Star Trek Discovery ***Season 2*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

You need to compare S1 TNG or DS9 to S1 STD though. If you look at the full run of either of the former vs the latter, STD is never going to do anything for you.

It's further skewed though because of the psuedo-reboot of Discovery for its second season. An all new tone, an all new mission, an all new captain, and so forth. I don't agree you need to compare like for like. I take your point that time is needed for shows to mature, but the rate they mature these days is very different to the story of the week stuff from the TNG era.

pixelburp wrote: »

You might point towards Love Island et al, but one can easily point towards Breaking Bad, Sopranos, Fargo, Battlestar Galactica, Boardwalk Empire, The Expanse, Black Mirror, The Wire, Mad Men... I could go on & on all day listing great TV from the last decade(s). Even the 'OK' stuff is usually highly polished and written; the market is flood with good-to-great drama.

I never implied there weren't any good shows out there, you've named a lot of them above. What I said was, in terms of popularity, shows like the above (short of some all time greats) often get drowned out in the noise/mediocrity/awfulness of what's popular today. Plus many of them are themselves ageing. For all the shows named above, there's 20 others that are on the other end of the scale, which are popular...and that can be why studio execs do try to aim for the lowest common denominator, to ensure mass exposure, and maximum chance of success. I'll take Picard over Burnham any day of the week.

Optimus Prime

Inviere wrote: »

I'll take Picard over Burnham any day of the week.

Hopefully you look back at this in a couple of years and can still say that, Im looking forward to and dreading the Picard tv show at the same time.

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

I'll take Picard over Burnham any day of the week.

And I'd take her over Jayneway

Inviere

Optimus Prime wrote: »

Hopefully you look back at this in a couple of years and can still say that, Im looking forward to and dreading the Picard tv show at the same time.

Indeed, and where Trek is at the moment, it's hard to see it going back to the type of storytelling that made TNG great. That said, Stewart is the one person (assuming it's not Movie Picard), who can lend the screen chops to getting the job done. If we get a series of movie Picard I give up :pac:

pixelburp

Inviere wrote: »

I never implied there weren't any good shows out there, you've named a lot of them above. What I said was, in terms of popularity, shows like the above (short of some all time greats) often get drowned out in the noise/mediocrity/awfulness of what's popular today. Plus many of them are themselves ageing. For all the shows named above, there's 20 others that are on the other end of the scale, which are popular...and that can be why studio execs do try to aim for the lowest common denominator, to ensure mass exposure, and maximum chance of success. I'll take Picard over Burnham any day of the week.

Like what though? I won't ask for 20, but gimme 1 or 2 at least. As I said, "lowest common denominator" entertainment isn't anything new. Reality TV is cheaper than the gameshows of yore, but in terms of footprint, they're both equivalent to each other in terms of audience or exposure.

And unlike 30+ years ago, if you don't want exposure to Reality TV, then it's easily avoided. There's more than enough good, adult entertainment on Netflix and Amazon alone, not to mention the dozens of other terrestrial channels you can browser without coming upon a "I'm a Celebrity" or suchlike.

EdgeCase

Pter wrote: »

Also consider that the days of 22+ eps per season it gone. Stuff is getting crammed into fewer eps (rightly or wrongly).

They're vastly more complex to produce because of the production demands of HD and UHD viewing.

22 episodes in SD was relatively cheaper and easier.
You're basically now trying to make a series of short movies in terms of the production values. The distinction between TV and Cinema has really blurred.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

Like what though? I won't ask for 20, but gimme 1 or 2 at least. As I said, "lowest common denominator" entertainment isn't anything new. Reality TV is cheaper than the gameshows of yore, but in terms of footprint, they're both equivalent to each other in terms of audience or exposure.

Keeping Up with the Kardashians, I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, Big Brother, Britain's/America's Got Talent, X Factor, and as you're likely well aware, the list goes on and on and on. Maybe you're right in that in terms of overall footprint, reality tv has simply replaced the old common gameshow, but I'd be surprised. Reality TV is massive, massive business these days. It has shown us that for very little overall investment, and even with people devoid of class/ability/skill/charisma, the potential returns for a network/studio are massive.

And unlike 30+ years ago, if you don't want exposure to Reality TV, then it's easily avoided. There's more than enough good, adult entertainment on Netflix and Amazon alone, not to mention the dozens of other terrestrial channels you can browser without coming upon a "I'm a Celebrity" or suchlike.

For sure, but again, just stick on a mainstream tv channel this evening and you'll be hard pressed to find something watchable.

Baggly

Inviere wrote: »

Keeping Up with the Kardashians, I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, Big Brother, Britain's/America's Got Talent, X Factor, and as you're likely well aware, the list goes on and on and on. Maybe you're right in that in terms of overall footprint, reality tv has simply replaced the old common gameshow, but I'd be surprised. Reality TV is massive, massive business these days. It has shown us that for very little overall investment, and even with people devoid of class/ability/skill/charisma, the potential returns for a network/studio are massive.



For sure, but again, just stick on a mainstream tv channel this evening and you'll be hard pressed to find something watchable.

It was impossible to watch tv without a mainstream tv channel 20 years ago. Entirely possible to do so now though!

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

It was impossible to watch tv without a mainstream tv channel 20 years ago. Entirely possible to do so now though!

It is, but again, what are they showing on mainstream channels?

Baggly

Inviere wrote: »

It is, but again, what are they showing on mainstream channels?

I honestly dont know because i dont watch mainstream channels anymore. I live in a world where i only really watch the tv i like at whatever time i like.

Goodshape

FWIW (not much, I think),

Top rated TV in the USA:

1968 - 69: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_1968%E2%80%9369

1989 - 90: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_1989%E2%80%9390

2017 - 18: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_2017%E2%80%9318

Franz Von Peppercorn

pixelburp wrote: »

30 years ago, TV was awash with dumb gameshows, laugh-track sitcoms, and what mainstream drama that existed was episodic and utterly vacuous. There was simply no culture that informed TV drama, or its audience, could operate in any realm of maturity.

Tv is far superior to what it was in the past. Movies have dumbed down in general bit the best writing and acting is on TV.

pixelburp

Inviere wrote: »

Keeping Up with the Kardashians, I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, Big Brother, Britain's/America's Got Talent, X Factor, and as you're likely well aware, the list goes on and on and on. Maybe you're right in that in terms of overall footprint, reality tv has simply replaced the old common gameshow, but I'd be surprised. Reality TV is massive, massive business these days. It has shown us that for very little overall investment, and even with people devoid of class/ability/skill/charisma, the potential returns for a network/studio are massive.

For sure, but again, just stick on a mainstream tv channel this evening and you'll be hard pressed to find something watchable.

I'm not disagreeing with you that terrestrial TV has become lopsided, but that's pretty much because Sky, Netflix et al have changed the dynamic of where 'good' TV is to be found - coupled with old fashioned capitalism shrinking the terrestrial market; it's easy to forget Sky Atlantic bought out the entirety of HBO's catalogue, while Sky / BT Sports has ensured staples of the RTÉ sports schedule are no more.

The TV landscape has changed, and without coming across as antagonistic, it's reductionist and a bit naive to complain about the dumbing down of TV when you're looking in all the wrong places for good TV

Nor do I think can you draw a line between Love Island and Burnham; if anything, it's that attempt to add complexity to TV drama that has resulted in the hot mess that is that character - fadó fadó main characters were simply tropes of "The Competent Hero".

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

I honestly dont know because i dont watch mainstream channels anymore. I live in a world where i only really watch the tv i like at whatever time i like.

As do I. My initial point was that mainstream television has shifted toward showing pure garbage, directed at the mainstream, for the mainstream, enjoyed by the mainstream. Look at previous staples like the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and so forth...they've abandoned informative, well made television content, and embraced stuff like Gold Rush etc. All 'reality' based scripted garbage. I'd say the BBC are the last channel left providing quality well rounded content, catering to a wide range of tastes.

Yes, choices are there now in terms of watching what we want, when we want, but I still maintain the point that mainstream television is by and large gone downhill.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Inviere wrote: »

As do I. My initial point was that mainstream television has shifted toward showing pure garbage, directed at the mainstream, for the mainstream, enjoyed by the mainstream. Look at previous staples like the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and so forth...they've abandoned informative, well made television content, and embraced stuff like Gold Rush etc. All 'reality' based scripted garbage. I'd say the BBC are the last channel left providing quality well rounded content, catering to a wide range of tastes.

Yes, choices are there now in terms of watching what we want, when we want, but I still maintain the point that mainstream television is by and large gone downhill.

The mainstream tv watcher has moved to streaming or cable. If you mean the network TV, the links above show it as dumb as now if not dumber, 30-40 years ago.

Baggly

Inviere wrote: »

As do I. My initial point was that mainstream television has shifted toward showing pure garbage, directed at the mainstream, for the mainstream, enjoyed by the mainstream. Look at previous staples like the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and so forth...they've abandoned informative, well made television content, and embraced stuff like Gold Rush etc. All 'reality' based scripted garbage. I'd say the BBC are the last channel left providing quality well rounded content, catering to a wide range of tastes.

Yes, choices are there now in terms of watching what we want, when we want, but I still maintain the point that mainstream television is by and large gone downhill.

Decent 'mainstream' tv (if the channels you are talking about were ever mainstream) is still being made. There are just a lot more hours of tv to fill (due to the explosion in the number of channels), so its harder to find the good stuff on mainstream tv, or to filter out the dross, i guess.

CramCycle

Goodshape wrote: »

FWIW (not much, I think),

Top rated TV in the USA:

1968 - 69: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_1968%E2%80%9369

1989 - 90: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_1989%E2%80%9390

2017 - 18: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_television_programs_of_2017%E2%80%9318

Interestingly what it says to me is that taste etc. has not changed hugely among the majority of TV viewers, the masses still want cheap comedy and low thinking action. Which is fine, watch alot of it myself, handy to turn the brain off after a long day.

Baggly

We literally must have used the spore drive to get to this point in the discussion from where we were.

Inviere

CramCycle wrote: »

the masses still want cheap comedy and low thinking action.

That was kinda my point all along, maybe I shouldn't be using the term mainstream tv anymore when referring to terrestrial I guess. Have we gotten Discovery with its high octane ninja action because a studio feels it has to appeal to the masses?

Franz Von Peppercorn

CramCycle wrote: »

Interestingly what it says to me is that taste etc. has not changed hugely among the majority of TV viewers, the masses still want cheap comedy and low thinking action. Which is fine, watch alot of it myself, handy to turn the brain off after a long day.

Actually you’re missing something ... the numbers watching the top shows are way down. Viewers are elsewhere, maybe watching Netflix or cable. Or possibly the internet. If it is Netflix then people are, in the main, watching better stuff.

nyarlothothep

Sonics2k wrote: »

I mean, with the exception of abomination, he's kinda hitting the nail on the head.

Far, far too often in ST: Disc do we see this crazy over the top combat fight scenes, Georgiou and her amazing personal holographic tech with little shoulder rockets.

Don't get me wrong, I do actually mostly enjoy the episodes of ST: Disc, but it's also quite far away from actual Star Trek. This is more of your every day, generic sci-fi action flick. It's concept of the time-frame and existing tech is ridiculous.

Enterprise managed to be a prequel to Star Trek and -largely- managed to keep the tech inferior to in TOS which was one of it's more engaging features. ST: Disc on the other hand just blatantly ignores the cannon and shoves more and more CGI in our faces.

Surely all STDs are abominations? STI certainly was.

TheValeyard

It's a good show trying to correct itself as it goes along. No harm.

Just needs less Micheal and more other crew members.

Inviere

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

It's a good show trying to correct itself as it goes along. No harm.

Truthfully I think I enjoyed Season 1 more so than 2 (I know I'm in a minority in saying that). I enjoyed the more focused aspect of it, and the pacing seemed much much better. Probably aided by the fact that I really enjoyed the Klingons I guess. Season 2's pacing is ssoooooo bad, it's dragging and dragging on and on...hide and seek with Spock, Red Angel/no Red Angel, seven signals....maybe next week? No. Maybe next week? No. it's just endless. This week's looks like a Saru episode, so not holding out much hope of the overall arc progressing much.

I will say this though, I believe the show at its heart is a good one, with a LOT of potential. The fuckery in the writing room is the problem for me.

Just needs less Micheal and more other crew members.

Half way through season 2, and I'd be hard pressed to remember the names of more than six or seven characters

Baggly

We havent met Spock yet and i do not like him.

Are they actually gona get someone to play spock

Baggly

In a surprise twist, Spock is going to be played by the same actress playing Burnham.

fritzelly

bluewolf wrote: »

Are they actually gona get someone to play spock

The actor was already revealed
https://youtu.be/7zKf7pyxa1w?t=124

Oh thanks didnt see.
I don't like him now either

TheValeyard

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh thanks didnt see.
I don't like him now either

Hipster Spock

Goodshape

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Surely all STDs are abominations? STI certainly was.

Insurrection wasn't that bad. Just a little uninspired.

Optimus Prime

Goodshape wrote: »

Insurrection wasn't that bad. Just a little uninspired.

That film lost me totally when they brought out the manual control for the enterprise and a commodore 64 joystick came out. I remember face palming myself in the cinema watching it.

fritzelly

Optimus Prime wrote: »

That film lost me totally when they brought out the manual control for the enterprise and a commodore 64 joystick came out. I remember face palming myself in the cinema watching it.

Was a power assisted joystick

TheValeyard

Goodshape wrote: »

Insurrection wasn't that bad. Just a little uninspired.

Insurrection would have made a great two-parter episode. But as a film it was pretty meh. Not terrible, but meh.

Rawr

Optimus Prime wrote: »

That film lost me totally when they brought out the manual control for the enterprise and a commodore 64 joystick came out. I remember face palming myself in the cinema watching it.

I didn't mind that as much as the annoying kid who was crowbared into the plot to teach Data "how to have fun". *Nearly* Naomi Wildman levels of annoyance there.

What killed STI for me was the expectation of a much better film in the minst of the Dominion War. "Insurrection" in my head, promised a story where the Enterprise crew would go renegade against StarFleet for some reason and spend the movie on the run from various starships and StarFleet troops. Pitting our heroes against the Federaion we had trusted all this time, with a load of moral struggles & questions to grapple with etc....

Instead, we got the Enterprise crew going "renegade" against a generic enemy alien......because "evil plan" & blah blah blah.....I guess....

Inviere

Rawr wrote: »

Instead, we got the Enterprise crew going "renegade" against a generic enemy alien......because "evil plan" & blah blah blah.....I guess....

Was it not more so an 'insurrection' against the predictable evil Admiral?

Baggly

If there is one thing we know, it's that Admirals are all evil or deeply flawed individuals.

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

If there is one thing we know, it's that Admirals are all evil or deeply flawed individuals.

It's an annoying and boring trope of Star Trek.

The Megaphone

Rawr wrote: »

Instead, we got the Enterprise crew going "renegade" against a generic enemy alien......because "evil plan" & blah blah blah.....I guess....

I think this is the crux of STI's disappointment and also STN - pulling new bad guys out of their hole like the Son'a and the Remans who had no basis in TNG or DS9 - they could have easily substituted in the Breen and then at least it would served the purpose of world building!

Rawr

The Megaphone wrote: »

I think this is the crux of STI's disappointment and also STN - pulling new bad guys out of their hole like the Son'a and the Remans who had no basis in TNG or DS9 - they could have easily substituted in the Breen and then at least it would served the purpose of world building!

Aw man...a movie with the Breen as the baddies....I would have loved that. (They were great in DS9)

Baggly

Rawr wrote:

Aw man...a movie with the Breen as the baddies....I would have loved that.

Breen 1: gargle gargle gargle

Breen 2: garble garble

Breen 3: garble

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

Breen 1: gargle gargle gargle

Breen 2: garble garble

Breen 3: garble

Sad Professor

Insurrection's premise and plot cried out for a darker, more serious approach, which is how it was conceived. But then on the basis of a few funny scenes in First Contact and pressure from the studio they decided to make it into a light-hearted affair. They not only totally misunderstood why those handful of moments in First Connect were funny (they were relief in an otherwise very tense film), but they totally disregarded the previous failed attempts at making the TNG crew funny. Ideally they would have saved the fountain of youth/heart of darkness concept for another film and come up with a new concept that matched the tone they were going for, but the whole production was rushed. It's a shame because Piller was a good writer and knew TNG better than anyone.

pixelburp

STI, ergh.

"We shun technology, it's the worst. Now, let's drain the lake with this giant sluice we inexplicably built"

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Insurrection's premise and plot cried out for a darker, more serious approach, which is how it was conceived. But then on the basis of a few funny scenes in First Contact and pressure from the studio they decided to make it into a light-hearted affair. They not only totally misunderstood why those handful of moments in First Connect were funny (they were relief in an otherwise very tense film), but they totally disregarded the previous failed attempts at making the TNG crew funny. Ideally they would have saved the fountain of youth/heart of darkness concept for another film and come up with a new concept that matched the tone they were going for, but the whole production was rushed. It's a shame because Piller was a good writer and knew TNG better than anyone.

At the time they were getting flak for DS9 being dark and "Not my Trek" and even now DCS is getting it in the neck for the same reasons.



They are caught between an rock and a hard place at times

Baggly

Deleted User wrote: »

They are caught between an rock and a hard place at times

Pter

Pter wrote: »

Let's not have to think about the Rock's hard place yeah...

Goodshape

WWE cameos. Proper Star Trek right there. The good old days!

This new stuff is an abomination alright.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

WWE cameos. Proper Star Trek right there. The good old days!

This new stuff is an abomination alright.

Early doors alright but he is the world's biggest star for the past few years.
Just another Trek example of getting stars their start.




Mmmmm, Robin Lefler

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

At the time they were getting flak for DS9 being dark and "Not my Trek" and even now DCS is getting it in the neck for the same reasons.



They are caught between an rock and a hard place at times

Every new trek has gotten it in the neck for not being someone elses trek. TNG got it for not being TOS enough, even though it was more Roddenberry like than the others. DS9 was very like TNG but set in a darker part of the quadrant, I think people failed to see how TNG like it was because it was a station and dark. Voyager tried to go back to being more TNG like and well, it just turned out that you needed good actors and decent writing to get away with that style. Then Enterprise came and they went full on with thinking most of it through but some of the characters were written like that Werewolf/Vampire movie were they were blank slates and it was tough going. Discovery never had a chance with some people, the same way every trek has not had a chance.
I enjoyed TOS, watching it at 6pm on BBC2, I loved TNG when it was first shown, blew my mind. I loved DS9, it was awesome as well and blew my mind, just like TNG, watching it on a ****ty 14inch box in a bedroom in Dublin.
I am clearly not a Trek fan because despite all the flaws, i still like it and will continue to watch it.

Rawr

Pter wrote: »

If there is one thing we know, it's that Admirals are all evil or deeply flawed individuals.

(Enterprise Conference Room)

Picard: So it is dicided. We will proceed at maximum warp to Puppyus VI and help with the evacuation of some awesome German Sheppard puppies.

Crew: Yay!!

Admiral Everjerk (On Screen): Just one minute Picard!!

Picard: Yes Admiral?

Admiral Everjerk: You are hearby ordered to proceed to Puppyus VI and start kicking those puppies instead!!

Picard: But that's against what Starfleet stands for!!

Admiral Everjerk: I AM Starfleet! Now follow my orders Picard!! Kick the puppies!!!

Picard: Admiral?!!

Admiral Everjerk: MUH HA HA HA!!!


So yea...pretty much every Starfleet admiral is evil. Just swap out the puppies for whatever is relevant to the episode.