"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,817
There are reasons why DS9 had the best characters. And I agree 100% that overall DS9 has the best character/cast. The simple reason is that it was a space station. They weren't traveling around the galaxy to see new and unknown things to take the highlight of the episode and therefore the characters had to be of a higher overall quality since they needed to carry more of the show. There is also the fact that the series was much more serial than TNG or TOS. Due to this nature the writing had to take into account the day to day dealings with the characters and how it would carry over to the episodes down the line. Additionally, the main cast was larger because the number of "distractions" compared to space exploration was much smaller. The emphasis due to the setting had to be on the characters to carry the show and this required more character development for more characters. For TOS and TNG this wasn't an issue because the same few characters could use small variations of the same character traits applied to differing situations and it didn't seem as repetitive because the situation and the background changes regularly. It was the exact opposite for DS9.

That all said, it took them a few seasons for DS9 and the characters to evolve into the great show it was. I didn't watch it first run simply because much of the first two seasons bored me and it wasn't what I was looking for in a Star Trek show. It wasn't until much later after the series was finished that I sat down to watch and re-watch the series that I enjoyed it.

But I still don't understand the love for Voyager. That show was so screwed up from the beginning. Like DS9 it was supposed to be a more serial show and should have had more focus on character development. While the scenery changed the focus was supposed to be small in nature and center on the ship and those aboard. Instead what we got was mostly monster of the week with little change overall. I don't think there was any significant character development outside of the holographic doctor. Even when they would toss in a good character development episode, the next week none of the development was there as if the character was reset back to factory settings. Everything which made DS9 good and should have been applied to Voyager was completely ignored. It's the reason why I've watched the series through once and have never gone back to it unlike any of the other finished Star Trek series.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,626
There are reasons why DS9 had the best characters. And I agree 100% that overall DS9 has the best character/cast. The simple reason is that it was a space station. They weren't traveling around the galaxy to see new and unknown things to take the highlight of the episode and therefore the characters had to be of a higher overall quality since they needed to carry more of the show.
I think everyone believes this first part. The rest may be true. But the Wormhole served as their exploratory equivalent of a starship. They did stay close to one planet during downtime. So it really was a mix.
 

Susquehannock

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
3,771
Having only seen s1 so far, can only comment on that. First few episodes were crap. Got a lot better by mid-season. Much like any other Trek series.

In my eyes worst part about this show is having 'Star Trek' in the title, and all the pre-conceptions and expectations that come along with it. Any particular reason the network could not use their resources to make something completely new instead? Do they really need to piggyback off an old series for viewership and story ideas?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Having only seen s1 so far, can only comment on that. First few episodes were crap. Got a lot better by mid-season. Much like any other Trek series.

In my eyes worst part about this show is having 'Star Trek' in the title, and all the pre-conceptions and expectations that come along with it. Any particular reason the network could not use their resources to make something completely new instead? Do they really need to piggyback off an old series for viewership and story ideas?

I much rather something new as well, that goes double when do prequels, so end trying up to make things Canon, and stuffing in fan-service cameos of old characters.

I also prefer Sci-Fi with lower tech level like BSG or The Expanse, where there are no magic transporters, and guns shoot bullets.
 

hurleybird

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
106
For me, season 1 started out somewhat meh, but turned into pretty enjoyable romp when they got to the mirror universe, but then ended with a truly horrific finale.

Season 2 started out a bit better, but then got worse with each episode with surprising speed. I'd actually place Season 2 of STD lower than season 8 of GoT, but at least in the case of the former I think there's a good chance that some weird stuff happened behind the scenes so that writing of later episodes was being done in parallel with shooting of earlier ones, ultimately leading to an illogical mess. Maybe that's an excuse?
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,262
For me, season 1 started out somewhat meh, but turned into pretty enjoyable romp when they got to the mirror universe, but then ended with a truly horrific finale.

Season 2 started out a bit better, but then got worse with each episode with surprising speed. I'd actually place Season 2 of STD lower than season 8 of GoT, but at least in the case of the former I think there's a good chance that some weird stuff happened behind the scenes so that writing of later episodes was being done in parallel with shooting of earlier ones, ultimately leading to an illogical mess. Maybe that's an excuse?

I liked season 2 better except where Tilly won a half marathon.

And the finale’s battle was horrible. The battle scene itself was stupid, how they got there was stupid, and they literally could have just jumped anywhere in space and time to protect what must be protected. Instead they decided to get gaped?
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
There are reasons why DS9 had the best characters. And I agree 100% that overall DS9 has the best character/cast. The simple reason is that it was a space station. They weren't traveling around the galaxy to see new and unknown things to take the highlight of the episode and therefore the characters had to be of a higher overall quality since they needed to carry more of the show. There is also the fact that the series was much more serial than TNG or TOS. Due to this nature the writing had to take into account the day to day dealings with the characters and how it would carry over to the episodes down the line. Additionally, the main cast was larger because the number of "distractions" compared to space exploration was much smaller. The emphasis due to the setting had to be on the characters to carry the show and this required more character development for more characters. For TOS and TNG this wasn't an issue because the same few characters could use small variations of the same character traits applied to differing situations and it didn't seem as repetitive because the situation and the background changes regularly. It was the exact opposite for DS9.

Maybe a little, but really the space station was a destination. So instead of going to a new planet each week, characters from others places came to them. I enjoyed it from day one, but S1 wasn't the greatest. But I think S2 was pretty good. S3 is when it became the best Trek on TV (better than TNG was in s7). ultimately, I think it was better because of Behr, RD Moore and the lack of involvement by Berman and other big wigs. It was the redheaded stepchild that htey ignored and that allowed them to crush it.

It's common today, but back then have huge story arks was only seen on soaps. I don't htink that woud have happened if Berman had been more inolved with it, instead of Voyager.


But I still don't understand the love for Voyager. That show was so screwed up from the beginning. Like DS9 it was supposed to be a more serial show and should have had more focus on character development. While the scenery changed the focus was supposed to be small in nature and center on the ship and those aboard. Instead what we got was mostly monster of the week with little change overall. I don't think there was any significant character development outside of the holographic doctor. Even when they would toss in a good character development episode, the next week none of the development was there as if the character was reset back to factory settings. Everything which made DS9 good and should have been applied to Voyager was completely ignored. It's the reason why I've watched the series through once and have never gone back to it unlike any of the other finished Star Trek series.

Voyager should have been called Star Trek: Gilligan's island. They had an interesting premise where they werne't going to have all the stuff that you have on most trek shows. Scarce resourrces and so on, but it immediately turned into Gilligan. FFS, they could have easilly gotten home in Ep 1 and they didn't. And then after all that, the last episode was pathetically bad.
Most of the good episodes took place on the holodeck, where they weren't stuck playing Giligan's Island.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
Having only seen s1 so far, can only comment on that. First few episodes were crap. Got a lot better by mid-season. Much like any other Trek series.

In my eyes worst part about this show is having 'Star Trek' in the title, and all the pre-conceptions and expectations that come along with it. Any particular reason the network could not use their resources to make something completely new instead? Do they really need to piggyback off an old series for viewership and story ideas?
Same reason why Billy Corgan quickly abandoned being a solo artist and started calling his band Smashin Pumpkins. Branding matters.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,166
Voyager should have been called Star Trek: Gilligan's island. They had an interesting premise where they werne't going to have all the stuff that you have on most trek shows. Scarce resourrces and so on, but it immediately turned into Gilligan. FFS, they could have easilly gotten home in Ep 1 and they didn't. And then after all that, the last episode was pathetically bad.

Yes, but you see... it was character growth over 7 seasons! Heh. That first episode morality debate was an amusing one. Then you have the Qazon sillyness that followed that season or later the Equinox episodes. The irony of DS9 doing better because of Behr and Moore was that Moore thought he could do a better voyager type story with BSG and ultimately utterly failed with that show for some of the same reasons Voyager did.
 

JMCB

Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
533
Same reason why Billy Corgan quickly abandoned being a solo artist and started calling his band Smashin Pumpkins. Branding matters.

They tried that with the first few seasons of "Enterprise". After the first two seasons, they tried adding 'Star Trek' back on to it, but it was already on life support.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
Yes, but you see... it was character growth over 7 seasons! Heh. That first episode morality debate was an amusing one. Then you have the Qazon sillyness that followed that season or later the Equinox episodes. The irony of DS9 doing better because of Behr and Moore was that Moore thought he could do a better voyager type story with BSG and ultimately utterly failed with that show for some of the same reasons Voyager did.

I think BSG largely succeeded and much like the Bajor conflict in TNG (and possibly in DS9 too) appeared to reflect the balkan war (at least that's what it reminded me of at the time), part of BSG clearly flipped the Iraq and Afghanistan wars around, where you rooted for the terrorists. I'll add, I don't really think BSG is like Voyager at all.

Moore's other show, Outlander is largely a success, though I hated the over reliance on narration in the first season (possibly the first 2). I felt like they didn't do enough work converting necessary narration within a book to something more cinematic, but most I know who read the books had no problem with it.

They tried that with the first few seasons of "Enterprise". After the first two seasons, they tried adding 'Star Trek' back on to it, but it was already on life support.
The name really wasn't the issue with Enterprise. Up until the last season, the show was pretty meh. It's a shame the cancelled it just as it started getting interesting.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
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.

Absolutely. I could barely stand the Tilly centered episodes at the start of Season 2. Not sure who the worst Star Trek character is but she's definitely top 5. That's pretty high on the list considering how many horrible characters we've had on these shows lol
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,622
Everything has progressive political agenda, I miss the days of good movies or series where a person's identity didn't matter, only the content.

I have boycotted Endgame, Ms Marvel, X Ma'am,Catma'am or star wars, at least captain holdo door is dead.
 

Fifliffl

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
138
Great news. I gotta say I thought season 1 was hit and miss. Season 2 started off kind of weak but then got so much better. I really enjoyed the halfway point to the finale. Captain Pike was great.


The change in writing staff was so noticeable. I am so glad they fired the previous crew that was taking the fun out of trek.
 

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,711
I'm gonna drag out the horse that shall not be beaten again. Comparing the different flavors of Star Trek is fine, it shows we care about science fiction television. And comparing the quality of the Star Trek universe to the other space-based science fiction shows (like Battlestar Galactica, Orville, Stargate and the Expanse) is all fine, because it shows that there is an interest in science fiction television and we, the consumers, really do want more.

But I believe that every time anyone, anywhere (at any time), discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a Star Trek series then someone should find the people who were responsible for canceling Firefly and light them on fire.
 
Last edited:

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,384
Great another season I won't get to see because I refuse to pay for CBS all access. I suppose I could torrent them but that takes a smidge of effort. Maybe Netflix will get them eventually if they ever release on disc.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,197
I find it strange that you 'muricans have to subscribe to CBS all access when it airs on the Sci-Fi channel here in the great white north.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
Everything has progressive political agenda, I miss the days of good movies or series where a person's identity didn't matter, only the content.

I have boycotted Endgame, Ms Marvel, X Ma'am,Catma'am or star wars, at least captain holdo door is dead.
I guess you never watched Star Trek before, because it was always a progressive show. Hell, DS9 and/or TNG had episodes that were clearly a commentary on the balkan war and how one man's terrorist is another mans patriot. BSG did something very similar, though it was commenting on the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan....and virtually ever who is anti-terrorist in real life was rooting for the terrorists on those shows.

Welcome to the world of Science Fiction, which has almost always been political.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
I find it strange that you 'muricans have to subscribe to CBS all access when it airs on the Sci-Fi channel here in the great white north.
It's on Netflix in most places. I think the USA and Canada are the main (only?) exceptions.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,216
It's on Netflix in most places. I think the USA and Canada are the main (only?) exceptions.

This is correct. The deal that CBS struck with Netflix was for the latter to have worldwide distribution with domestic distribution being handled by CBS All Access. The original Season 1 deal essentially had Netflix pay the entire production cost for Star Trek Discovery's first season. Evidently, the distribution didn't change but Netflix didn't pay as much for season 2.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
This is correct. The deal that CBS struck with Netflix was for the latter to have worldwide distribution with domestic distribution being handled by CBS All Access. The original Season 1 deal essentially had Netflix pay the entire production cost for Star Trek Discovery's first season. Evidently, the distribution didn't change but Netflix didn't pay as much for season 2.
Wow. I didn't know that. I wish Netflix was in charge, because they'd be filming it in 4K with HDR. I honestly don't know why CBS isn't doing that. The future is now, and it's not SDR 2k.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,216
Wow. I didn't know that. I wish Netflix was in charge, because they'd be filming it in 4K with HDR. I honestly don't know why CBS isn't doing that. The future is now, and it's not SDR 2k.

Netflix has virtually no input on it. However, its poor performance on both streaming services is why they didn't want to shoulder the cost of Season 2 alone.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,710
Netflix has virtually no input on it. However, its poor performance on both streaming services is why they didn't want to shoulder the cost of Season 2 alone.
where did you read performance is poor? I did a quick search and didn't come up with anything other than discussions of the show (i.e. reviews).
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,409
But I believe that every time anyone, anywhere (at any time), discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a Star Trek series then someone should find the people who were responsible for canceling Firefly and light them on fire.

Fire is too good for that lot, toss them into a giant pile of fire ants I say.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
I'm gonna drag out the horse that shall not be beaten again. Comparing the different flavors of Star Trek is fine, it shows we care about science fiction television. And comparing the quality of the Star Trek universe to the other space-based science fiction shows (like Battlestar Galactica, Orville, Stargate and the Expanse) is all fine, because it shows that there is an interest in science fiction television and we, the consumers, really do want more.

But I believe that every time anyone, anywhere (at any time), discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a Star Trek series then someone should find the people who were responsible for canceling Firefly and light them on fire.

Yeah, Firefly was a good show, no idea why they cancelled it.
 

demondrops

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
422
This show makes me think of Supergirl, The Green Arrow, The Flash ++.. There is a fine line between over the top cringey emotions running wild all the time you know. Atleast melissa benoist is very cute but i really just watched cause i had nothing better to do. green arrow was great first 2 seasons, so was the flash but there is a special recipie for these shows, especially CW shows how they work, and this star trek seems like it follow that recipie, super predictable, emotions running wild I find it funny how they constantly in seemingly very time pressed situations always find the room for some sentimental crap. the new movies are great there is a good balance and the plots are for the most part interesting.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
This show makes me think of Supergirl, The Green Arrow, The Flash ++.. There is a fine line between over the top cringey emotions running wild all the time you know. Atleast melissa benoist is very cute but i really just watched cause i had nothing better to do. green arrow was great first 2 seasons, so was the flash but there is a special recipie for these shows, especially CW shows how they work, and this star trek seems like it follow that recipie, super predictable, emotions running wild I find it funny how they constantly in seemingly very time pressed situations always find the room for some sentimental crap. the new movies are great there is a good balance and the plots are for the most part interesting.

I started watching Supergirl and initially, it was pretty good. Then they started doing the SJW and racism crap and I completely lost interest after that. However, I enjoyed the Green Arrow and The Flash, they did have good character interaction.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,507
Yeah, Firefly was a good show, no idea why they cancelled it.

It was a victim of corporate shenanigans.

I remember reading about Fox having an executive change during the post production of Firefly, and the prior executive was the one that green lit the project. As part of throwing the previous guy under the bus they made sure firefly tanked, it was aired out of order, its time-slot was bumped around without notice, and it was run against popular sports matches where possible. It lines up because I remember being quite frustrated trying to follow it and eventually giving up thinking it was lame. Wasnt until the dvd release that I actually saw it in full.
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,339
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).

I concur with this. The Lora part 1 story was pretty good. I liked how there were some not-so-starfleet decisions he made when fighting the klingons. I would have preferred all of season one just be about the war, and him straddling the line between doing what it took to win, and abiding by starfleet rules. But they went and messed it up with that alt universe bs and quickly killed him off in a lame fashion. The second half of season 1 was meh to say the least. None of the cast were as good as Lorca in part 1 of the season.

The spore drive was...eh. I could take it or leave it. Just some of this technology was wayyy too advanced for when the series was supposedly taking place.

Pike was actually a pretty good character in my opinion. Spock wasn't in it very much, season 2 was a little better than the second half of season 1. Those klingons though... they're awful, and every time they are on the screen they totally take me out of it. They don't look, act, sound like what people have known for 30-ish years. Their ships are different, their clothes, this could have been easily resolved if they had called them anything else but klingons. That whole Ash Tyler thing, with..his mind being in Voq's body modified to look like Ash??? I'm not sure, the whole thing about him was too confusing to figure out. They showed Voq being operated on or something, but thats the extent of it.

Section 31 was kind of meh to me. In the previous series, hardly anyone knew about it.. in this series however, the best kept secret was actually the worst lol. EVERYONE knew about the 'top secret' section 31 and talked about it with seemingly full knowledge of what they were actually doing at section 31. Ugh.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
It was a victim of corporate shenanigans.

I remember reading about Fox having an executive change during the post production of Firefly, and the prior executive was the one that green lit the project. As part of throwing the previous guy under the bus they made sure firefly tanked, it was aired out of order, its time-slot was bumped around without notice, and it was run against popular sports matches where possible. It lines up because I remember being quite frustrated trying to follow it and eventually giving up thinking it was lame. Wasnt until the dvd release that I actually saw it in full.

This is one of those times where I would want to like this post and dislike it at the same time, because of the content. :( That show and the Serenity movie where actually quite good, and the character interaction was top notch, at least to me, oh well.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
Season 2 is better than 1 for sure. TNG didn't really take off until season 3 anyways. But my gripe with DSC is that I don't care for the serialization. DS9 had a fantastic story but it moved heavily towards serialization later on which is great for first time watching but really ruins watching them again. Any random TNG and VOY pisode is usually great for watching but I can't think of a single DSC or DS9 episode that really stands out to re-watch due to serialization.

That's where the whole TV series industry has moved. Very few shows still have individual episodes that stand on their own. I kind of like it most of the time. It allows them to have a much larger story arc. It becomes almost akin to reading a novel.

I agree with both sides of this. In the 60-80's a two part ep. often felt like forced or unnatural pacing in just about any sci-fi show. Some were fun be they often felt odd. Serialization does allow for a more natural pace to tell a story but it's not without problems. Downside for our family is sometimes you'd like to sit down and just watch an episode that isn't involved or dependent on some seasonal or even multi-season arc or carrying all the drama of such drawn out stories. DS9 a tough watch for us. I appreciate the quality of effort that went into it but I often would love to watch a marathon of the stand alone episodes. Same goes for Enterprise in the later seasons. Sounds like DSC has similar issues. We felt the same for X Files too. The conspiracy stuff was great but the 'monster of the week' episodes were our favorites. I also feel this way about Supernatural. There's a lot of shows I could go on about this with but bottom line is like a bit of both and appreciate when a show has a balance and isn't one sided on either.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,409
I thought that season 2 was meh at best, it was better than one and It had some decent story lines and occasional compitent writing mixed in with stupidity and garbage writing.

The whole Spock arc was crap in my opinion, but the whole Micheal/magic Vulcan/Spocks sister thing was already crap in the first season.

I liked the Pike character, and think the show as a whole would have been better if they sidelined Michaels character and had him more in the front.
 

Kinsaras

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3,614
Yeah, Firefly was a good show, no idea why they cancelled it.

Ratings but that was mostly due to FOX.

They had it on a Friday night timeslot. Remember this was before the TiVO revolution. Friday night was where shows go to die, not start. Also the same timeslot where sports pre-empted over it. You go to turn into some space cowboy adventures and get football instead. FOX also aired episodes out of order screwing up all the character development.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,050
Ratings but that was mostly due to FOX.

They had it on a Friday night timeslot. Remember this was before the TiVO revolution. Friday night was where shows go to die, not start. Also the same timeslot where sports pre-empted over it. You go to turn into some space cowboy adventures and get football instead. FOX also aired episodes out of order screwing up all the character development.

Oh for sure. If it were to have come out now and with streaming services the way they are, it would have thrived IMO.
 
Top