"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

DogsofJune

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
3,679
I found the series to be ok. I watched them, not likely to rewatch. Probably will see where the third season goes, but I really don't forsee a long future for this series, As much as I appreciate ST stuff, I just don't see this one being of same caliber as previous series's. Maybe they are still warming up I dunno.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
Loved everything about the last half of season 1. When Lorca reveals that surprise: he's actually from the evil universe and starts walking around with a golden space sword, that was epic.
No, that is when it started to suck. Because until then, Lorca was a bad ass Starfleet captain, and the best thing about the show.

The arc of the first season was:

Start: utterly absurd setup episodes to brand Burnham a traitor. Those first two episodes were eye rolling bad writing trying to rush that goal. Would have better told as flashback as it was nonsense. Middle: Then we had a lot of Ruthless Lorca getting it done in the middle. That was cool. End: Then you reveal he is from opposite universe, then there was no ruthless Starfleet captain, since he was essentially an impostor, and then they got rid of him. It erases nearly everything good about season 1.

Season two suffers from fan service (Spock and Pike) and the prequel service, as they lean back toward Trek Canon (hey Klingons can grow hair) and of course more insufferable Michael Burnham.

Definitely more interested in the section 31 spin off and even more interested in Picard series (at least that won't be a prequel).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
Sure the writings bad too. But she over-acts every scene to the point of distraction. Worse actor/actress on the show.

Yeah, Discovery is right up there with Voyager. ;)

They both hover near the bottom for me.

DS9 is the best Star Trek. TNG is second. Patrick Stewart is probably the best actor in any Star Trek series, but he couldn't carry the show by himself. Best episodes are centered on Picard.

I agree on DS9, but Discovery is way better than S1 and S2 of TNG. It's better than every season of Voyager (the worst trek) and it's better than every season of Enterprise (with the possible exception of the last season, which was good enough to justify not cancelling the show, unlike every season prior to that one).

I'll add that Shatner had his share of overacting on Trek (though I can't remember if that was in the movies, TOS or both. I haven't seen TOS since the 90s or possibly the 80s, so I may be being harsh on Shatner. That said, I liked S1 of this series. I'd argue it was the best S1 of any trek with the possible exception of TOS (and again, I LOVE DS9, but S1 was hit an miss, while S2 was, as I recall, mostly a hit and S3 was better than S7 of TNG)

I need to sign up for All Access to judge the current season. I was waiting for Discovery, The Good Fight and Twilight zone to end before signing up for a month long binge fest ;) I'd do it now, but I have guests next week and I'm only keeping it for 1 month...dats how I do streaming services :D
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
I just saw this on YouTube and thought some of you would find it interesting to say the least:

I only watched the first few minutes, it's possible that a lot of that was a coincidence. They use 2017 as a ST date, but the show was in development since late 2015 or early 2016. The gay Doctor looks nothing like the animated guy (unless we're going by facial hair and that's not a particularly original aspect). The Tardigrade does seem to be a unique aspect, but I can imagine the creators saying they were inspired by news reports about them and thought they looked cool (cuz you know they do ;))

But major FU to trek fans harassing this guy. It's between him and CBS. It's not like Discovery is going to disappear over this. If the guy wins, he'll make a bunch of money and the show will go on if the ratings are there.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
No, that is when it started to suck. Because until then, Lorca was a bad ass Starfleet captain, and the best thing about the show.
And almost everyone on H was complaining that it wasn't trek like and that was largely because of Lorca. I personally am not one to give 2 shits about Canon of Trek. If it's tied together, great, but for the most part I considered each series to be discrete (though there was a bit of overlap with TNG and DS9, mostly because of Worf and the fact that the Cardsassian story line originated on TNG.

Definitely more interested in the section 31 spin off and even more interested in Picard series (at least that won't be a prequel).
Assuming it's not a spoiler for s2 of Discovery, what's section 31?
I'm mostly interested in Picard, because it's Patrick Stewart. I'm kinda expecting it to have very little to do with Star Trek, but maybe it'll have flashbacks. Nevertheless, I'll wait for 3 or 4 different shows to be done before I sign up for a month and watch them.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
I'll add that Shatner had his share of overacting on Trek (though I can't remember if that was in the movies, TOS or both. I haven't seen TOS since the 90s or possibly the 80s, so I may be being harsh on Shatner. That said, I liked S1 of this series. I'd argue it was the best S1 of any trek with the possible exception of TOS (and again, I LOVE DS9, but S1 was hit an miss, while S2 was, as I recall, mostly a hit and S3 was better than S7 of TNG)
Shatners overacting is entertaining, since the guy has charisma. Sonequa Martin-Green has negative charisma. I really can't remember the last time I found anyone in a show so off putting. She is by far the greatest negative for me (occasionally eclipsed by terrible writing).

Lorca was great but he is gone, Pike was quite good too, also gone. We are left with the terrible and mediocre characters, mediocre writing and ultimately it's a prequel that won't go anywhere, so I really don't care.
 

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,070
Shatners overacting is entertaining, since the guy has charisma. Sonequa Martin-Green has negative charisma. I really can't remember the last time I found anyone in a show so off putting. She is by far the greatest negative for me (occasionally eclipsed by terrible writing).

Lorca was great but he is gone, Pike was quite good too, also gone. We are left with the terrible and mediocre characters, mediocre writing and ultimately it's a prequel that won't go anywhere, so I really don't care.
Yup, Lorca and Pike were by far two best chars, and even they barely made it palatable. Just holding out that Picard doesnt suck.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
And almost everyone on H was complaining that it wasn't trek like and that was largely because of Lorca. I personally am not one to give 2 shits about Canon of Trek. If it's tied together, great, but for the most part I considered each series to be discrete (though there was a bit of overlap with TNG and DS9, mostly because of Worf and the fact that the Cardsassian story line originated on TNG.
Yeah, I remember people complaining about Lorca, for not being a Goody-Two-Shoes TNG like captain. IMO that was a breath of fresh air. It was about time for the Utopian nonsense to die off. So another reason to be annoyed when the killed him off and are trying to revert to form.


Assuming it's not a spoiler for s2 of Discovery, what's section 31?
I'm mostly interested in Picard, because it's Patrick Stewart. I'm kinda expecting it to have very little to do with Star Trek, but maybe it'll have flashbacks. Nevertheless, I'll wait for 3 or 4 different shows to be done before I sign up for a month and watch them.
Section 31 stories originated on DS9 IIRC, so I will just refer to that. Section 31 is like Starfleets Black Ops, at least in DS9. So a Black Ops spin off agian sounds more interesting to me, than old fashioned Trek Utopianism.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,196
Sure the writings bad too. But she over-acts every scene to the point of distraction. Worse actor/actress on the show.



Yeah, Discovery is right up there with Voyager. ;)

They both hover near the bottom for me.

DS9 is the best Star Trek. TNG is second. Patrick Stewart is probably the best actor in any Star Trek series, but he couldn't carry the show by himself. Best episodes are centered on Picard.
negative, the best episodes were centered around the main cast, stewart became a greedy bastage and ytou can see in seasons going onwards after lecuitis that it was all picard centered
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,837
Yeah, I remember people complaining about Lorca, for not being a Goody-Two-Shoes TNG like captain. IMO that was a breath of fresh air. It was about time for the Utopian nonsense to die off.
Yeah, fucking established themes, lore and canon, we need more Beastie Boys epic action scenes, am I right?l Fuck yeah, woooo!
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
Yeah, fucking established themes, lore and canon, we need more Beastie Boys epic action scenes, am I right?l Fuck yeah, woooo!
How does having a bad ass captain violate Canon?

Just recognize that human nature is not reflected by the naive idealism of Roddenberry era Star Trek, and that Roddenberry era is NOT the only valid Star Trek. There is a contingent Trekkies that feel the same way about DS9 as they did about Lorca, that it isn't "real" Star Trek because it doesn't reflect naive Utopian idealism of Roddenberry era.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,537
Just recognize that human nature is not reflected by the naive idealism of Roddenberry era Star Trek, and that Roddenberry era is NOT the only valid Star Trek. There is a contingent Trekkies that feel the same way about DS9 as they did about Lorca, that it isn't "real" Star Trek because it doesn't reflect naive Utopian idealism of Roddenberry era.
Honestly, that naive utopianism is always the goal- much of Star Trek is both showing how it could be possible in some post-scarcity future and what happens when that culture collides with others, and how the protagonists must adapt.

Of course, it shows them adapting in ways that have never happened in any of our historical or contemporary socialist countries ;)
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,837
How does having a bad ass captain violate Canon?

Just recognize that human nature is not reflected by the naive idealism of Roddenberry era Star Trek, and that Roddenberry era is NOT the only valid Star Trek. There is a contingent Trekkies that feel the same way about DS9 as they did about Lorca, that it isn't "real" Star Trek because it doesn't reflect naive Utopian idealism of Roddenberry era.
Sisko is bad ass, Lorca is just pathetically bad. Every Star Trek has been in line with Roddenberry's Star Trek. STD is a Bad Robot abomination that has nothing to do with Star Trek. And we certainly don't need nor, evidently, want whatever Lorca wanted to pass for a ST captain.
 

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,297
Star Trek TNG was a flawed show - most of the characters had no defining characteristics.

In the original Star Trek Kirk was overly optimistic, overly dramatic and a tiny bit nihilist. McCoy was a cranky pessimist. Scotty was a touch of humor and a touch of humanity, and Spock was a foil who often demonstrated that human foibles are also desirable characteristics.

The chemistry within a cast should never be based on how well they would work together in an office. There were too many generic, amicable, uniformly quirkless people on TNG's Enterprise. In TNG, only Worf, Data and Picard have characteristics that define them. Riker was supposed to be a rigid, overly disciplined Captain-in-waiting who was serving under Picard until he outgrew his by-the-book nature, and you can see that in the casting of Jonathan Frakes, but people thought the character was too unlikeable, so he became ... bland. La Forge was also a very neutral character, and if I remember the Hollywood rumors correctly La Forge and Data were split from a single cyborg-style crewman who was designed to bring some James Bond flair into the cast. Beverly Crusher was generic to the max. Deanna Troi wasn't exactly generic, but she was definitely an anachronism. The skirts didn't help; if she had accidentally farted on the bridge a few times, that would have been fine. Wesley Crusher was Jar Jar Binks - the idea that Wesley Crusher was allowed on the bridge rather than being shot out an airlock is tragic. If you liked Wesley Crusher, it's because you were 12 years old when you watched TNG and you secretly wanted to be on the bridge of a starship rather than in junior high.

TL;DR Refried beans are boring - it is the additional ingredients that make a bean burrito a success. Likewise, TNG succeeded on the flavor of a few strong characters.
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,655
Shatners overacting is entertaining, since the guy has charisma. Sonequa Martin-Green has negative charisma. I really can't remember the last time I found anyone in a show so off putting. She is by far the greatest negative for me (occasionally eclipsed by terrible writing).

Lorca was great but he is gone, Pike was quite good too, also gone. We are left with the terrible and mediocre characters, mediocre writing and ultimately it's a prequel that won't go anywhere, so I really don't care.
I find her more neutral than anything, but a lot of people are just turned off by her. The one I'm turned off by is Tilly, her whole SCIENCE IS COOL kind of shtick grates on my nerves, they need to dial her down big time.
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,655
Sisko is bad ass, Lorca is just pathetically bad. Every Star Trek has been in line with Roddenberry's Star Trek. STD is a Bad Robot abomination that has nothing to do with Star Trek. And we certainly don't need nor, evidently, want whatever Lorca wanted to pass for a ST captain.

Star Trek Discovery has given us the single greatest depiction of any star trek captain to date. Pike. That's right, I went there.


Star Trek Discovery's Captain Pike > Picard/Sisko/Kirk/Archer/Janeway
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,537
Star Trek Discovery has given us the single greatest depiction of any star trek captain to date. Pike. That's right, I went there.
He seems to be the antithesis of Lorca, who was the worst depiction of a Starfleet captian. Purposefully.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
Yeah, I remember people complaining about Lorca, for not being a Goody-Two-Shoes TNG like captain. IMO that was a breath of fresh air. It was about time for the Utopian nonsense to die off. So another reason to be annoyed when the killed him off and are trying to revert to form.
I enjoyed it being darker (afterall DS9 is my favorite trek). I don't mind that they killed him off (though I vaguely felt like he could still be alive). I'm not a cannon geek, but I assume that there had to be an explanation for how he could be so anti-utopian. As I said, I need to watch S2. I felt that overall, Discovery S1 was the best first season other than TOS (and I don't recall S1 of that, so I have no opinion on which was better).



Section 31 stories originated on DS9 IIRC, so I will just refer to that. Section 31 is like Starfleets Black Ops, at least in DS9. So a Black Ops spin off agian sounds more interesting to me, than old fashioned Trek Utopianism.
OK that sound interesting. About the only thing more interesting is if Ira Behr gets the funding to totally upgrade DS9 to 2k (or better still 4k). I so want to see that series again, but I find the current video unwatchable. Almost makes me wish I had an old 35" SD tube to watch it on (I assume it'd look OK on that).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
How does having a bad ass captain violate Canon?

Just recognize that human nature is not reflected by the naive idealism of Roddenberry era Star Trek, and that Roddenberry era is NOT the only valid Star Trek. There is a contingent Trekkies that feel the same way about DS9 as they did about Lorca, that it isn't "real" Star Trek because it doesn't reflect naive Utopian idealism of Roddenberry era.
I liked TOS when I use to watch it. I liked TNG, though in retrospect, S1 was often bad and S2 was hit and miss...and it didn't help that there was writers strike that year (see the only clip show in Trek history), but as we both agree, DS9 was the shit and it got trashed for not being true to Gene's vision...probalby true, but who cares. It was great story telling. And the writing was generally top notch. I remember when I rewatched it, being amazed that much of the long dominion arc started well before anyone thought a thing about the Dominion.

For me, about the only major strike against DS9, was the last half of the finale. The first half was great, but the 2nd half was much weaker. OTOH, despite a lackluster S7 of TNG, All Good Things was almost flawless (but I vaguely recall some issues with the time jumping aspect, but I no longer remember what my issue was with it).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
Sisko is bad ass, Lorca is just pathetically bad. Every Star Trek has been in line with Roddenberry's Star Trek. STD is a Bad Robot abomination that has nothing to do with Star Trek. And we certainly don't need nor, evidently, want whatever Lorca wanted to pass for a ST captain.
People said DS9 was not true to Gene's vision when it aired. It was too dark. There was too much internal conflict. But even if they were right, it doesn't change the fact that DS9 was the best Trek by a long shot. Frankly, they shouldn't have killed it when they did. They almost certainly had a couple more seasons of good stories to tell.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,537
People said DS9 was not true to Gene's vision when it aired.
I think that it did, but from a different perspective- from the 'edge of civilization', which is something that will always exist to a certain point.

You see what happens to young, naive officers as they come into contact with persistent violence and malice of enormous scale and how they are changed by it over the course of the show.

Of course, as a property, it was certainly darker.

As I said, I need to watch S2.
I'd recommend refraining from forming opinions until you do- the seasons should really be viewed as one, because they counter-point each other in many ways.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,708
How does having a bad ass captain violate Canon?

Just recognize that human nature is not reflected by the naive idealism of Roddenberry era Star Trek, and that Roddenberry era is NOT the only valid Star Trek. There is a contingent Trekkies that feel the same way about DS9 as they did about Lorca, that it isn't "real" Star Trek because it doesn't reflect naive Utopian idealism of Roddenberry era.
I honestly found the Roddenberry version of Trek unrealistic. A utopia with no problems, no currency and no poverty is completely unrealistic no matter how much technological advances you make. The nature of biology is such that if you have an overabundance of resources, everyone will reproduce to the point where it becomes scarce again. The Trek universe already proves that scarcity is still a reality for much of the galaxy outside of the Federation. I prefer a darker more action oriented version of Trek that blurs the lines of ethics and morality to better reflect reality.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,537
no currency and no poverty
Consider that food and shelter, even education are 'free', then what are people living for?

Also, I do believe that there's 'currency', just not physical currency, and privilege exists based largely on contributions, with Starfleet rank being an example. Obviously they can't expound too much on the economy or the charade falls apart, but it's not completely without basis or merit, I think.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
People said DS9 was not true to Gene's vision when it aired. It was too dark. There was too much internal conflict. But even if they were right, it doesn't change the fact that DS9 was the best Trek by a long shot. Frankly, they shouldn't have killed it when they did. They almost certainly had a couple more seasons of good stories to tell.
To me, the ultimate thing they need to get right is characters. This is where DS9 blows the next best two ST shows combined off the map.

So many great characters, that they could have drawn on them for more years. There were probably more good Cardassian characters alone on DS9, than there were good characters altogether, on any one of the other shows.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,537
There were probably more good Cardassian characters alone on DS9, than there were good characters altogether, on any one of the other shows.
Garak is my rewatch trigger for DS9. Actor was in nothing else, but he nailed that role completely.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,235
Garak is my rewatch trigger for DS9. Actor was in nothing else, but he nailed that role completely.
Garak is one of my favorite character on DS9. Dukat was fantastic too, a really awesome villain. Damar was quite good as his second. There was a really great episode where a Cardassian confessed to being a war Criminal, but it wasn't actually him. He just felt there needed to be closure. Don't know his name, but that guy was also great.
 

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,070
Garak is one of my favorite character on DS9. Dukat was fantastic too, a really awesome villain. Damar was quite good as his second. There was a really great episode where a Cardassian confessed to being a war Criminal, but it wasn't actually him. He just felt there needed to be closure. Don't know his name, but that guy was also great.
100% agreed on Garak. DS9 just keeps aging like fine wine. I personally think it now surpasses all other Treks in greatness.
 

PeaKr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
858
I've been waiting for DS9 on BD forever. It better get the same love as TNG. I dunno, the first few seasons of Voyager are weak but there are some gems in there. Once 7 of 9 gets on board it really picks up. TNG does have some weak characters, they could've left #1 out, but its a classic and well written. I can't watch much of TOS anymore, 'the trouble with tribbles', ugh, although a few are legendary like 'The Enterprise Incident'. For all the STE h8rz, I get it but don't forget about Shran you pink skins. Combs always nails his ST roles. He's good in other classics too, re-animator, dr. mordrid.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
To me, the ultimate thing they need to get right is characters. This is where DS9 blows the next best two ST shows combined off the map.

So many great characters, that they could have drawn on them for more years. There were probably more good Cardassian characters alone on DS9, than there were good characters altogether, on any one of the other shows.
I'm with you there, but they also had great writing. It started in Season 3, but once RD Moore came on board and the top brass left to concentrate on Voyager, DS9 took it up a gear. Whether it was mostly the writers or the lack of Berman's involvement, it worked, while to me Voyager rarely worked. I remember at the time thinking if they had 7 good episodes in a season it was a good one (or was it 1 out every 7 episodes was good?).

Looking back, I gotta think it's Berman, because aside from First Contact, every TNG movie was at best so-so. I'd like to see a kickstarter to do an HD version of DS9. I'll pay way too much money to support that effort.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,635
I've been waiting for DS9 on BD forever. It better get the same love as TNG. I dunno, the first few seasons of Voyager are weak but there are some gems in there. Once 7 of 9 gets on board it really picks up. TNG does have some weak characters, they could've left #1 out, but its a classic and well written. I can't watch much of TOS anymore, 'the trouble with tribbles', ugh, although a few are legendary like 'The Enterprise Incident'. For all the STE h8rz, I get it but don't forget about Shran you pink skins. Combs always nails his ST roles. He's good in other classics too, re-animator, dr. mordrid.
The studio won't do it because TNG didn't sell well on Blu Ray. As I said above, I'll pay big bucks to kickstart. I'll gladly hand over 700 bucks for the entire series. I'd prefer 4k, but I doubt they built the CGI to that level. I know that at least some of the CGI for later seasons was done well enough for 2k (there are videos on Youtube).

I think almost everyone involved with that show understands how great it was. Avery doesn't seem to have much interest in it, but I think he's the exception and that doesnt' mean he isn't proud of his work. If I was CBS, I'd do it and sell blu rays and make stream it exclusively on CBS All Access. I'd want the BR, but most would be happy to spend 10 bucks a month for a few months to rewatch the series...and then they might find other stuff to justify continuing the service. After a while, sell streaming rights to Amazon, Netflix and/or Hulu and syndicate it on networks too.
 

TMCM

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,389
S1 was outstanding. Lorca was the best!!! Season 2 of STD was mediocre. It seemed like some executives told the writers "Oh no the nerds are upset about mean Lorca and it doesn't have Spock in it so you better put that in the show"
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,196
Star Trek Discovery has given us the single greatest depiction of any star trek captain to date. Pike. That's right, I went there.


Star Trek Discovery's Captain Pike > Picard/Sisko/Kirk/Archer/Janeway

we got that in 2009 ST movie.. an awesome Captain Pike and a bit more in Into Darkness before they gave him the ax...
 
Top