Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (2 Viewers)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Sad news. Kenneth Mitchell, who was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), has passed away at the age of 49:


He played Klingons during the first two seasons of "Discovery". By the third season, his illness had progressed to the point that he was wheelchair-bound. The writers created a new character for him to play that accommodated his disability, and he was terrific in the role.

He also voiced a number of small characters on "Lower Decks".

 

[jayembee]

I had just come into the thread to post this, having just read it on my newsfeed. My wife and I also remember him fondly from the too-short-lived series Jericho.

 

[joshEH]

New article at Variety gives some pretty major spoilers regarding the Star Trek: Section 31 movie (starring Michelle Yeoh):

Spoiler: Section 31

It takes place during the "Lost Era" between TUC and TNG, and features a young Rachel Garrett (Captain of the Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise"), who is played by actress Kacey Rohl. Also, more sequels starring Yeoh could follow if this one is successful.

The Future of ‘Star Trek’: From ‘Starfleet Academy’ to New Movies and Michelle Yeoh, How the 58-Year-Old Franchise Is Planning for the Next Generation of Fans

With the TV movie "Section 31," the YA series "Starfleet Academy," and two features in development, how "Star Trek" hopes to (boldly) go into its future.

variety.com

 

[Sam Favate]

I’ve been rewatching season 4 these past two weeks in anticipation of season 5 starting this week. It’s been a real slog. I thought that watching one episode per night would give me a greater appreciation for what they were doing with this season’s story. Discovery always tells season-long stories, and it can be hard to follow when you’re only getting one installment a week. But it didn’t make it any better.

Far too many episodes consist of the characters standing around talking, often about their feelings and often in dramatic whispers. It’s maddening. And it’s boring. And when things do happen, like Tarka breaking laws or taking a prisoner, or Book acting in ways that will hurt his friends, it defies story logic.

The show has certainly broken boundaries in terms of representation on screen, but this show bashes you over the head with it, repeatedly. If they’re having that effect on me, an old liberal who grew up with Star Trek’s progressive politics, I can only imagine how they are alienating large parts of their potential audience. It’s just too much, especially when the theme of some episodes is “being seen” or “living your truth.” It’s writing on a high school level.

There’s no dramatic tension in the story, and we’re never on the edge of our seat. The mission is one that a previous Trek show would’ve solved in one or maybe two episodes. This kind of long-form storytelling doesn’t work with stories we’ve seen before, handled deftly by other crews, who put their personal feelings aside to act professionally and get a job done. Discovery’s crew always has to have their feelings front and center, and they have to spend considerable time talking about them.

I really hope this writing team is not on board for Starfleet Academy, and I really hope Michelle Paradise isn’t running that show.

 

[Harry-N]

I really wanted to like DISCOVERY. I gave Season One a good chance, but I hated the way the Klingons were portrayed, yet I really liked Captain Lorca as a character. I wasn't fond of relying on the Mirror Universe right off the bat.

Season Two improved with Captain Pike appearing, but it turned into another search for Spock. I liked the Pike-centered stories, and even the Spock/Michael/Amanda stuff. I wasn't crazy about the red angel stuff, but was intrigued when they were heading to the far, far future.

But then that (S3) seemed to be a disorganized mess. I watched S4 out of a sense of loyalty, but won't be revisiting it any time soon. I'll go through S5 as it appears, and I hope they manage something good, but the track record isn't so good.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I could rant, but this show really lost me when they installed flame-shooters on the bridge of the NCC-1031-A. Sparks still fly and "rocks" still ricochet everywhere when consoles made of programmable matter explode. You'd think after 930 years, someone would invent the fuse box.

 

[Jason_V]

I could rant, but this show really lost me when they installed flame-shooters on the bridge of the NCC-1031-A. Sparks still fly and "rocks" still ricochet everywhere when consoles made of programmable matter explode. You'd think after 930 years, someone would invent the fuse box.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same thing happens on the Enterprise-D, Defiant and Voyager. Was this nitpicked in the same way when those shoes were airing? Just curious...

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same thing happens on the Enterprise-D, Defiant and Voyager. Was this nitpicked in the same way when those shoes were airing? Just curious...

Yes... because it tends to go with an over-reliance on "artificial excitement," as David Gerrold put it in "The World of Star Trek." To wit: it's far easier to show "exciting" things happening when nothing of import is actually happening, or personally involves anyone—except superficially. Lots of bad installments of [insert favorite show or movie here] fall into this trap because it's difficult, given production pressures and multiple cooks in the kitchen, to develop actual drama that works.

"It's like eating a spoonful of Drano. Sure, it'll clean you out, but it'll leave you hollow inside." —Lt. Frank Drebin

From 1973:

The Enterprise is under attack. She’s hit by a photon torpedo—kaboom!—everything tilts and everybody falls out of their chairs! They climb back into them and another torpedo comes zooming in—kaboom!—again, they’re knocked to the floor! A third time—kaboom!—the camera tilts and they all fall down again! And Scotty reports, “All defenses out, Captain. The next one will get us for sure.”

Several years ago, Bob Justman, associate producer of the show, was asked by a fan about this: “Why don’t you put seat belts on the chairs?”

“Because,” he replied, “if we did, then the actors couldn’t fall out of them.”

But the above scene—and Bob Justman’s easy answer—are wrong. Both scientifically and dramatically. There has been little thought put into either.

From a scientific standpoint, the scene is fallacious. Each of those torpedoes would have had to have been a direct hit in order to shake the Enterprise. If they had been misses—even near misses—the ship wouldn’t have been shaken at all. Shockwaves don’t travel through the vacuum of space. Hence, in order to shake the ship, they must have been direct hits. If they were direct hits, the ship should have been destroyed three times over.

 

[Jason_V]

Fair. So I think, based on this, we need to reevaluate episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise, "Year of Hell" and dozens more, along with their associated series.

Does this thing...the "flamethrowers" and "rocks"...make a bad show? Not to me, but to each their own. That is like Dennis the Menace is a "bad" show because Dennis gets into all sorts of illogical trouble in every episode. But without that trouble, the show is boring. Same with the action...I've accepted it long, long ago. If the lack of seatbelts makes the show "lose" you, again, to each their own. But it's a suspension of disbelief that works for me, and always has in Trek. As long as it is internally consistent, cool.

 

[Jason_V]

Three installments which are considered pretty great all have the issues you've identified. Again, no one has said Wrath of Khan is a bad movie because of the fire...therefore, I don't see why this is logically held against Discovery.

I'm not even debating the physics or science of any of this. Yes, it shouldn't happen. Yes, there should be seatbelts or whatever else. But there aren't, at least for a majority of the franchise.

Yesterday's Enterprise:

Year of Hell Part 2:

Star Trek II:

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The ships also have gravity in space even though there’s no centrifugal force to generate it. Faster than light speed is impossible. Transporters as seen in the shows are extremely unlikely to be possible.

I’m with Jason on this, I look for these shows and films to be internally consistent (with allowances for how updates in production techniques affect how incidents are visualized).

I detailed what enthralled me about season 4 as it aired in this thread, and I noted what fell short for me in the official HTF review of the disc, so I’m not sure that I have anything new to offer on those fronts. Ultimately I think it was an enjoyable experience to have week to week, but not one that necessarily has more to reveal on repeated viewings. The writers constructed it during a pandemic lockdown and were trying to tell a story of connection at a time of widespread societal disconnection in real life. I think they had noble intentions in difficult working conditions and that may have led them not to realize that much of the season’s thematic arc retreaded the ground the previous season had already explored.

That’s also an Alex Kurtzman weakness that’s evidenced itself over more than a decade of projects both Trek and non-Trek; he’s written/co-written/supervised multiple projects where he begins the new installment by negating the character development of the previous installment so that it can be repeated anew - it’s one of his signature moves and I’d argue it’s his biggest weakness as a creative. Some quick examples:
-Star Trek ‘09 begins with Kirk being too young and inexperienced to command the Enterprise, but he proves himself over the course of the film and earns the right to captain the ship. Star Trek Into Darkness begins with Kirk being told he’s too young and experienced to command the Enterprise and it’s taken away from him, but he proves himself again over the course of the film and again earns the right to captain the ship.
-The Amazing Spider-Man has Peter Parker struggling with his responsibilities as a superhero and his desire to be in a relationship with Gwen Stacy. He works through these feelings and ultimately decides that he can be with her. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 begins with Peter Parker struggling with his responsibilities and unable to square that with his desire to be in a relationship with Gwen Stacy.
-Discovery Season 3 begins with Michael Burnham being told she’s not suitable to command Discovery, but she proves herself over the course of the season and is given the captain’s chair. Season 4 then begins with Burnham being told she’s not suitable for the captain’s chair and must prove herself yet again.

In those three examples, it’s as if Kurtzman doesn’t know how to move forward with a new conflict for the protagonist and isn’t comfortable with a protagonist that is secure in their position and themselves, so without much internal motivation, he negates the previous installment’s journey and lays down the same obstacle course for the character to endure again.

I object to that far more than scientifically implausible depictions of turbulence of the bridge.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

You cited some excellent counter examples that exemplify stories involving actual drama and stakes, "Khan" in particular because Nimoy's future involvement in Trek was assumed to be nil. When viewed in 1982, this movie stunned because it personally affected Kirk, his crew, and the audience equally. It was also the first time we saw a starship take a visceral beating like that. In that case, the rocks worked.

The other two episodes are also great and earned their rocks. However, they did commit another cardinal sin of creative writing: hitting the "reset button" sin at the end to take away the consequences. (Other unsatisfying "endings" can involve "it was all a dream" and "here comes the cavalry.") This is to be expected in any episodic format where your actors are contractually obligated to appear.

I will give Star Trek: Discovery this much: They have no qualms about shoving a main character out the airlock (usually the better ones, leaving us with less and less). But every time they start slamming shit around and filling the screen with a hundred things all zapping each other endlessly (I see you, too, Star Trek: Picard), my eyes roll back due from all the Draino.

 

[Jason_V]

You cited some excellent counter examples that exemplify stories involving actual drama and stakes, "Khan" in particular because Nimoy's future involvement in Trek was assumed to be nil. When viewed in 1982, this movie stunned because it personally affected Kirk, his crew, and the audience equally. It was also the first time we saw a starship take a visceral beating like that. In that case, the rocks worked.

The other two episodes are also great and earned their rocks. However, they did commit another cardinal sin of creative writing: hitting the "reset button" sin at the end to take away the consequences. (Other unsatisfying "endings" can involve "it was all a dream" and "here comes the cavalry.") This is to be expected in any episodic format where your actors are contractually obligated to appear.

I will give Star Trek: Discovery this much: They have no qualms about shoving a main character out the airlock (usually the better ones, leaving us with less and less). But every time they start slamming shit around and filling the screen with a hundred things all zapping each other endlessly (I see you, too, Star Trek: Picard), my eyes roll back due from all the Draino.

So..."rocks and flamethrowers" when there are subjective "drama and stakes" is good, but otherwise not? That makes less sense than the rocks coming out of the bulkheads.

Anyway, I am looking forward to Season 5 starting this week. Discovery ushered in more Trek for us, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. More Trek, even Lower Decks--which I don't necessarily like--is always good in my book.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We’ve had a very long break since Discovery was last on. I’m looking forward to getting back on board and seeing what happens. Good, bad, or indifferent, it’ll be nice to spend these final nine weeks with the show.

 

[TJPC]

We watch all these Paramount + Star Trek shows in Canada on the SciFi channel for “free”. I noticed a listing for Discovery on Thursday, but the listing says “Season 4”. Is this a mistake?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yes, there should be seatbelts or whatever else. But there aren't, at least for a majority of the franchise.

The thing is, we spend most of our time on the ships that really are operating at the "Final Frontier". Presumably the vast majority of Starfleet vessels that are carrying out the routine business of the Federation within its territory aren't getting into shootouts or engaging with vengeful omnipotent alien beings every other week.

For those ships, the ability to move around freely and quickly would outweigh the safety requirement for a scenario that is, statistically speaking, very unlikely.

I do think it would have made sense to incorporate seat belts/safety straps in alternate timelines like "Yesterday's Enterprise" where circumstances had forced Starfleet to operate in a primarily military/defense capacity and warfare was a common occurrence. But I also understand why they wouldn't have wanted to incur the expense of such retrofits for a one off, or draw attention to something that casual viewers probably never noticed in the first place.

 

[Jason_V]

The thing is, we spend most of our time on the ships that really are operating at the "Final Frontier". Presumably the vast majority of Starfleet vessels that are carrying out the routine business of the Federation within its territory aren't getting into shootouts or engaging with vengeful omnipotent alien beings every other week.

For those ships, the ability to move around freely and quickly would outweigh the safety requirement for a scenario that is, statistically speaking, very unlikely.

I do think it would have made sense to incorporate seat belts/safety straps in alternate timelines like "Yesterday's Enterprise" where circumstances had forced Starfleet to operate in a primarily military/defense capacity and warfare was a common occurrence. But I also understand why they wouldn't have wanted to incur the expense of such retrofits for a one off, or draw attention to something that casual viewers probably never noticed in the first place.

That's the rub for me, though. There are no seatbelts for both in-universe and practical storytelling reasons. Does that mean that all the shows are "less than" because there are no seatbelts? No, at least not to me. It's internally consistent. This is also a TV show which has to have something kinetic going on or else it becomes boring, especially in action scenes. Same thing with this flamethrower and rock argument. There's a thousand things you could critique Discovery, Strange New Worlds, Voyager, TNG, etc. on...this really isn't one of them for me.

 

[Nelson Au]

The refit Enterprise has restraints built into the chair arms, so they were safely held in during the wormhole affair. Except those crew members who were standing at their stations.

 

[jayembee]

We watch all these Paramount + Star Trek shows in Canada on the SciFi channel for “free”. I noticed a listing for Discovery on Thursday, but the listing says “Season 4”. Is this a mistake?

Why would that be a mistake? S4 debuted on Paramount+ in November 2021.

Here in the States, on cable, there's a recent secondary Showtime channel called "Paramount+ on Showtime" that's airing a fair amount of P+ programming. Of course, you need to be Showtime subscriber to view it. I mention this because P+onS has been running S4 of Discovery. I just happened to watch the last four episodes the other night. It reaffirmed that I still like this season. While it has its problematic bits, overall I liked the arc about learning how to communicate with the Ten-C and working things out diplomatically rather than going in guns blazing. I've no doubt they were "inspired" by Arrival, but that's fine with me.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We watch all these Paramount + Star Trek shows in Canada on the SciFi channel for “free”. I noticed a listing for Discovery on Thursday, but the listing says “Season 4”. Is this a mistake?

It’s supposed to be a day-and-date launch across the different international partnerships Paramount+ has for this show and Canada was confirmed for a Thursday premiere so, yes, it is most likely that a listing calling it Season 4 rather than Season 5 would be a typo.