Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Evade

It's hard to have a breakdown of society from economic collapse when, in the former Federation at least, everyone has access to a replicator. The argument that replicators might be difficult to produce and maintain falls flat in the face of the advancements in transporter technology. Unless the lack of new holonovels and the annual trip to Risa just pushed everyone over the edge.

pixelburp

breezy1985 wrote: »

But if solving the burn does what Burnham says it will do and bring the galaxy back together then not solving it was a threat to the galaxy.

But Burnham believes in her heart harder than anyone else thats why only she can do it. It's like a bloody Disney movie

Never said the writing around Burnham's crusade wasn't poor, only contesting this idea that it unbelievable nobody in 150 years nobody tried looking into the whys. As suspensions of disbelief go, it doesn't seem that big a dealbreaker to me.

Evade wrote: »

It's hard to have a breakdown of society from economic collapse when, in the former Federation at least, everyone has access to a replicator. The argument that replicators might be difficult to produce and maintain falls flat in the face of the advancements in transporter technology. Unless the lack of new holonovels and the annual trip to Risa just pushed everyone over the edge.

Replicators is a fair point, but how finely balanced was the galaxy, that its peace was dependent on the presence of Federation/Romulan ships in orbit at any given point? Suddenly every politician or warlord otherwise cowed into subservience can make their move without risk of reprisals. Isn't that the fundamental weakness of advanced societies, even our own? That it wouldn't take much to tip it over the edge if a single - but critical - element of society was removed. We saw in DS9 that plenty of space still relied on standard transport ships, maybe replicators are expensive to maintain. I wouldn't consider myself particularly fatalistic, but nor am I naive to the idea that civilisations are as strong as they might appear to be.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

Replicators is a fair point, but how finely balanced was the galaxy, that its peace was dependent on the presence of Federation/Romulan ships in orbit at any given point? Suddenly every politician or warlord otherwise cowed into subservience can make their move without risk of reprisals. Isn't that the fundamental weakness of advanced societies, even our own? That it wouldn't take much to tip it over the edge if a single - but critical - element of society was removed. We saw in DS9 that plenty of space still relied on standard transport ships, maybe replicators are expensive to maintain. I wouldn't consider myself particularly fatalistic, but nor am I naive to the idea that civilisations are as strong as they might appear to be.

Sure, warlords or despots can and almost certainly will pop up in places but your initial point was economic collapse causing society to break apart which can't really happen in the universe as we know it. Replicators and transporters are essentially the same technology, if one is still around so is the other.

Without the chaos of a collapsing society to worry about it is unreasonable that Starfleet hasn't tried to investigate the cause of the burn until Michael Burnham (peace be upon her) thought about it. Especially considering reversing the Burn would help quash those warlords and rogue politicians.

Goodshape

Mandalorian is fantastic this week.


Stoopid starwars

FunLover18

Goodshape wrote: »

Mandalorian is fantastic this week.


Stoopid starwars

I'm not Discovery's biggest fan by a long way but give me Discovery over The Mandalorian any day.

pah

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not Discovery's biggest fan by a long way but give me Discovery over The Mandalorian any day.

Give me any 5 minutes of the Mandolorian over 3 seasons of Discovery

GreeBo

I never liked any of the star wars stuff (I want science in my science fiction, not magic) but Mando is a good watch and written much better than disco , individual episodes coupled with a season arc.

FunLover18

I'm not going to get into my issues with The Mandalorian but I feel anyone who enjoys it isn't allowed then come here and criticise Discovery for plot contrivances, that's not to say anyone has mind.

flazio

Really? We have to pick one or the other? We can't enjoy them both?

Rawr

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

Kermit.de.frog

It has it's flaws but this is easily the best Star Trek series since Generations.

Although the bar was quite low.

breezy1985

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It has it's flaws but this is easily the best Star Trek series since Generations.

Although the bar was quite low.

DS9 was better especially at the long story arcs. The other 2 were pretty crap bar the odd episode a bit like DIS

Evade

Rawr wrote: »

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

I think I made this analogy a little while ago too. It really is uncanny how Homer-writes-Poochie Burnham is. It'd be nice if she returned to Vulcan to avert a crisis only to never be seen again.

pixelburp

I like Discovery.
I like The Mandalorian.

Both have aspects I like, but both shows have big fundamental flaws that make enjoyment a chore sometimes. Neither sets of flaws are dealbreakers however, though the endless video game fetch quests of Mando gets tedious.

Where I think Mandalorian curries more favour is it is seen as a return to what Wars "is" (after the garbage fire of Rise of Skywalker), while Discovery deviates too far from the one true faith of the perceived Trek boilerplate (in terms of fandoms brain trust, as opposed to simple dislike of the show on its own merits)

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

while Discovery deviates too far from the one true faith of the perceived Trek boilerplate (in terms of fandoms brain trust, as opposed to simple dislike of the show on its own merits)

I don't think it's that it deviates from the "one true Trek" strawman, STD has massive flaws of its own. The critcism Burnham being just unlikeable and the center of the universe, to the constant overly emotional scenes over the slightest thing, or a lot of it hinging on absolute nonsense have almost nothing to do with Star Trek and are purely Discovery problems.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I don't think it's that it deviates from the "one true Trek" strawman, STD has massive flaws of its own. The critcism Burnham being just unlikeable and the center of the universe, to the constant overly emotional scenes over the slightest thing, or a lot of it hinging on absolute nonsense have almost nothing to do with Star Trek and are purely Discovery problems.

uhm. I say this in the last line? YMMV in how much you can take of " fundamental flaws" I speak of, but equally there has been a narrative from some fans that Disco "isn't Trek", it often comes up in these very threads. The reverse being the case with Mando where it is often praised for returning to source.

FunLover18

flazio wrote: »

Really? We have to pick one or the other? We can't enjoy them both?

No of course not, that's not what I intended to suggest at all.. I've seen plot contrivances as a criticism of STD and then I've seen people say that Mando is a better show, I don't think these are the same people and I hope not because I don't understand how one can criticise one show for something the other it rife with. As PB said they both have their flaws and people will have their preference. I'm watching both but if you asked me to choose I'd pick Discovery. That's all.

Anyway, carry on.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

uhm. I say this in the last line?

Yeah, I misread the line.

breezy1985

FunLover18 wrote: »

No of course not, that's not what I intended to suggest at all.. I've seen plot contrivances as a criticism of STD and then I've seen people say that Mando is a better show, I don't think these are the same people and I hope not because I don't understand how one can criticise one show for something the other it rife with. As PB said they both have their flaws and people will have their preference. I'm watching both but if you asked me to choose I'd pick Discovery. That's all.

Anyway, carry on.

I reason is because some people me included watch Star Trek and Star Wars for different reasons. I could not care if SW has no character development and loads of just believing in magic as its a show about religious space wizards with space spitfires.


Problem with Trek now is ever since Abrams it is trying to mimic SW. JJ Abrams said himself that he was never a Trek fan and only loved SW and I really get that vibe from the DIS show runners too. Burnham would make a fine SW hero saving the galaxy every week with her divine powers

FunLover18

breezy1985 wrote: »

I reason is because some people me included watch Star Trek and Star Wars for different reasons. I could not care if SW has no character development and loads of just believing in magic as its a show about religious space wizards with space spitfires.


Problem with Trek now is ever since Abrams it is trying to mimic SW. JJ Abrams said himself that he was never a Trek fan and only loved SW and I really get that vibe from the DIS show runners too. Burnham would make a fine SW hero saving the galaxy every week with her divine powers

The first paragraph is fair, they are very different show and they have different priorities.

I disagree with the second though. I had issues with Abrams Trek films, especially Into Darkness but a SW feel wasn't one of them. He did definitely feel more at home with his SW film though.

Joe Don Dante

Rawr wrote: »

Been reflecting a little on Discovery and I can't help but start to compare Burnham to "Poochie", the network-written addition to Itchy & Scratchy in the Simpsons. For those who don't know or remember, Poochie was introduced as a character who was designed to appeal to newer audiences, but ultimately turned into the show's most hated addition. In the end they resolve to kill him off screen.

However, just before the character's end, Homer Simpson suggests a couple of "improvements" which seem familiar:

Homer:
- One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
- Two, whenever Poochie’s not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking ‘Where’s Poochie?

Almost feels like general writing directions for Discovery, just replace Poochie with Michael

didn't Booker call her "Poichie" after they had sex in the last episode?

TheValeyard

flazio wrote: »

Really? We have to pick one or the other? We can't enjoy them both?

Crossover episode?

TheValeyard

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

breezy1985

TheValeyard wrote: »

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

Ferengi society crashed when the women got involved in running things

Banana Republic 1

I won't be happy until something like this happens to key characters, not Saru though. If it meant crying scenes it would be worth it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWjpWtsqhec

pixelburp

TheValeyard wrote: »

Also, where are the Ferengi in all this. Surely they've found a way to make profit on this? Or have they become enlightend?

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

There was a Cardassian in a starfleet uniform in the background recently.

PhiloCypher

Rapidly losing patience with the show at this stage . I liked and defended season 1, feeling, despite its flaws, it was a better first season then any other Star Trek show had given us. Season 2 likewise, the introduction of Pike was just the sort of authority figure the show needed after losing Jason Isaacs Lorca, someone who could keep Burnham in check. Something that Saru, due to his prior relationship with Burnham, and his demotion of her not withstanding, is failing at in season 3 .

Throwing them into the future in season 3, while theoretically freeing them of cannon issues, solved none of the shows real issues. Its still Burnham centric to a fault, they still amp every emotion up to 11 in every episode, the 15 episode seasons leave them no room to explore anything other than Burnham and the seasons overarching mystery , which are normally one and the same. We haven't had a fun episode since magic to make the sanest man go mad in season 1 featuring Harry Mudd , or a non Burnham character centric episode since Saru losing his Ganglia in season 2 . Never thought I'd say it but I'd gladly see the budget cut in half and see the return of the matte paintings and polystyrene sets if it meant enough episodes to explore anything other then Burnham or the season arc.

Giving Burnham credit for Spocks achievements were a new low for the writers in this episode. I could also do without the constant teasing from the writers indicating that they know how insufferable they are making Burnham, while continuing to do absolutely nothing about it. I'm not a holy man but I'm preying to God she stops equivocating and ****s off into parts unknown with Book at the end of the season. Otherwise I don't know if I'll be back for season 4 .

breezy1985

pixelburp wrote: »

That and the Cardassians; I think we've had some namedrops of the Bajorans but the former two have been curious by their absence.

There was a Bajoran got his head blown off in the prison camp Book was in

Bobtheman

I'm on episode 4 and so far I'm enjoying it. Burnham has thawed out. There is still a mawkish element to it all. A let's wrap up complex issues in 45 minutes etc. The episode where they returned to earth and just by a bit of chat sorted out the attacks on earth. Yes I know that was a feature of a lot of trek but time to dump it or tone it down a bit.
One of the things that's annoyed me about trek since the end of deep space 9 is this idea of escaping history. The trek universe did not really move forward.
You had the film's yes but we had two series in the past ? Enterprise and discovery.
Then discovery goes to the future to deal with continuity issues??
Why the hell just have a series that moves the timeline forward ?? I know we had Picard and that was relatively ok but we need a series that moves forward. Is an 80 year old actor the best they can do in this regard !?