#and then Discovery made its FIRST season arc about war and the Mirror Universe | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

claudia1829things · 5 years

Text

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" Season Two Musings

Below is an article that I had written about Season Two of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”. Parts of the article is an amalgamation of previous posts about the series’ second season:

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" SEASON TWO MUSINGS There have been plenty of articles on the Internet that many television shows with successful first seasons usually decline in quality with its second season. This is known as the "second season curse". I do not There have been plenty of cases when the quality of a television series has improved with each succeeding season. However, I do believe there are some shows that adhere to this theory. When it comes to Season Two of the CBS All Access series, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", some believe it had . Most Trek fans either believe that Season One of "DISCOVERY" was a disaster. Many were put off by Michael Burnham, who is portrayed by an African-American actress, as the series' lead. Many had complained about the series' serialized format. And there were numerous complaints about the season's ambiguous portrayal of its main characters and the Federation. Despite these complaints, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" managed to become a big hit and attract many fans. Unfortunately, the show runners had listened to these disenchanted fans who considered themselves "veteran" Trekkers and made certain changes to the series for its second season. I usually have no problems with a series making some kind of changes. It is necessary for a series to develop. However, some of the changes or additions to Season Two of "DISCOVERY" . . . bothered me. Season Two began with the episode called (2.01) "Brother", when Captain Christopher Pike of the U.S.S. Enterprise, took emergency command of the U.S.S. Discovery after his ship was damaged during the crew’s investigation of seven mysterious red signals. The last signal led Pike and the Discovery crew to an asteroid made of non-baryonic matter, where they discovered the U.S.S. Hiawatha, damaged during the Federation-Klingon War of last season. How did the Hiawatha crew’s rescue play a role in the season’s overall arc? Were the events of "Brother" more about rescuing Commander Reno and adding a new character to the series? If so, this was a piss-poor and vague way to do it. Reno could have easily been transferred to Discovery as its new chief engineer without this convoluted set-up to bring her aboard the ship. Also, she had played a very limited role in the second season’s narrative. By mid-season, I found myself wondering why she had not returned to Starfleet Headquarters on Earth, following her rescue. I did not learn until after the finale had aired that she had been officially assigned to Discovery. Huh? And there was the matter of a primitive Human colony on a planet called Terralysium. The Red Angel had led the Discovery to the colony and prevented its inhabitants from being destroyed by an extinction-level radiation shower. How did this play a role in Season Two's overall arc? Burnham and the Discovery crew eventually discovered that the signals came from a time travel sentient being called "the Red Angel". And the Red Angel turned out to be Michael's presumed dead mother, Dr. Gabrielle Burnham. Since viewers learned that Dr. Burnham's overall goal was to make the Federation aware of dangerous artificial intelligence called "Control", why did she go out of her way to bring attention to the Hiawatha crew and Terralysium's inhabitants? As it turned out, Dr. Burnham was not involved in those situations. Michael was. Michael had ended up using the Red Angel suit in the season's finale, (2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II". And she was the one who had sent the seven signals, including the two that led Starfleet to both the Hiawath and Terralysium. Really? Was that show runners' way of explaining why the Red Angel led the Discovery crew to situations that had no major impact upon Season Two's narrative? Frankly, I found this rather a waste of time. Perhaps Michael wanted to save Commander Reno and allow Terralysium to survive when Discovery arrived in the future. But honestly, the show runners and their writers could have handled this with tighter writing. Or perhaps the above scenarios were inevitable, since the show runners had planned to send the U.S.S. Discovery over nine hundred years into the future. Imagine, a serialized television show's format or setting undergoing an extensive change in the middle of its run - during its third season. The series went from being about a Starfleet science vessel during the 2250s to one that is exploring the future. Why? Alex Kurtzman claimed that he had wanted to take the series into a new setting so that the writers would not have to work hard to connect the series' narrative with the 1966-1969 series, "STAR TREK". Especially since the latter series is set a decade after "DISCOVERY" and so many fans have been crying plot holes upon discovering that Michael Burnham was the adoptive daughter of Spock's parents, Sarek and Amanda Grayson. Pop culture fans can be incredibly stupid sometimes. And so are the television show runners who listen to them. Taking the U.S.S. Discovery some 900 years into the future struck me as one of the most unnecessary moves the show runners could have made. I also find the whole idea ridiculous. "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" began in 2256 - a decade earlier than "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and aboard another Starfleet ship . . . with a different crew. There would have been NO NEED for the series to make a concerted effort to connect with the 1966-69 series, despite Michael Burnham being the adopted sister of Spock. At best, Spock, Sarek and Amanda can make the occasional appearance on the show. If "DISCOVERY" ever lasts as long as those shows between 1987 and 2001 - "STAR TREK: NEXT GENERATION", "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" and "STAR TREK VOYAGER" - the series' setting would have ended in 2263 or 2264 - at least two to three years before the beginning of "THE ORIIGNAL SERIES"setting. Did any of the show runners ever considered this? By changing the premise, "DISCOVERY" will only end up being some kind of time travel version of "VOYAGER". And that does not strike me as particularly original. There is another problem with the new direction that the series had undertaken in the Season Two finale - namely the former Most Imperial Majesty, Mother of the Fatherland, Overlord of Vulcan, Dominus of Qo'noS, Regina Andor, Philippa Georgiou Augustus Iaponius Centarius of the Mirror Universe. As everyone knows, mirror Philippa eventually impersonated the deceased Captain Georgiou prime as a retired Starfleet officer and later became a Section 31 operative. Midway during the airing of Season Two, it was announced that Michelle Yeoh, who portrayed Georgiou, would headline a new Trek series in the near future about Section 31. Why is this a problem? Georgiou was one of the Starfleet personnel aboard Discovery when it followed Michael in the Red Angel suit . . . into the future. If Discovery being 900 years in the future is the series' new premise, how will Georgiou return to the 2250s in order to continue her story with Section 31? Someone had suggested that she will command Section 31 in the 32nd century? Really? Why on earth would anyone in Earth's future allow a woman from the 23rd century assume command of an organization like Section 31? There were aspects of Season Two that I liked. I found Starfleet's conflict with the A.I. entity known as Control rather interesting . . . and frightening. Many Trek fans had complained that "Control" should have been portrayed as the origin story for the Borg. What they had forgotten that around this period Trek history the Borg had existed for quite some time and had wiped out the El-Aurian home world. Using "Control" as the Borg's origin story was out of the question. I also enjoyed how the writers used the spore drive's mycelial plane to bring Dr. Hugh Culber back from the dead and how this resurrection had affected his relationship with Lieutenant Paul Stamets. I especially enjoyed Michael's reunion with her missing mother, Gabrielle Burnham. In fact, I could honestly say that I had truly enjoyed the episodes of mid-Season Two - from (2.05) "Saints of Imperfection" to (2.11) "Perpetual Infinity". However, I did not like the finale, (2.13-2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow". Many had complained that the two-part episode seemed over saturated with action. Or that the finale seemed more "STAR WARS"than "STAR TREK". The action in "Such Sweet Sorrow" did not bother me. I certainly had no problems with Georgiou's brutal fight against the Control-possessed Captain Leland. Along with Discovery's eventual journey into the future, I had some problem's with the episode's writing. One of those problems involved Ash Tyler, the former Klingon whose body and consciousness had been transformed into a Starfleet officer who had died during the Federation-Klingon War. Instead of joining the rest of the Discovery crew for their journey into the future, he remained behind to contact Empress L'Rell (his or Voq's former paramour) to help Starfleet's conflict against Control. This would be nothing, but Ash had openly contacted L'Rell and was later by her side aboard a Klingon starship during the battle. Apparently, Alex Kurtzman and the episode's screenwriter that Georgiou and Section 31 had went through a good deal of trouble to end Ash's brief role as L'Rell's aide on the Klingon home world in order to save her reign as the new Empress . . . by faking his death. Worse, Starfleet put Ash in command of Section 31, despite his limited experience with the agency and his unsuitability as a spy. Despite the fact that Georgiou had managed to destroy Control and prevent it from acquiring the massive data from the Sphere that the crew had discovered in (2.04) "An Obol for Charon", Michael and the Discovery crew traveled into the future anyway. Following Discovery's disappearance into the future, Captain Pike (back in command of the Enterprise) and Ash informed Starfleet that Discovery had been destroyed during the battle against Control. Why? Why did the writers feel that was necessary? I feel as if a great deal of unnecessary writing decisions had been made in this episode to justify the Discovery's journey into the future. For me, the biggest frustrations of Season Two proved to be the presence of Spock and Captain Christopher Pike. Especially the latter. But I will start with Spock first. Initially, I had no problem with Spock's role in the season's narrative. But once the crew had identified Gabrielle Burnham as the Red Angel and Admiral Katrina Cromwell had returned to Starfleet Headquarters, why did Spock remain aboard the Discovery? Why did he not return to Headquarters with the Admiral and rejoin the Enterprise crew? However, Spock's continuing presence aboard the Discovery struck me as minor problem in compare to the presence of his commanding officer, Captain Pike. I have been a fan of Anson Mount since he starred in the AMC series, "HELL ON WHEELS". But I wish to God that he had never been cast as Christopher Pike in "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". More importantly, I wish that the show runners had never utilized the character in the first place. I believe Christopher Pike was the worst aspect about Season Two of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". His presence on the show struck me as irrelevant. Useless. Why did the show runners have him serve as Discovery's commander throughout the entire season? Why was he even needed? Saru could have easily remained in command of Discovery after the crew was given the Red Angel mission. This was the officer who had led the ship out of the Mirror Universe. And he had also stood behind the crew's refusal to obey Starfleet's order to help Georgiou to decimate the Klingon home world in the Season One finale, (1.15) "Will You Take My Hand?". With the Enterprise temporarily out of commission, Pike could have appeared in "Brother" to hand over the Red Angel mission to the Discovery crew and to inform Spock's disappearance to both Michael and Sarek before guiding his damaged ship back to Starfleet Headquarters. Then he and the Enterprise could have returned for the final battle against Control in "Such Sweet Sorrow". But no. Certain fans had raised a fuss over an African-American actress serving as the lead of a Star Trek series and cried tears over "DISCOVERY" not being "traditional Trek". And the series' show runners made the mistake of listening to them, despite the fact that "DISCOVERY" was a hit. And with Pike, they had provided these narrow-minded fans with an ideal leading male character to swoon over. But why did the show runners felt it was necessary to appease these fans with the addition of Pike for Season Two? Pike was not needed. Even worse, they did not have to paint Captain Pike as this ridiculously ideal Starfleet officer. Because frankly, he came off as a bore. And bland. There were moments when the series was willing to portray Pike's idealism and inflexibility as flaws, especially in his conflict with Ash Tyler. However, by (2.09) "Project Daedalus", it seemed quite obvious that the show runners were determined to paint Pike as "the perfect or near perfect" Starfleet officer. This became obvious in his conflict with Ash. Even when Pike was seen to be in the wrong in both (2.07) "Light and Shadows" and (2.08) "If Memory Serves", Pike was painted in a more sympathetic light than Ash. If only the show runners had ditched this useless conflict and focused more attention on the fallout between Ash and Hugh from Season One, I would have been more impressed. In "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" episode, (1.11-1.12) "The Menagerie", Trek fans had first learned about Pike's future as a paraplegic, due to an accident. Somehow, the writers managed to twist Pike's future as some kind of "heroic sacrifice" in which he had to give up the idea of accepting Klingon time crystals to defeat Control or taking them and facing a future as a paraplegic. There was no need to include what I believe proved to be a contrived and unnecessary plot twist. I loved Season One of "DISCOVERY". Despite some moments of clunky writing, I thought it had provided something new and exciting to the Star Trek franchise. I became an instant fan. There were aspects of Season Two that I liked - Starfleet's conflict with Control, Dr. Hugh Culber's resurrection and Michael Burnham's reunion with her mother, Gabrielle Burnham. However, there were aspects of Season Two that I disliked. Too many. And that included the season finale, (2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II", along with Discovery’s unnecessary trip into the future. Also, I saw no reason for the over utilization of characters like Spock and Captain Christopher Pike. I saw their presence during the season as a heavy-handed attempt with the "nostalgic factor" to win over certain Trek fans still mired in the past. It must have worked to a certain degree. Many have declared Season Two to be superior to Season One. Do I agree with this assessment? Obviously . . . no. In my opinion, I feel that the Trek fandom's desire for nostalgia - especially in the form of Christopher Pike and Spock - has made Season Two overrated in my opinion . . . and a victim of the "second season curse". And most importantly, I saw no need for Christopher Pike to serve as the temporary commander of the U.S.S. Discovery. I found this decision by the show runners to be completely unnecessary.

16 notes · View notes

dellaliz19 · 6 years

Text

Stupidly long Star Trek post, my apologies

So, as a long time Trek fan whose been watching Star Trek Discovery since its debut, and a recent binge watcher of Seth McFarlene’s Trek homage The Orville, I’ve come to a conclusion.

Star Trek shouldn’t be serialized.

Let me explain. First, let’s define some stuff. A serialized television show is one where each individual episode is a part of a larger story, and a viewer cannot grasp that story without watching the entire season, in order. Now, this type of show can have short arc side plots, but they all tend to be related to the main story as well. Star Trek Discovery uses such a format: each episode builds into the story of the war with the Klingons, and side plots like the Ash/Voq arc, or the Mirror Universe still serve this ultimate storyline.

In contrast, an episodic show is one where each episode tells its own self-contained story, where a viewer could tune into one episode and grasp that entire plot by the end. These shows can also have season long or series long themes, but they do not tend to ‘drive’ the series. The Orville (as well as TOS, TNG and the other Star Trek shows) follows this format; each episode tells a complete story, and the season has themes/storylines that continue throughout, like the antagonism with the Krill (the shows Klingon analogues) and Mercer and Grayson’s relationship.

Now, why do I think that serialization is a bad fit for a Star Trek show? Well, let’s try to pin down what Star Trek is about. The shows have obviously had different themes over the years, but the two most famous, successful shows (The Original Series and The Next Generation, and the others as well, but especially these two) were at their core a space adventure series following a small cast of characters we liked and related to, that used aliens and sci-fi as a metaphor for real life ethical and moral scenarios to tell engaging, fun and sometimes challenging stories.

So, with that premise in mind, why do I think episodic story telling is the best way to tell that particular type of story?

Because it gives us time to tell that story.

Comparing The Orville and Star Trek Discovery (which I think is fair, as they are both modern takes on the classic Star Trek formula), I’d argue that The Orville manages to tell a better Star Trek story, because it’s allowed to take the time to do so. The Orville has time to, for example, dedicate a whole episode to their third officer Bortus (the Worf analogue), and his same sex mate, and their struggle over whether or not they should perform a sex change on their female child (they are members of an all-male race where females are only born once every 75 years). That episode explores the themes of gender equality, and understanding cultures not your own, but is also a very personal episode where we get to look at Bortus’s culture, relationship, gender ideals and how the crew relates to this issue, and Bortus in turn. Or, as another example, The Orville has time to dedicate a whole episode to security chief Alara (the shows Vulcan analogue, at least physically) and her self-doubt and fear after she was unable to save a redshirt from a fire. We get to meet her parents in that episode, get an impression on how they view her career, and learn the fears of the crew in that episode, while also enjoying a horror comedy episode where Alara eventually triumphs, and learns to believe in herself.

Those episodes, and many more – like the one where Data analogue robot Isaac has to survive a post apocalyptic planet of cannibals while defending and bonding with the ships doctor and her children – serve to make the main cast feel real, and very well developed. I could genuinely tell you where Bortus and his mate went on their first date, or that Mercer views Kermit the Frog as an ideal leader, that LaMarr is afraid of clowns, or that Malloy loves pulling practical jokes. And that’s because the show doesn’t have to serve this overarching narrative, so it has the time to give each character fears and flaws and hopes.

Star Trek Discovery, on the other hand, doesn’t have that time. Each episode needs to build into the main narrative on the war with the Klingon’s and Burnham’s role in it that it doesn’t have the ability to dedicate as much time to the supporting characters. A prime recent example of this is the death of the show’s medic, Hugh Culber. His partner, Paul Stammets learns of his death, wakes up from his coma and then…immediately has a plan to get them out of the Mirror Universe. The next episode then is dealing with the war, their time jump and Mirror!Georgiou and Burnham, and while Stammets gets a scene about his feelings, the show can’t take the time to give them some room to breathe. To dedicate a whole episode just to that emotion and let us feel it with Stammets, because the main plot is too important to the story to just put it on the backburner. This leaves the personal aspect of the show - the crew, their relationships with each other – weak…unless they are relating to Burnham.

See, serialized shows do work in many cases. Marvel’s tv line up, especially Jessica Jones, are great examples of this. Personalized dramas, telling one main protagonists story are an amazing fit for serialization, as each episode builds into that character’s personal journey. Large ensembles stories are another: Game of Thones is serialized, but it has so many plot lines that it often feels episodic, where you can sideline one plot for several episodes and then pick it up again (this is, I think, a part of why fans aren’t enjoying the last season as much, as the rapid cutting down of plotlines has turned the show into direct serialization following only Cersei, Jon and Dany).

Star Trek Discovery, as a necessity of the format, has turned the show into a more personalized story about Burnham. And so, while Burnham and her story are developed, the side characters often fall by the wayside, or are only allowed rare moments to develop as characters not related to Burnham and her arc. I couldn’t even tell you the names of any of the bridge crew off the top of my head on Discovery other than Saru, much less any of their fears or ambitions. Now, this doesn’t make Star Trek Discovery a bad story…but I’d argue it doesn’t make it a great Star Trek story.

The universe of Star Trek Discovery feels small: less about exploring brave new worlds and meeting exciting new cultures, but about the personal, dark internal trauma of war. And you can say that well, the old Star Trek formula was tired and worn out and we needed to try something new…but The Orville proves that honestly, it wasn’t.

I think episodic shows get a bad rap as ‘lesser, pulpy’ media. The serialized personal drama of a show like Hannibal is always going to be critically more acclaimed than the episodic NCIS, CSI and a hundred other crime procedurals in their 10th and 15th seasons…but I’d be hard pressed to say that made Hannibal a ‘better’ show than those others. I’m just as likely to get as much enjoyment out of throwing on an episode of early seasons Criminal Minds as I am one of Hannibal (which I did enjoy). And to me, Star Trek Discovery (originally conceived and produced by Bryan Fuller, the guy behind Hannibal) feels like a show that’s a little bit ashamed of the campy, episodic past of Star Trek, and is pushing back hard on serialization and dark, violent war because it feels like it has something to prove.

Now, again, I’m not saying that The Orville is a better overall show than Star Trek Discovery (though I enjoyed it more, to be frank), or that Discovery is a bad show. All I’m saying is…I feel like we shouldn’t treat episodic shows as lesser to serialization, and that we should be able to accept that some genres and stories just lend themselves better to one format. Fun, utopian space adventures are a better fit for episodic storytelling, and darker, personal stories to serialization, and it just seems strange to me that the branded Star Trek show is the one falling in the latter category rather than the former. I think Discovery would benefit if it wasn’t a Star Trek story (with all of the unnecessary Star Trek cameos and tie-ins, like Sarek or Harry Mudd), but rather it was just a personalized space drama about a mutineer and a war, and it was allowed to stand up and be its own thing, rather than having to try and fit itself into a canon and universe it never quite seems comfortable in.

170 notes · View notes

zalrb · 6 years

Text

Here’s My Thing Anyway

The way Ash left deeply disappointed me for a couple of reasons.

The first being, since the revelation that Voq and Ash inhabited the same body, I made it a point to trust that the writers were still going to handle Ash’s storyline with care and sensitivity. I understood the distinction that while Voq may have been in love with L’Rell and volunteered for the torture, Ash did not. Seeing L’Rell triggered Ash’s PTSD, the procedure he endured caused him emotional and physical pain and when we first see Ash in this finale, he’s tying knots to reconnect to who he truly is and so having him leave with L’Rell, in my opinion, undercuts the complexities and nuances created by the fact that Ash and Voq experienced the same things differently and for different reasons.

The second is that I’ve seen a lot of metas and articles floating around about how this is about Michael’s journey to self-discovery, Michael’s navigation of logic and emotion,of her Vulcan side and her human side, and that’s all true, she’s the protagonist of the show and its central focus but the way the show essentially dismissed Ash in such an abrupt and unceremonious fashion makes this particular aspect of Michael’s journey feel like a checklist. Like oh well she fell in love and got her heartbroken in the span of eight episodes, she learned a lesson and now we can move on! Rather than an arc or a journey it feels like a notch in the proverbial belt and comes across as unresolved and not good unresolved but unresolved like “we’re just tired of dealing with this storyline right now so let’s just put a pin in it so we can focus on what we want to focus on.”

Same with Emperor Georgiou coming back and leaving just as abruptly. I understand that her presence sort of catalyzes an epiphany for Michael, an epiphany that she’d been working toward since the beginning of the season, which is what it means to be Starfleet, what it means to be embody those ideals, and it all sort of culminates in her speech at the end. I get that. My issue is that I don’t think Georgiou needed to be on Discovery for her to get there, just coming out of the Mirror Universe after enduring what she endured and seeing what she saw would be enough to get Michael there so I suppose I expected more from Georgiou’s presence because of that. If they made it a point to bring her back to the Prime Universe I thought there’d be a lot more than what we were given because as it stands her presence just comes across as a very convenient plot point to very conveniently end the war.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

#ashburn #ash tyler #michael burnham #star trek discovery #phillippa georgiou #star trek disco #star trek discovery 1x15 #1x15 #will you take my hand #star trek discovery: will you take my hand #shazad latif #sonequa martin-green

28 notes · View notes

gta-5-cheats · 6 years

Text

Star Trek: Discovery Season One Finale: A Bold, Original Mess

New Post has been published on http://secondcovers.com/star-trek-discovery-season-one-finale-a-bold-original-mess/

Star Trek: Discovery Season One Finale: A Bold, Original Mess

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

In its first year, Star Trek: Discovery has committed nearly every misstep in the book. But the best thing the show achieved in the second half of its first season – which ended this week with the season finale, “Will You Take My Hand?”, available on Netflix – was the commentary provided by the Mirror Universe that it’s all too easy to give into our worst tendencies if we’re not careful, and slide into autocratic rule with supremacist ideologies.

Discovery successfully argued that the worst versions of our beloved characters aren’t all conveniently present in an “evil” universe, but rather have become so as a result of the choices they made at crucial times. And if the seemingly better versions of those characters made similar choices in the universe they’re originally from, they would start to resemble each other, as happened briefly on Discovery.

It’s what brought Starfleet so close to genocide on the Klingon home-world Qo’noS, appointing the Terran Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) to lead the Discovery once again, a desperate measure in desperate times. Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) had to be the one to intervene, and say she’d rather mutiny (again) than abandon her Federation principles, a moment that united her ship-mates in an unnecessary cheesy fashion, with all of them slowly standing up one-by-one.

If that moment felt poetic, it was designed to be. In an interview, co-creator Alex Kurtzman – co-writer on J.J. Abrams’ both Trek films – said: “The whole season was reverse engineered from the ending that we know that we wanted. Really the big driver there was [Burnham’s] arc and the confusion about how and why she decided to mutiny in the pilot to the absolute certainty that it was the only way to protect the ideals of the Federation.”

Sonequa Martin-Green as Michael Burnham in a still from Star Trek: Discovery Photo Credit: Jan Thijs/CBS

That’s classic character building, bringing back an earlier point to finish the circle, and imparting a lesson to the protagonist – and in turn, to the viewers – in process. Burnham has seen a lot of failures over the course of the show’s first season, right from her inability to protect Captain Georgiou at the Battle of the Binary Stars to her lover Ash Tyler (Shazad Latif) turning out to be the Klingon Voq (a subplot many predicted long before the official reveal), and Star Trek: Discovery provided some redemption in the finale, with Sarek (James Frain) handing back her Starfleet pin.

Of course, the threat of Klingon obliteration couldn’t have been realised; Discovery is set before the original 1966 Trek series, where it’s all good. But it did help the writers undercut everything we’ve always been told about the utopian Starfleet – which was their primary aim with Discovery,offering a realistic, dark and cynical version of Gene Roddenberry’s project in the age of Game of Thrones – and help serve as the catalyst for ending the Federation-Klingon War, which was meant to last for the duration of Star Trek: Discovery’s first season.

But despite all that plot, what the show couldn’t achieve was a satisfactory conclusion, be it for its full-season arc or with the cliff-hanger in the finale. After L’Rell (Mary Chieffo) gets the bomb detonator from Burnham, why would she threaten her own people with full-scale destruction? Wouldn’t it be easier to unite the Klingon empire by defusing the bomb and go ahead with the attack on Earth?

L’Rell herself said the Klingons wouldn’t relent until they were conquered, so why would they choose to stop the war when they hold all the cards? It doesn’t make sense. When the US wanted Japan to surrender in World War II, they didn’t hand the keys to the nuclear weapons over to the enemy. Starfleet would lose the moral high-ground if it ever took America’s cue, but it’d have been a lot more believable, especially when you’re facing annihilation in a war.

Shop On SecondCovers

Mary Chieffo as L’Rell in a still from Star Trek: Discovery Photo Credit: Jan Thijs/CBS

The bigger problem for Discovery, though, has been the lack of desire to explore the Klingon race. While the show kept killing off its leaders one after another in the first half of the season, it relegated them to non-existence once the USS Discovery entered the Mirror Universe, which occupied a large part of the season’s second half. Even L’Rell, the Klingon prisoner aboard the Discovery, spent most of the runtime in a cage, sticking around for the finale.

Unfortunately, the Klingons aren’t the only ones affected by haphazard writing. If the confirmation of Tyler being a human-Klingon hybrid wasn’t disappointing enough, the character has virtually stagnated since then, and sending him with L’Rell towards the end of the finale of Star Trek: Discovery season one seemed like an acceptance on behalf of the writers that the character had ran out of its arc.

Discovery’s old captain Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs), who had a major influence on the crew, was never properly discussed since he turned out to be an impostor. Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz), the ship’s medical officer, was also promptly forgotten after being murdered by Tyler/Voq. And no one in Discovery’s crew – except the ones who knew – seemed to think that the returning Captain Georgiou displayed traits of a far more authoritarian ruler, like the one they saw in the Mirror Universe.

Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou (Mirror) in a still from Star Trek: Discovery Photo Credit: CBS

For what it’s worth, it was a joy watching Yeoh lean into Evil Georgiou, freed from the principles and responsibilities that come with being a Starfleet officer. She got to deliver lines with an irreverent swagger, even throwing references to the original series, and have her way with green strippers, thereby add a jolt of fun to the grim proceedings and serious demeanour of the people around her. It’s likely why she gets her freedom so easily; Discovery’s writers love the option to have her back later.

Speaking of later, the gaps in the writing are signs of originally-developed storylines being expanded to fit more seasons. You can see the blueprint for co-creator Bryan Fuller’s anthology plan amidst the existing structure of Star Trek: Discovery’s first season, what with multiple main characters being killed off across the episodes. But CBS disagreed with the idea, asking him to make a serialised show, and Fuller eventually left after further disagreements.

The result has been all over the place at times, but it can’t be said that Discovery hasn’t tried something new. In that at least, it has boldly gone where Star Trek hasn’t before. Now hopefully, its meeting with the USS Enterprise – currently in the hands of Captain Pike, Kirk’s predecessor – will be more than just mere fan service.

Star Trek: Discovery airs on CBS All Access in the US, and on Netflix in India and around the world.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

0 notes

claudia1829things · 5 years

Text

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" Commentary: (2.01) "Brother"

Earlier, I had posted two articles on my feelings about the Season Two premiere of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, (2.01) “Brother”. The following is an amalgamation and extension of those two articles:

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" COMMENTARY: (2.01) "Brother" I just recently viewed the Season Two premiere of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, (2.01) “Brother” on CBS All Access. On one hand, the episode struck me as a solid entry for a Trek show that set up the second season’s story arc and introduction of new characters. This is nothing knew. I have witnessed similar set ups for shows like “BABYLON 5” and “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”. But what I did not count on were some differences and characters that would leave me scratching my head. I do not think I have ever encountered a Trek show that has generated so much conflict and controversy as “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”. I take that back. There has been one other series that has generated controversy close to the same level as “DISCOVERY” . . . namely “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. This does not strike me as surprising, since both shows featured leading characters who are women. “DISCOVERY” took it to another level in which its leading character, Commander (formerly Specialist) Michael Burnham, is not only portrayed by an African-American actress, but is not the starship/space station’s commanding officer. I noticed that a great deal of what struck me as vague and nitpicking complaints had been inflicted upon “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” during and after its first season. One of those complaints proved to be that certain characters, including Michael Burnham, lacked full development by the end of Season One. I found myself scratching my head over this complaint. I mean … what on earth? I have never heard of a fictional character in a television show that is fully developed by the end of its first season, let alone before the end of its run. Never. And “DISCOVERY” had only finished its first season. Why on earth were so many of the franchise’s fans either criticizing that most of its characters are not fully developed or demanding that they should be after one season? This is not miniseries or television show. If “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” is allowed to complete its full run and the characters are still “not fully developed”, then I believe they would have something to complain about. Another complaint that left me scratching my head was the lack of humor during its first season. In fact, this particular complaint has led many to compare “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” with another science-fiction series that had begun around the same time - “THE ORVILLE”. The Trek franchise has never been a franchise that was dominated by humor. And I do recall a good deal of humor in Season One of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, especially in episodes like (1.07) “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” or in scenes featuring Mary Wiseman as Cadet Sylvia Tilly. Aside from those scenes featuring Wiseman and even Rainn Wilson (as con man Harry Mudd), most of the humor featured in Season One tend to be more subtle. I am relieved to notice that in regard to character development, the show runners for “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” did not rush to portray Michael Burnham or any of the other characters fully developed. The Season Two premiere, “Brother”, hinted that the show planned to explore Burnham’s past experiences as a member of Ambassador Sarek’s household and especially, her relationship with adoptive brother Spock. Judging from the Season Two previews I have seen, Burnham’s relationship with Ash Tyler/Voq will also be touched upon. So, if Season Two does not feature the full character development of the series’ leading lady and the other supporting characters, I will not be disappointed. If anything, I might feel a sense of relief. The last thing I want is for the series to engage in rushed storytelling. But one aspect of the Season Two premiere that left me scratching my head was the level of humor featured in the episode. It almost struck me as out of place. Now, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” featured some rather heavy humor. I found nothing wrong with this. Many of the Trek series have aired the occasional humorous episode. The problem with the humor in “Brother” is that there was nothing about the plot or the characters that should have marked it as a humor-filled episode. Many of the familiar characters - including Burnham - were either spouting lines or reacting to situations that made me wonder if screenwriters Ted Sullivan, Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts may have went a bit too far. “Brother” also featured the introduction of Commander Denise “Jett” Reno, Chief Engineer of the U.S.S. Hiawatha, who had been rescued by a landing party from the Discovery after spending ten months caring for wounded crew members on an asteroid, during the Federation-Klingon War. Reno, portrayed by actress-comedian Tig Notaro, managed to spout more jokes in a space of five minutes than any other actor or actress who had appeared in a Trek series or movie. I think Notaro might proved to be a rival for Wiseman on who can be the funniest member of the cast. In the end, the humor in “Brother” struck me as a bit over-the-top, especially for an episode that is not obviously a humorous one like “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad”. So what were the screenwriters thinking? Did they change the tonal style of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” to appease those fans who had complained that the series was “too serious” or “too angsty”? If so, they have made a mistake. I found this tonal shift for Season Two rather forced and mind boggling. I do not see the necessity of changing the series’ tonal style. I want to watch “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, not some borderline copycat of “THE ORVILLE”. Not even the other Trek series from the past had such a drastic tonal shift. After all, the edgier style of Season One did not prevent “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” from being a hit or creating an entire new stable of fans. Had the show runners forgotten this? Or were they too busy paying attention to the narrow-minded fans who wanted the series to simply re-create the past? I noticed that the introduction of Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike of the U.S.S. Enterprise had also contributed to this tonal shift. Mount’s Pike came off as slightly humorous and yet, somewhat bland. To me, Pike seemed like the epitome of the white male leading man that so many science-fiction/fantasy geeks seemed to long - especially in the past three to four years. The problem I have with this is that as an old fan of the AMC series, “HELL ON WHEELS”, I know that the talented Mount is capable of portraying a character more interesting than Pike. At one point in “Brother”, Pike had expressed his regret that the Enterprise did not participate in the Federation-Klingon War. Was this regret a consequence of survivor’s guilt? Or is this nothing more than the regret of someone in the military, who wished he or she could have been in the center of the action. I hope that it is the former. On the other hand, watching Pike participate in the landing party that found Reno and the remains of the Hiawatha makes me wonder otherwise. As the Discovery’s current temporary captain, his presence in the Away team struck me as questionable. This is not “STAR TREK” circa 1966-68. And so far, I do not find the character’s regret for not participating in the war against the Klingons as not very interesting. And why is the Christopher Pike character a regular on this show? Why is he a regular for Season Two? Why was Pike, along with two Enterprise officers, needed to investigate those seven red bursts that had appeared in the Alpha Quadrant? The Discovery is originally a science vessel. The Enterprise is not. Why did the show runners have Starfleet order Pike to take command of Discovery in the first place? Mount could have been cast as the Discovery’s new captain who was someone other than Pike. Or Saru could have been promoted as the Discovery’s new commander. He deserved it. After all, ever since the discovery that Captain Gabriel Lorca was an imposter from the Mirror Universe, Saru had more or less acted as the ship’s captain. He was the one who led Discovery and its crew out of the Mirror Universe. And he stood behind Burnham, Tilly and Tyler when they exposed Starfleet’s plot to destroy the Klingon homeworld. Instead, either Alex Kurtzman or Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg drummed up some lame reason to brng Pike aboard the Discovery so that the show can have some slightly bland and familiar character as the main authority figure in order to soothe the nerves of some very loud and negative fans. Is it possible that these fans could not deal with the chaotic Gabriel Lorca as captain or who still cannot deal with the non-white Michael Burnham as the show’s lead? Or do they simply want to recapture the past? Right now, it seems as if Kurtzman, Harberts and Berg want to please these fanboys, who want the show to recapture the past. After watching “Brother”, I blame them for listening to these fanboys, instead of basking in the success of Season One and moving forward with more innovative stories. It just seems a crime that producers like Kurtzman, Harberts, Berg, the Warner Brothers suits and Kathleen Kennedy are so afraid of the loud and narrow-minded fanboys that they would rather keep their respective franchises either mired in the past or borderline bland to please these fans. And in doing so, they end up ignoring the fact that when their franchises were innovative, they were also box office or ratings successes. Right now, I find the Trek fandom, along with those for other franchises, rather frustrating and narrow-minded. These fans would rather cling to the past, rather than enjoy something different or innovative. And when producers and show runners like Harberts, Berg or Kurtzman kowtow to the loud and rather conservative-minded fans and critics, entertainment and art in pop culture becomes in danger of declining into a sad affair. Does this mean that Season Two of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” await such a fate? I hope not. I hope that the season’s future episodes might prove to be just as fascinating and innovative as those from Season One. I hope so. Because if I have to be honest, I found “Brother” to be jarring and something of a head scratcher.

#star trek discovery #star trek discovery season 2 #star trek discovery 2x01 brother #2x01 brother #sonequa martin-green #mary wiseman #anson mount #doug jones #tig notaro #rainn wilson #alex kurtzman #gretchen j. berg #aaron harberts #star trek franchise

3 notes · View notes