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

Johnny Storm

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Aww what- Anson Mount is leaving? That's something I didn't know, he's fantastic in the role. What's the reason for leaving?

As I understand it, the intention was always to have a different captain every season.

TheValeyard

pixelburp wrote: »

Martin-Green apparently in line for costarring role in Space Jam 2 (yes, really). Wonder might that affect her availability for season 3. One can hope!

It's not that I dislike her or the silly name. I'd just prefer more focus on other characters. Have more episodes about them.

AllForIt

I prefer self contained watchable in themselves trek episodes rather than a series. DS9 was a series but Voyager, TNG, had self contained episodes, mostly. Watchable in themselves without having to have watched the previous episode.

You can't go back and watch one episode of Disco and follow what is going on (unless you followed it religiously in the first place) but with Voyager you can , and I do that time to time. Just watched Voyager "Counterpoint" the other day and throughly enjoyed it. All you need to know with Voyager is that they are tying to make their way home to earth. Voyager was my favorite incarnation for partly that reason but I do think DS9 was better as far as the narrative goes.

I think Disoc was all over the place in Season 1 but it's better in Season 2. Both arise in me feelings it's crap and other times it's fantastic. Will keep watching to see where this goes. Better some trek than no trek at all I feel.

But a few things get perpetually on my nerves though:

1.Tilly

I know that Star Trek has always been about all races (inclusivity) but it goes a bit far to be inclusive of all personality types. The idea that Tilly is both a ditsy blabbering personalty with big fiery red curly hair and at the same time is a brilliant scientific engineer genius, doesn't work for me, even in the future. It's kinda like they are saying that anyone can be a scientific genius engineer. Nah. Nurds are nurds and they look like nurds because they don't care about their physical appearance. And where is the dress code rule gone when it comes to her hair?

2. Letterbox video format

It's not a movie. It's meant for TV. On TV screens which aren't cinema aspect ratio.

3. OTT visuals.

No I'm not talking about all this advanced looking technology in comparison to the original Star Trek series. It's all the strobe lighting effect that you see especially on the bridge. It's just silly. Fine in movies but totally OTT in a TV series.

4. I was going to moan about the silver android robot? who turned out to be half human but she's gone now. I would moan though that she didn't have any significant part to play at all and then in one episode she all kicked off. I'm guessing here she was written out as a completely useless character?


So overall I find it bad and good at the same time. Is that a fair assessment? I'm watching though so that speaks for itself. I wonder what the ratings are like?

Anteayer

The letterboxing is ridiculous as you're basically losing a big chunk of the vast majority of televisions.

Why produce something for a format that nobody currently uses and on most TVs the Netflix app seems to disable the TVs ability to smart scale the video so you're stuck with it.

16:9 is the default format for every TV and the vast majority of panels used as monitors.

Short of projection it into a home cinema system, nobody is going to be watching this without letterboxing.

They even shot Season 2 in a wider ratio than season 1!!

It's gone from 2:1 to 2.4:1 for some reason.

Anteayer

4. maybe she comes back ? We thought Captain Philippa Georgiou was done for, having been dined on by Klingons but her parallel universe self has ended up being one of the most interesting and developed recurring characters in the whole series.

The obvious story line, like Vger or the sentient missile AI plots of older series, is that they shot a memory impared Commander Airiam into space having declared her dead and she somehow encounters Control again and voilà : we have the Borg.

Maybe she even comes back angry that they didn't bother trying very hard to repair her. Despite everything there was a bit of a "oh well... Let's just wipe her harddrive and not make any significant attempt to reboot her despite having all this amazing technology and having a doctor who's been back from the dead."

Could we see echoes of that episode where angry old and powerful Kes came back, only Commander Airiam in Borg form with a notion of assimilating the bloody lot of them?

One thing I am liking about Mirror Georgiou is showing that the "evil" does seem to be environmental and not inbuilt, in the person (sure she is still an evil witch but you can see she is appreciating parts of the prime civility)

OK and now for the reason this is important...

So we see evil Terran empire in TOS and we are supposed to feel sorry for them in DS9 mirror episodes. What is to stop Smiley going all evil again, once he has the Defiant tech?
Showing that the people are not born evil is why. It shows that they are a product of their culture and NOT inherently psychotic, sentient race eating, backstabbing megalomaniacs.


Or by the end of the season she is back to scenery chewing and "moustache twirling" Empress again and all this goes out the window

TheValeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing I am liking about Mirror Georgiou is showing that the "evil" does seem to be environmental and not inbuilt, in the person (sure she is still an evil witch but you can see she is appreciating parts of the prime civility)

OK and now for the reason this is important...

So we see evil Terran empire in TOS and we are supposed to feel sorry for them in DS9 mirror episodes. What is to stop Smiley going all evil again, once he has the Defiant tech?
Showing that the people are not born evil is why. It shows that they are a product of their culture and NOT inherently psychotic, sentient race eating, backstabbing megalomaniacs.


Or by the end of the season she is back to scenery chewing and "moustache twirling" Empress again and all this goes out the window

Do you not bow before your Empress?

pixelburp

I dunno where I stand on Georgiou; every time I see her I'm reminded that CBS are angling after a spin-off show. I'm not openly opposed to the idea & certainly 'bad guys' turned good can always make for interesting narratives, but as bloodied hands go, hers must be drenched and to an extent that'd make even Game of Thrones rulers say "steady on luv".

If anything, Lorca would have made the more appropriate redemptive arc, but that about turn, and his sudden descent into moustache-twirling villainy, ruined all the good work done up to that point in Season 1.

Stark

I'm calling it: Giorgiou manages to retrieve the magic plot device suit and travels hundreds of years back in time to become Xena the warrior princess. Oh and Michael does a Michael Jackson on it and becomes Gabrielle.

Oh she is beyond redemption BUT it just shows that the terrans are not "born" evil. Makes Smiley's crew actually have a sympathetic story

AMKC

We all know that no one is born evil the same way as no one is born to hate. They are things that people are thought unfortunately or they accept as normal if that is the way of their culture to survive.

AMKC

AMKC wrote: »

We all know that no one is born evil the same way as no one is born to hate. They are things that people are thought unfortunately or they accept as normal if that is the way of their culture to survive.

Hate and evil are too different things. Philosophers smarter than I have debated the genesis of evil in someone.

seamus

They're obviously deliberately making Georgiou enigmatic. It's clear that there was a very strong relationship with Mirror Burnham, which has carried over. And in general she she seems to have respect for bad people who've turned good, like Ash. Maybe that's because she doesn't see them as a threat.

Tbh, virtually all of her interactions that seem "nice", can be spun as Georgiou following a personal agenda. Either being nice to prevent someone (Burnham) from turning into a threat, or protecting them from someone else (Leland) who is a threat to her.

Anteayer

Considering that she's played by a high profile actress, who many would have considered to be above a minor role of Star Trek, I think they've managed to land a bit of a Patrick Stewart style casting only the Emperor is like the anti-Picard.

Anteayer

Anteayer wrote: »

Considering that she's played by a high profile actress, who many would have considered to be above a minor role of Star Trek, I think they've managed to land a bit of a Patrick Stewart style casting only the Emperor is like the anti-Picard.

The easy question I always ask is: Is she a fan?
Whoopi Goldberg was one of the biggest stars of the 80's and was fresh from an Oscar win (and another in a few years) and went looking for a recurring role.
So much a star that they ignored the request, thinking it a prank. This was before season 1, through LeVar.
She ended up making direct contact with Rodenberry and Berman's office to force the point home after season 1.

Christian Slater was a big deal and begged for a cameo in one of the films. Look at the amount of cameos done, just to be on the show. Best has to be Frank Langella just because his kids were fans. Think that he went uncredited and everything, to show it was not him doing a slot for money or exposure but for his kids.


Edit: I am honestly amazed that Tom Hanks has not appeared, yet. The man is an absolute Trek nerd and has tried, several times, to clear time to get on the show.

Just read there that Goldberg is interested in being in the Picard show. If it does finally make it to air, she is one previous character who would fit in easily. She and Picard are not Starfleet colleagues, they are friends.
It would not take "creative" writing and circumstance to arrange her to be in the show, as opposed to characters who should/would be hundreds of light years apart with their own commands/postings.

pixelburp

So do we know if next week's episode 13 is a double header? 14 always seemed like an uncommon number and it feels like next week is the finale (going by the trailer), so curious if technically we're getting a feature-length episode next week

Sad Professor

pixelburp wrote: »

So do we know if next week's episode 13 is a double header? 14 always seemed like an uncommon number and it feels like next week is the finale (going by the trailer), so curious if technically we're getting a feature-length episode next week

Not according to IMDb, which says episode 14 is airing the week after (the 18th).

Goodshape

Saw this on Twitter:



They're talking about

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

.

Some things never change

AtomicHorror

Goodshape wrote: »

Some things never change

Without a doubt, there are first-generation Trekkies who regard everything after season 3 of TOS to be non-canon.

To think of all they've missed or dismissed these 50 years.... but yeah let's freak out over the, what, fourth re-design of the Klingons and the swept-back nacelle pylons?

TheIrishGrover

Goodshape wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter:



They're talking about

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

.

Some things never change

That's great!

As stated above, there are people who believe that anything after Season three (Or probably even after they got rid of the zip-down-the-front-cheapie-uniforms on TNG S2) is betraying Trek. "Betraying". And that anyone who thinks otherwise is not a True Believer or "just doesn't get it": "I stopped watching when Riker got a beard. There are no beards in Star Trek unless he is EEEEvil!!!!". I have enjoyed all trek series and movies to various degrees and even read one or two of the better (ie. readable) books in my youth.

And I have NO problem with the change in aesthetics of each new series. Times change, tastes change, production values improve. Some purists are probably bemoaning the fast that the show is filmed in 16:9.

I like the look of the Klingons in Discovery. I like the look of the ships. I even like the TranSPORE drive Eventually they are going to explain why it is not used subsequently (Overtly at least). They are already hinting at it: Needing a human pilot, the impact it has on him and the side-effects (The engineer casually mentioning "You managed to pull off another jump. Thought you'd be glad" line).

My only real issue with Discovery (As with most people) is that the main character is TOO central- Everyone else just seems to revolve around her. And she is the least interesting character.

I'm loving Discovery's interpretation of Spok and I know there are people screaming that he is far too emotional/unemotional (Depending on who you ask). That, again, he "betrays" the spirit of the original.

I think the problem is that Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans tend to be a bit too precious about the franchise they follow. ANY deviation of the version that introduced them to that franchise is immediately a betrayal (If after) or to be dismissed (If before) and non-canon. There are actually strange people out there who believe that Voyager is the best Trek and anything before/after is inferior...... VOYAGER!!!!

I'm guilty of this myself: Writing a few posts about how Ready Player One movie (Terrible but still better than book. But I digress) totally misunderstands people's love of The Iron Giant and misuses the character in the movie before I copped on: I didn't like their interpretation/use of The Iron Giant but hey, I'm sure some did.

Anteayer

To be quite honest, as a casual viewer of this show, I'd rather watch it and enjoy it for what it is. There's way too much lock-down into this 'canon' dogma on discussion forums.

Plot holes and contradictions with previous series are going to happe, as the show was never written with the idea of having a continuing story arch that went on for ever.

I think they made a big mistake in trying to link it too deeply into previous shows as there's inevitably going to be a load of people on forums poking holes in the script, in a way they couldn't with something that was set safely in the future.

Also, the technology in Trek has always been full of dubious and vague links to real science and plenty of garble technobabble was thrown in along side.
Positronic matrix in Data's brain and so on. It also threw in plenty of inexplicable phenomena that are just take for granted like telepathy and so on.

seamus

Anteayer wrote: »

To be quite honest, as a casual viewer of this show, I'd rather watch it and enjoy it for what it is. There's way too much lock-down into this 'canon' dogma on discussion forums.

There's a small number of people who've lost sight of the fact that Star Trek is a work of fiction. A work of art. And like all art there are no real limits on how much that art can be re-imagined and re-interpreted.

The fiction lays out a general basis for the universe; some key elements in terms of the plot and the major in-universe waypoints.

Once an interpretation broadly stick to the major points, then you don't get to whinge when they alter some minor aspects such as the appearance of Klingons, the realism of the bridge or some details in a character's history.

Star Trek isn't history. It isn't made up of hard facts and historical realities. There is no reason why any future Trek has to stick rigidly to the interpretations of past ones.

Inviere

seamus wrote: »

And like all art there are no real limits on how much that art can be re-imagined and re-interpreted.

The whiff of George Lucas off ya :P

There is no reason why any future Trek has to stick rigidly to the interpretations of past ones.

This whole thing was really avoidable by the producers. They're the ones that made a point of telling everyone that Discovery is set in the Prime Timeline. Once they went down that rabbit hole, there was no going back. I mean c'mon, we're talking about Star Trek fans here, know your audience. Why did they need to pander to fans by making such a point?

Discovery would be just as good (or bad, depending on your feelings for it) whether it was set in the Prime Timeline, an Alternate Timeline, of indeed the future of either of those timelines. For me, the show is strong enough to stand on its own - it doesn't need to be tied down by canon, it shouldn't be retreading existing canon, the show is good enough to make its own, new, original canon.

CramCycle

Anyone else think the Camera man in Generations looked very Borg like in the opening scene, maybe Rick Berman has been planning this all along, changing the time line in the most intricate story ever told :pac:

Scotty thinks Kirk is alive, then he was there for his death.

For those who like the idea that it all has to work out perfectly

Still think Ariams body has a part to play.

TheValeyard

Dont they need a supernova to power the crystals for the timesuit?


Maybe they cause a time relative supernova now, which causes the Romulus sun to go Supernova in the future......

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Dont they need a supernova to power the crystals for the timesuit?


Maybe they cause a time relative supernova now, which causes the Romulus sun to go Supernova in the future......

They could do with some reason as to how a supernova can go boom in some random system and take only a few months to get to another system (don't talk to me about comics nonsense). On screen or nothing

Johnny Storm

seamus wrote: »

There's a small number of people who've lost sight of the fact that Star Trek is a work of fiction.....

You're kidding, right?

ilovesmybrick

So, what I'm thinking is that the sphere data in some form is kept in Discovery's computers, and rather than using the red angel suit and to rid the data by sending it far into the future, they used the ship, and the Discovery we saw in Calypso reached self awareness in the future due to this, or something along those lines. They either sent the ship out to the reaches of the galaxy or far into the future to hide the information...Of course then we're down a ship for season 3, which is a slight problem, unless they go with a Discovery-A conveniently missing the spore drive...

Would not be the first time that an advanced propulsion system is mentioned once and forgotten about (along with the sound of a combustion engine stalling)

Dave0301

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

So, what I'm thinking is that the sphere data in some form is kept in Discovery's computers, and rather than using the red angel suit and to rid the data by sending it far into the future, they used the ship, and the Discovery we saw in Calypso reached self awareness in the future due to this, or something along those lines. They either sent the ship out to the reaches of the galaxy or far into the future to hide the information...Of course then we're down a ship for season 3, which is a slight problem, unless they go with a Discovery-A conveniently missing the spore drive...

Nice link between your theory and Calypso there, and it would tie up why later knowledge about the spore drive is limited. If another Discovery vessel is commissioned, the spore drive would be omitted on ethical grounds.

ilovesmybrick

Dave0301 wrote: »

Nice link between your theory and Calypso there, and it would tie up why later knowledge about the spore drive is limited. If another Discovery vessel is commissioned, the spore drive would be omitted on ethical grounds.

Well it's just that they do seem to be trying to tie in some of the short treks stuff into this season (between The Brightest Star earlier, and Runaways apparently this week), so it would be one of the few ways they could tie in Calypso and explain away some of the issues with the spore drive, control etc.

Evade

The easiest way around losing the Discovery is to get a special dispensation from the chief of Starfleet Operations.

Goodshape

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

(between The Brightest Star earlier, and

Runaways

apparently this week)

Fixed that for you.

Bobtheman

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Goodshape wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter:



They're talking about

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

.

Some things never change

That's great!

As stated above, there are people who believe that anything after Season three (Or probably even after they got rid of the zip-down-the-front-cheapie-uniforms on TNG S2) is betraying Trek. "Betraying". And that anyone who thinks otherwise is not a True Believer or "just doesn't get it": "I stopped watching when Riker got a beard. There are no beards in Star Trek unless he is EEEEvil!!!!". I have enjoyed all trek series and movies to various degrees and even read one or two of the better (ie. readable) books in my youth.

And I have NO problem with the change in aesthetics of each new series. Times change, tastes change, production values improve. Some purists are probably bemoaning the fast that the show is filmed in 16:9.

I like the look of the Klingons in Discovery. I like the look of the ships. I even like the TranSPORE drive Eventually they are going to explain why it is not used subsequently (Overtly at least). They are already hinting at it: Needing a human pilot, the impact it has on him and the side-effects (The engineer casually mentioning "You managed to pull off another jump. Thought you'd be glad" line).

My only real issue with Discovery (As with most people) is that the main character is TOO central- Everyone else just seems to revolve around her. And she is the least interesting character.

I'm loving Discovery's interpretation of Spok and I know there are people screaming that he is far too emotional/unemotional (Depending on who you ask). That, again, he "betrays" the spirit of the original.

I think the problem is that Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans tend to be a bit too precious about the franchise they follow. ANY deviation of the version that introduced them to that franchise is immediately a betrayal (If after) or to be dismissed (If before) and non-canon. There are actually strange people out there who believe that Voyager is the best Trek and anything before/after is inferior...... VOYAGER!!!!

I'm guilty of this myself: Writing a few posts about how Ready Player One movie (Terrible but still better than book. But I digress) totally misunderstands people's love of The Iron Giant and misuses the character in the movie before I copped on: I didn't like their interpretation/use of The Iron Giant but hey, I'm sure some did.

A very good analysis. I'm not drawn to Michael in the way that Kirk, picard and a lesser extent sisko drew me in. Discovery had to branch in new directions. It could. Not blithely ignore BSG. However the novelistic approach could use an injection of once off episodes. All

Inviere

I have to be honest, Season 2 for me has been a disjointed, confusing mess. I much prefered Season 1. I might regret saying that when I rewatch Season 2, but I seem to spend every week losing concentration, scratching my head, and just nit picking flaws in the show like the god-awful bright/blinding light in almost every single scene. I can't seem to engage with the storyline, I've zero emotional attachment to any of the characters anymore, everything seems so forced and contrived with no emotional weight behind any of it, with the exception of Pike. He has pretty much single handedly been the only thing decent in the whole season.

I used to enjoy Discovery, sadly, now, I don't

OldMrBrennan83

I love it, but then again I can't watch the original series so I was never worried about continuity, etc.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I love it, but then again I can't watch the original series so I was never worried about continuity, etc.

It's not a continuity issue for me (I prefer to just think of Discovery being in an alternate timeline anyway), it's a writing issue. We're at the end of the second season now, and in the modern tv climate, the show should be considered mature and firmly planted by now. For me it isn't.

Though that could be just my taste being to prefer watching 2-3 eps an evening, rather than one per week. So I'll reserve final judgement until I rewatch the entire season.

pixelburp

Season 1s back half had a more definitive, straight line direction whereas you can see the course correcting of tone and style with season 2, not to mention the changeover of producers, with the end result being a more meandering feel to the second season.

I have preferred season 2 though because its tone has been a bit more in keeping with Trek's overall ethos but you can see that perhaps Michelle Paradise & co. didn't quite know what to do with some characters, coupled with budget and management issues needing filler such as episode 13 just finished. Wouldn't be surprised if some characters are jettisoned for season 3, and i suspect that might include Culber, Stamets and (hopefully) Tyler.

_Kaiser_

Saw this come up in my YouTube feed this morning.. He makes a lot of sense IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvKyG9JKZWA

Too much, too soon

Inviere

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Too much, too soon

He makes a fantastic point really. What if in DS9, it opened Season 1 with the Dominion War, and by Episode 5, Sisko & Garak were conspiring to bring the Romulans into the war. Would the episode have had the same effect, the same emotional weight, and the same impact on fans? You'd have to be nuts to say yes. It took literally years of character development, to allow DS9 to shine as brightly as it did.

That said, I think Star Trek was/is on shaky ground still (in the sense of being viable on tv). I can imagine the leeway to devote entire seasons to character development is long gone (in most tv shows really), so Discovery probably had to get its skates on really quickly in order to survive/be viable in the eyes of the studio and the accountants. I think if any of that is true, the show has suffered for it.

I feel like I can't catch a breath watching Discovery, big convoluted arcs, characters with who I still don't even know their names, flashy lights, shifts in tone, shifts in writing, shifts in leadership (on and off screen). Ugh, it's annoying, because I don't hate Discovery, it has real potential, and there was a time I really did enjoy watching it.

OldMrBrennan83

If you started slowly people wouldn't watch at all and it wouldn't last half a series. TV watching is massively different to it was back in the DS9 days.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If you started slowly people wouldn't watch at all and it wouldn't last half a series. TV watching is massively different to it was back in the DS9 days.

The overall result is poorer for that imo. Many of those painful first seasons of Trek shows, and indeed many others, laid the foundation for shows that really blossomed later on. Arguably, bombarding the audience will cause similar viewing fatigue later on, and things begin to run out of steam very quickly. Avenues for meaningful character exploration are lost, because, well, nobody really cares who lives & dies if they don't connect to characters; there's only so long a show can live like that.

OldMrBrennan83

Inviere wrote: »

The overall result is poorer for that imo. Many of those painful first seasons of Trek shows, and indeed many others, laid the foundation for shows that really blossomed later on. Arguably, bombarding the audience will cause similar viewing fatigue later on, and things begin to run out of steam very quickly. Avenues for meaningful character exploration are lost, because, well, nobody really cares who lives & dies if they don't connect to characters; there's only so long a show can live like that.

Bombarding is how it has to be done or they'll just move on to one of the hundred other binge watches. That's the landscape these days.

I don't agree myself and would love to see it done like older series too, but it can't happen any more.

Inviere

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

but it can't happen any more.

Probably true, unfortunately. I tried to watch The Expanse fairly recently, and bailed about four episodes in; I found it painfully slow, despite knowing it develops into a show many people absolutely adore.

More worrying, what the hell are they going to do with the Picard show? If it's 'movie Picard', we're screwed.

Baggly

DS9 came off the back of TNG and had voyager running at the same time. It was arguably peak interest in trek. They could afford to take things slower because the interest was there.

Its not a given disco will get an extended run. It has to maintain viewership immediately, hence the pacing.

Inviere

Pter wrote: »

Its not a given disco will get an extended run. It has to maintain viewership immediately, hence the pacing.

It kinda puts a lot of pressure on a show to hit the ground running, where very small mistakes could end up having a massive impact on the show. They almost have to wow the audience first, and worry about development later, rather than developing first, and then wow'ing.

BrookieD

That video is odd, If i look at just ST:TNG for example the assumption is very much that the poor season 1 and 2 of ST:TNG was planned so that we had character build up and then the build up to Best f Both Worlds would have more impact. It just was'nt the case. A writers strike during season 2 in 1988 led to a glut of poorly recieved episodes, Q-Who (S02E16) was the stand out episode that introduced The Borg. It was a shift to get Gene R, Maizlish and show runner Maurice Hurley out of the writters room that allowed TNG to expand and become the show it did, they wanted and did push the Idea of Gene's utopian vision.

Shows evolve all the time, behind the scenes conflicts are the main aspect as new writers bring fresh ideas and take the show in a different direction. While i love TOS and TNG for what ther were and very much dive into both to watch every now and again i find Discovery as enjoyable and entertaining. Its different but thats OK...

Inviere

BrookieD wrote: »

That video is odd, If i look at just ST:TNG for example the assumption is very much that the poor season 1 and 2 of ST:TNG was planned so that we had character build up and then the build up to Best f Both Worlds would have more impact. It just was'nt the case.

That wasn't at all how it came across for me. For me, what he meant was that while the early seasons were poor, they often dealt with individual character development episodes; a Picard episode, a Riker one, a Data one, etc. While these individual eps may have been poor in terms of their story, what they did do successfully was that they engaged the audience with those characters over time. Then, when the big arcs came along, where the stakes were high, the audience actually gave a damn because the characters had become people we loved/hated/were attached to; they had meaning. In Discovery, that's not happening because we've not had time to really sit down and get to know the individual characters, it's all been largely focused on big story arcs. As a result, nobody gives much a damn about most of the crew.