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

pixelburp

Yes, the trailers seem to have disappeared - the above one struck off for copyright; and because it's 2020, simply searching for "Star Trek Discovery Season 3 Trailer" in YouTube results in hundreds of "reaction" garbage.

Don't get this for trailers; you'd think CBS would be happy to get a trailer out in the ether, and people talking.

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Yep: It happened. The Great Reset. Natural thing unrelated to anybody and unavoidable: Galactic Dark Age and only re-emerging over the last 100-200 years or so.

Supermassive blackhole believed to be at the centre of our galaxy pulses through subspace yadda yadda yadda - Maybe last episode of Picard last season ends with everything going dark.

Queue blank screen: Text fades in: Burn Date 00:00:00 00:00:01

But you know it's gonna be Discovery-centric or solvable.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if they make that mistake. Just something about the setting, and that change in Burnham's tone makes me think this is a soft reboot. Or maybe it's simply me projecting my hopes onto the promotion. If the trailer is representative of the new direction then you'd want to think Michelle Paradise is smart enough to not look back.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, I'd be surprised if they make that mistake. Just something about the setting, and that change in Burnham's tone makes me think this is a soft reboot. Or maybe it's simply me projecting my hopes onto the promotion. If the trailer is representative of the new direction then you'd want to think Michelle Paradise is smart enough to not look back.

Feeling the same, although I think I've a habit of getting dreamily optimistic at this point in the marketing campaigns.

They have everything they need to make a clean break for a soft reboot, including the upcoming Pike show which could play to the established fan-base with more traditional Trek stories and setting, leaving Discovery to be it's own thing, out of the way and in the "far future".

They might even take that Section 31 show with them. Run two timelines - 23rd/24th century and ...wherever these guys are.


But I'm sure it'll probably just all be Khan's fault or whatever.

RonanG86

Oh lovely, a giant cataclysm that's presumably killed trillions of people and left the galaxy broken and desolate. How wonderful, that's exactly what Star Trek needs and definitely what I want to see when I watch it.

I mean, if they're not bothered writing within any of the established constraints of the Star Trek universe, why make Star Trek at all? Make an independent IP instead. Or are they afraid that no one will watch that?

pixelburp

RonanG86 wrote: »

Oh lovely, a giant cataclysm that's presumably killed trillions of people and left the galaxy broken and desolate. How wonderful, that's exactly what Star Trek needs and definitely what I want to see when I watch it.

I mean, if they're not bothered writing within any of the established constraints of the Star Trek universe, why make Star Trek at all? Make an independent IP instead. Or are they afraid that no one will watch that?

This isn't a new idea, or a particularly heretical one either: the 2000s show "Andromeda" was a Gene Roddenberry gig whose premise was exactly what we're seeing now; an off-brand Federation broken yet slowly restored by a starship thrown out of time. And IIRC one of the many abandoned spin-offs post Enterprise centred around a fragmented and dwindling Federation (had something involved with Warp Space being broken too I think).

The use of the words "constraints" is interesting here; should the only Trek stories to be permitted be those within a narrow subset of settings & timelines? Just the same thing over and over? This is a literal universe already spanning hundreds of years we're talking about here - a universe of empires, dominions and social orders just as brittle as anything we have here on earth. I don't believe the IP is so brittle it can't withstanding a new perspective.

All empires fade, and perhaps only in removing something can an interesting story be told about its worth - through restoration. Sure, it's not "traditional" Trek, but it's worth telling - and that's admittedly very generous considering the shows spotty history so far.

Inviere

expectationlost wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NetflixshowsMo1/status/1303430824755425284

Michael Burnham: The Movie

TheValeyard

I'd say they are stealing a bit from this

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Federation


And that other shelved idea about the Federation split in two by Omega particle detonations.


And then stealing from Andromeda and Mass Effect series.


So Omega or something destroys subspace and warp drive fails, making worlds isolated again.

AMKC

It looks interesting. I think they might have got it right this time and it could actually be good. Certainly the trailer is good and has a lot in it so hopefully it does not end up messing up like the last two seasons did.

AllForIt

I'm surprised in of all shows the hard left is blamed for destroying the universe.

Evade

TheValeyard wrote: »

So Omega or something destroys subspace and warp drive fails, making worlds isolated again.

That'd make a lot of sense because magic mushroom drive would probably still work even though there's a chance every time it's used it'll destroy the multiverse.

Even something like a sub warp three limit would cripple most empires.

TheValeyard

Evade wrote: »

That'd make a lot of sense because magic mushroom drive would probably still work even though there's a chance every time it's used it'll destroy the multiverse.

Even something like a sub warp three limit would cripple most empires.

So then Discovery becomes the God ship using its magic mushroom drive to hop to planets to bring surviving Federation Worlds all together, while trying to find a solution to the warp drive problem.

Could also explain how a ship 700 years out of date could still be a powerful asset. (once they find a way to get her off the planets surface)

murpho999

Nice to see she travels 900 years into a broken and dystopian future but she had time to get a new hair do.

Evade

TheValeyard wrote: »

So then Discovery becomes the God ship using its magic mushroom drive to hop to planets to bring surviving Federation Worlds all together, while trying to find a solution to the warp drive problem.

Could also explain how a ship 700 years out of date could still be a powerful asset. (once they find a way to get her off the planets surface)

They'll have to do something to justify it.* In Andromeda the Andromeda Ascendant was the pinnacle of technology just before the fall so it stayed pretty competitive given the slight technological regression in the former Commonwealth.

Mushroom engines aside almost all the systems, weapons and shields in particular, on the Discovery would be hilariously outdated by the start of the 25th century never mind any other advancements before the Burn.

*Or they won't bring it up and stick their fingers in their ears LALALALALAing when anyone points it out.

pixelburp

Who can say. I guess it all depends on what state the galaxy is in. Whether or not the Dominion remains a power in all this, or were also scooped up in The Burn. Same with the Borg too. If there's now one dominant Antagonistic Race to battle, or just a random collection of warlords with mismash technology. The trailer seems to imply something a little stagnant at best, post-apocalyptic at worst so Disco mightn't be that outmatched by being still a functional, professionally manned ship.

Varik

Evade wrote: »

They'll have to do something to justify it.* In Andromeda the Andromeda Ascendant was the pinnacle of technology just before the fall so it stayed pretty competitive given the slight technological regression in the former Commonwealth.

Mushroom engines aside almost all the systems, weapons and shields in particular, on the Discovery would be hilariously outdated by the start of the 25th century never mind any other advancements before the Burn.

*Or they won't bring it up and stick their fingers in their ears LALALALALAing when anyone points it out.

Discovery jumping from 2257 to 3188 vs Andromeda's long night going 4864 to 5159. Star trek seems to advance a lot more with time compared to Andromeda.

We're probably going to get a retro fit montage at some point after they meet up. Otherwise as said it's would be ridicules, and some random ferengi with a 600 year old shuttle could out gun them.

Personally think as mentioned before the burn involves something happening to warp technology or subspace that's been in star trek before and everyone getting isolated without it, small pockets of civilisation burning out isolated from each other.

pixelburp

The most important casting announcement for Season 3 was missed it seems; Grudge the Cat, apparently owned by Book (David Ajala). Hijinks will no doubt ensue.

https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/1303413130203029504

AMKC

Hardly an original idea do is it? Data had a cat already. He is a lot different to Datas cat do.

Rawr

AMKC wrote: »

Hardly an original idea do is it? Data had a cat already. He is a lot different to Datas cat do.

Unless he starts talking and is voiced by John de Lancie.
...then things would get really interesting

expectationlost

pixelburp wrote: »

The most important casting announcement for Season 3 was missed it seems; Grudge the Cat, apparently owned by Book (David Ajala). Hijinks will no doubt ensue.

https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/1303413130203029504

its huge

pixelburp

expectationlost wrote: »

its huge

Maine Coons usually are apparently - especially the males; can be about 8kg or so. It's nuts. No idea what they're like in terms of temperament but definitely not an apartment cat

Acosta

Inviere wrote: »

Michael Burnham: The Movie

I know the ship is spiralling towards certain doom, but everyone stop whatever critical work you're currently doing and listen to yet another soppy long winded unnecessary speech from Michael.

Rawr

Acosta wrote: »

I know the ship is spiralling towards certain doom, but everyone stop whatever critical work you're currently doing and listen to yet another soppy long winded unnecessary speech from Michael.

With any luck they've learned how to not derail high-tension scenes like that. It was badly done in the latter episodes of Season 2 where they had this knack of wrecking the pacing of action scenes with too much dialogue, or mis-placed dialogue.

Wouldn't mind if they dropped the speeches altogether unless they find a good plot reason for one. I also hope they behave themselves with the camera work.

Sleepy

The best thing they could do with the series is kill off Burnham imo.

Inviere

Sleepy wrote: »

The best thing they could do with the series is kill off Burnham imo.

It would have been SO much better for the character, if her arc was about finding the trust of respect of her peers again. The moment she went from XO, to nobody, to hero again...it was over. They nailed the colours to the mast from that point on that the character could do no wrong.

Sleepy

I think focusing on a main character was always going to be a mistake for a Star Trek IP. I mean, sure, it worked okay in Picard but that was a character with years of backstory and development. Having a lead character, and one so ridiculously Mary Sue-d was a massive mis-step.

Rawr

Sleepy wrote: »

I think focusing on a main character was always going to be a mistake for a Star Trek IP. I mean, sure, it worked okay in Picard but that was a character with years of backstory and development. Having a lead character, and one so ridiculously Mary Sue-d was a massive mis-step.

I still feel that this is a concept that could work in Star Trek, provided you made a character who you could be made care about. The problem with Micheal is that they really failed to make a character that could care about and then compounded that problem by being unable commit properly to the concept. Parts of the show resemble a single-protagonist story, while other parts try to be a standard ensemble Trek show...while still trying to steer the plot into focusing on one character.

At this stage of the game I feel that they need to drop the main character focus and go to an ensemble setup like in previous Trek shows. I feel that it is too late for the show to be singularly focused on Michael, and that they lost the chance to do that by mid Season 1. It now needs to be about the whole crew and their new friends in the future. If they can just learn from their mistakes in the last two seasons then this might be something good.

With any luck Lower Decks wasn't some one-off anomaly of decent Trek, and that *maybe* they've learned to make good Trek.

pixelburp

Trek isn't so unique that a lead character is impossible, or so perscribed within the franchise that it be antithetical to its very nature either. Ultimately any lead from any form of fiction needs to be well-written.

What can be insurmountable is what various actors' contracts say: the extent to which characters exist within scripts - or indeed how many lines they speak - can be a contractual obligation and it's not beyond the bounds off possibility that Martin-Green's own stipulates her as "the lead", and thus primary focus. Heck just having any lines at all can make a huge difference to how much an Extra might earn (while extras playing cops etc. can be paid at different rates if they come with their own costume & uniform) so it'd be surprising if each contract wasn't also that precise.

So maybe the simple reason Burnham is narratively inescapable is because the contracts are forcing the Writer's Rooms hands. That could be giving the shítty writing too much credit or an excuse, but it might help explain the yawning gap in writing when the scripts swing towards her. Contractual obligation rarely produces enthusiastic end products

Also Starring LeVar Burton

pixelburp wrote: »

Trek isn't so unique that a lead character is impossible, or so perscribed within the franchise that it be antithetical to its very nature either. Ultimately any lead from any form of fiction needs to be well-written.

What can be insurmountable is what various actors' contracts say: the extent to which characters exist within scripts - or indeed how many lines they speak - can be a contractual obligation and it's not beyond the bounds off possibility that Martin-Green's own stipulates her as "the lead", and thus primary focus. Heck just having any lines at all can make a huge difference to how much an Extra might earn (while extras playing cops etc. can be paid at different rates if they come with their own costume & uniform) so it'd be surprising if each contract wasn't also that precise.

So maybe the simple reason Burnham is narratively inescapable is because the contracts are forcing the Writer's Rooms hands. That could be giving the shítty writing too much credit or an excuse, but it might help explain the yawning gap in writing when the scripts swing towards her. Contractual obligation rarely produces enthusiastic end products

As someone who has worked in a Writer's Room, cast contracts and the restrictions and knock on affects that result from those contracts can be a pain in the ass and absolutely hinder creativity, and that's only from what I know of small scale Irish productions. I can only imagine how the more complex contracts on a big US production like Discovery could potentially be a nightmare.

That being said, the writer's could just be sh*t and not know what they're at of course.

I will add the revolving door of showrunners Discovery has had won't have helped things either, so I'm hopeful Season 3 will be more stable on that front and the overall quality of the show will step up.

Sleepy

Maybe a lead character could work in Star Trek but only if they're written as a character i.e. a person who evolves and grows as the story unfolds. They made Burnham into superwoman from pretty much the very start and left themselves nowhere for her to go. As a result I suspect any character poll taken on discovery would show Saru, or even Tilly, as the fan favourite and Burnham would likely be towards the bottom of the list.

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

Trek isn't so unique that a lead character is impossible, or so perscribed within the franchise that it be antithetical to its very nature either. Ultimately any lead from any form of fiction needs to be well-written.

What can be insurmountable is what various actors' contracts say: the extent to which characters exist within scripts - or indeed how many lines they speak - can be a contractual obligation and it's not beyond the bounds off possibility that Martin-Green's own stipulates her as "the lead", and thus primary focus. Heck just having any lines at all can make a huge difference to how much an Extra might earn (while extras playing cops etc. can be paid at different rates if they come with their own costume & uniform) so it'd be surprising if each contract wasn't also that precise.

So maybe the simple reason Burnham is narratively inescapable is because the contracts are forcing the Writer's Rooms hands. That could be giving the shítty writing too much credit or an excuse, but it might help explain the yawning gap in writing when the scripts swing towards her. Contractual obligation rarely produces enthusiastic end products

This is a fear I have too. It did seem like Seasons 1 & 2 were Micheal-centric, and even if they knew by the end of Season 1 that the other characters were being better received, they had no choice (per contract) than to feature more Micheal in the second season.

My hope is that Martin-Green's initial contract was only for two years, and that a new contract is being used for this season. If she's on a new contract, hopefully they've managed to get her onto somewhat level billing with the rest of the main cast. I could certainly watch a show where the crew of Discovery try to rebuild the Federation...but not if Micheal is somehow single-handily doing it. I fear that this is what would happen if Martin-Green's original contract is still in play.

Sh**y writing is also a probably factor. I fully expect that any woes of previous seasons are down to a combination of factors alas.

This contract stuff isn't totally new to Trek. I only started to notice this by the time we got to DS9 and VOY but it appeared that if you were in the top billing of the show you got at least one line per episode, *no matter what*. So you'd end up with the odd episode of DS9 where Quark would suddenly turn up at someone's door with an order from the bar, which seemed to smack of them forgetting to write a scene at Quark's bar and being forced to write him in somehow.

I notice similar happening with Kes on Voyager. I think there was even one episode where she turned up to give someone coffee, and that was her entire contribution to the episode. During my recent re-watch of Voyager I also noticed that they had even forgotten to give enough lines to Seven in one episode, so they added an extra scene at the end of the plot where she suddenly turns up at the Ready Room to have a chat with Janeway. The scene didn't really add anything to the episode, and felt like they had tacked it onto the end because they had to.

That all said, it never really took away from the show as a whole. Contracts that ensure that most of the focus goes to one character alone however, I feel can do damage if it doesn't serve the story.

jmcc

Star Trek series have always been about the characters rather than a single character. The problem was that the STD writers were so too busy trying to write their own biases and issues into the show that Star Trek and good character writing became irrelevant. It stopped being Star Trek and became SJWs in space even down to some clueless "writer" claiming that the Klingons were Trump supporters. The Star Trek brand association probably sustained viewer figures but the Pike series might provide a clean exit with the the bulk of viewers shifting to a real Star Trek series and S3 of STD being the last, The big problem for STD is nobody really cares whether the lead character lives or dies. It takes a special kind of incompetence and cluelessness to write a character that bland.As for the whole Mary-Sue angle, the character always appeared to be a less than intellectually gifted person's idea of how a smart person acts and thinks.There seemed to be no character development throughout S1 and S2 and the character still remained the embodiment of the writers' SJW fantasies rather than a well written and developing character. Now they've gone and turned the character of Michael into a "goddess" cliche responsible for the STD universe and timelines. If Trump wins in November, the STD writers will probably have a meltdown and try to make Trump the leader of the Klingons or some major faction.

Regards...jmcc