Trek lead before, and it was interesting to see them breaking new ground. The twist was shocking for a moment, but when that shock wears off, I felt that I was left with “he’s bad cause all Mirror Universe guys are bad” and that just felt like much less complex and less interesting storytelling.

It was sort of the same with Ash Tyler. A Starfleet officer suffering PTSD and trying to recover his life is a genuinely more interesting and fresh type of character for Trek than “he’s messed up cause he’s not really that character and sci-fi stuff”.

I think the show laid the groundwork for both so you can watch it and clearly see that they’ve constructed the storyline properly for those twists to be honestly done. I just think the original versions as first presented to the audience were more compelling characters and scenarios.

And as a more general note, I thought going back to that same twist two different times in the same season was just using the same storytelling device too often. I think they should have picked one character to do it with and not gone back to the same well again in the same story.

But it is what it is and they’re not fatal choices to me, just perhaps not the ones I would have found most interesting.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
23,417
Location
Albany, NY
The biggest problem I had with the Lorca reveal is that they made a big deal about his vision issue as being the big giveaway that he was from the Mirror Universe. But to my knowledge none of the previous Mirror Universe stories mentioned anything about the people in that universe having additional light sensitivity. It seemed like something they just made up for the first season of this show. It didn't seem like the show was playing fair with the audience.
 

Josh Dial

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2000
Messages
3,566
Real Name
Josh Dial
The biggest problem I had with the Lorca reveal is that they made a big deal about his vision issue as being the big giveaway that he was from the Mirror Universe. But to my knowledge none of the previous Mirror Universe stories mentioned anything about the people in that universe having additional light sensitivity. It seemed like something they just made up for the first season of this show. It didn't seem like the show was playing fair with the audience.
For a franchise that still can't figure out how money works I can forgive this sin.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
23,417
Location
Albany, NY
What are the odds that the third season of "Discovery" doesn't change history?

I'm excited for the third season, and I'm excited that the show won't be shackled anymore to being a prequel to the original series. But I knid of don't want it to be the actual fixed 32nd century history, because that turns "Picard" into a prequel series -- albeit one that has a lot more breathing room in the timeline than "Discovery" did. And knowing that something happens to burn the Federation down to a small shell of its former self is kind of a bummer.
 

joshEH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
5,801
Location
Room 303, The Heart O' The City Hotel
Real Name
Josh
^ To be sure, we already know from VOY: "Future's End" and "Relativity" that Starfleet and the UFP seemingly survive in their original form up until at least the 29th Century, so it's clear that "the Burn" is a fairly-recent thing (occurring maybe within the past couple centuries or so) from the viewpoint of Burnham and "Book." So really any table-setting that PIC might end up doing would be at an extremely distant remove from the events of late-32nd Century DSC, and would probably be minor at best.

It's also mentioned in ENT: "Storm Front" that the UFP became involved in the Temporal Cold War in the 31st Century, attempting to prevent the alteration of its history (this likely assumes that the "prime" timeline that we've seen in the various TV shows and movies over the decades is the one being protected), which could push the date of the Burn even further into the future, depending.

That said, from a dramatic storytelling-standpoint, I'm rather excited by the notion that even the Federation has a finite shelf-life, and that the clock is now ticking on it even at the end of the 24th Century (and which now gives some added weight to what we saw on VOY, knowing that Braxton's command took place near the very end of things).
 
Last edited:

Sam Favate

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
9,509
Real Name
Sam Favate
Tonight I will finish my rewatch of Seasons 1 and 2, just in time for Season 3 tomorrow. I wrote about Season 1 earlier and the problems I had with it, despite the fact that I still liked it. Season 2 is very good, much better than Season 1. The addition of Captain Pike (and Anson Mount) to the show is a huge step in the right direction. As Admiral Cornwell says at one point in the season, Pike is the best of Starfleet, embodying the best of them, and he's written that way. He's also very far from the grim, sometimes brooding Capt. Lorca, and that's something the show needs. Season 2's story is better than Season 1 too, with its focus on sci-fi concepts like AI, rather than war and a fascistic alternate reality.

They start to give the crew more identity, but it's still not enough. There's very little for bridge crew members to do and viewers can be forgiven for not even knowing their names. The show has a relentless focus on Burnham, who is a good character and has a great actress behind her. But Burnham still isn't a very well-rounded character, even after two seasons, and that's the writers' fault. She is always breathlessly running from one crisis to another, and she's usually either yelling or crying, which is a far cry from her Vulcan upbringing. We never see her doing anything fun - other Star Trek characters rode horses, played racquetball, loved baseball, sang opera, directed plays, and so on. We don't really know anything about Burnham other than her crisis management. Also, writing her as the central character comes at the detriment of the captain, who is often left following Burnham's advice. The idea of Burnham is a good one; the execution of the character is not. I hope this changes and improves in Season 3.

Tyler continues to be a very annoying character. I like that Pike doesn't like him. I'm sure they have plans for him, possibly on their developing Section 31 show, but I wouldn't mind not seeing him again. Too much has been made of him being torn between Burnham and L'Rell, Starfleet and Section 31, Federation and the Klingons. He's conflicted - we get it. Maybe that's why he also cries a lot.

The second season had some real stand-outs. The episode where Airiam is taken over by the AI and the crew has to confront her is excellent. The last 10-15 minutes of that episode are pulse-pounding and great drama. Pike's visit from Vina and the Talosians, as well as his vision of his future in a later episode, are highlights. I hope the writers figure a way to incorporate visions of Vina into Strange New Worlds. The appearance of the Enterprise in the two-part finale is also a tremendous thrill. The season also had stand-alone (or almost stand-alone) episodes that were very good: New Eden, about the Earth colony, and the one in which they encounter the Sphere, which will affect the rest of the season, are excellent.

I look forward to Season 3 and hope they can continue to meet the standards of Season 2. I also hope we don't miss the impact of Pike, Spock and the Enterprise, and that the show doesn't end up feeling like Voyager, with the crew so far from home and no way to get back. I hope it does not become about getting back. (That was something I never liked about Voyager.)
 

Harry-N

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
3,272
Location
Sunny Central Florida
Real Name
Harry N.
I've watched STAR TREK: DISCOVERY each week that it's been streamed on CBS All Access and in general, I've enjoyed what I saw, with some reservations. I wasn't crazy about the Klingons' depiction in S1. It was laborious at best, and makes the season hard to rewatch.

S2 was an improvement. I enjoyed Pike and Spock and will look forward to STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS whenever it arrives. I have a feeling that I'll like that one best of these new Treks.

One of the things that annoys me about these new STAR TREK series - and the Abrams movie series - is the constant "running and jumping", shaking cameras, and lens flares. I guess that it's supposed to appeal more to the younger demos who've grown up on fast, fast, fast in everything they encounter, so we never even seem to get a nice long, lingering look at a set like the bridge.

I've not rewatched much or any of DISCOVERY and hope it will be a good season.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
7,636
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Jason
What are the odds that the third season of "Discovery" doesn't change history?

I'm excited for the third season, and I'm excited that the show won't be shackled anymore to being a prequel to the original series. But I knid of don't want it to be the actual fixed 32nd century history, because that turns "Picard" into a prequel series -- albeit one that has a lot more breathing room in the timeline than "Discovery" did. And knowing that something happens to burn the Federation down to a small shell of its former self is kind of a bummer.
Well, it would turn everything from ENT through VOY into a prequel series, technically speaking. They all would have happened prior to Discovery Season 3. They're all prequels by definition.
 

Harry-N

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
3,272
Location
Sunny Central Florida
Real Name
Harry N.
I have to disagree. A "prequel" is a work or series that takes place in a timeline BEFORE an already existing work. ENTERPRISE was a prequel because it took place in the timeline before the established Kirk era and everything else. DISCOVERY has been a prequel series also taking place just before Kirk.

TNG, VOY, DS9 all were sequel series in their time to the Kirk era. Just because DISCOVERY will leap to the future does not make anything else a "prequel" series. They all came before and remain in their timeline.

It WILL turn PICARD and STRANGE NEW WORLDS and anything else in older timelines into a prequel series.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
7,636
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Jason
I have to disagree. A "prequel" is a work or series that takes place in a timeline BEFORE an already existing work. ENTERPRISE was a prequel because it took place in the timeline before the established Kirk era and everything else. DISCOVERY has been a prequel series also taking place just before Kirk.

TNG, VOY, DS9 all were sequel series in their time to the Kirk era. Just because DISCOVERY will leap to the future does not make anything else a "prequel" series. They all came before and remain in their timeline.
Enterprise was a prequel to everything that came after it (TOS through Picard). TNG is the sequel series to TOS and TAS, but it is a prequel to DS9, VOY and Picard.

Discovery Season 1 and 2 are prequels to everything else since it came, chronologically speaking, before those events.

Oxford Languages defines a prequel as "a story of movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." Discovery can be a prequel and sequel at the same time much like some of the original Plant of the Apes movies. While they were movies completed after the original (in the real world) and are sequels, they are also telling the story before we get to the first movie and are therefore prequels.
 

Harry-N

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
3,272
Location
Sunny Central Florida
Real Name
Harry N.
it would turn everything from ENT through VOY into a prequel series
I was replying to the above quote. Your latest post is all accurate, but that one statement quoted above is the one I disagree with. ENT was and is always a prequel series.

However TNG, DS9, and VOY cannot be prequels to anything since they all took place in the farthest future we'd been presented at that time. They were all sequels to TOS and not prequels to anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip Verdieck

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
7,636
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Jason
I'm just curious where the "farthest future" rule came from?

Further, various episodes of TNG-VOY have shown future times (the 31st century, for instance). That would be the farthest future we've seen, making anything that came after those episodes but before the 31st century prequels.

I really don't have any horse in this race. Just a fun convo until tomorrow night. :)
 

Philip Verdieck

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 23, 1999
Messages
621
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
Philip Verdieck
Enterprise was a prequel to everything that came after it (TOS through Picard). TNG is the sequel series to TOS and TAS, but it is a prequel to DS9, VOY and Picard.

Discovery Season 1 and 2 are prequels to everything else since it came, chronologically speaking, before those events.

Oxford Languages defines a prequel as "a story of movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." Discovery can be a prequel and sequel at the same time much like some of the original Plant of the Apes movies. While they were movies completed after the original (in the real world) and are sequels, they are also telling the story before we get to the first movie and are therefore prequels.
You are harping on an incomplete technical definition of prequel which is irrelevant to the reality.

Prequel as you use it is, IMHO, wrong. Predecessor would work, because one precedes the other.

However, sequels are direct continuations of what happened before. New chapters to the previous story. Tied in to it. Prequels are also based on an existing work, but are intended to be a direct tie in to what happens after. So a bunch of chapters , which when put in front of the other work tie in directly, or set the ground for what happens later.

None of the previous Trek series were designed to tie into other things that followed. That is why I think the use of prequel by use is wrong. They exist in the same timeline (or not due to the steaming mountain of Kelvin timeline BS, but that is another discussion), but they are not designed to tie in directly to the other series stories. There is decades of time passing between them and the series don't tie in to each other in the manners that sequels (TOS/TNG movies) do to their series.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
7,636
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Jason
You are harping on an incomplete technical definition of prequel which is irrelevant to the reality.
Harping? Nah. Using technical definitions that can easily be found to define a thing. Also using what others are saying here to add to the definition.

Prequel as you use it is, IMHO, wrong.
I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,177
Messages
4,733,203
Members
141,401
Latest member
Ab1979