"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Mar 3, 2019.

  1. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,352
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Exactly this. It was a mess.

    I tried to watch Firefox when it was first broadcast.

    But out of order and pre-empted, I thought it was just "meh". Later a friend loaned me the DVDs, I binged it, and then thought it was fantastic.

    Firefly is the perfect example of how to kill a good show with scheduling nonsense. Though that would happen less today with all the viewing/streaming options.
     
  2. owned66

    owned66 n00b

    Messages:
    43
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Did any one really like discovery ?

    I binged watched Every startrek 2 years back .it had a specific theme while this series feels like it's trying to recreate the expanse badly.
     
  3. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,511
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    it would of done fine in 2002 when it released if it was on any other channel at the time, it probably would of ended up doing 4 or 5 seasons.. but fox did everything they possibly could to tank the ratings since they were stuck in the original contract to do 15 episodes. but ultimately it become popular later on after it was cancelled did even more harm since the original producers were trying to buy the show rights from fox and even 10+ years later are still trying to buy show rights since all the original actors still want to bring the show back but won't do it under the fox banner.
     
    IdiotInCharge and Darunion like this.
  4. reaper12

    reaper12 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,285
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    In today's world, the original Star Trek would get a very poor reception. Star Trek, the Next Generation would have never been renewed past the 2nd season. Star Voyager and Enterprise would have never seen the light of day.

    We are looking back on these shows now through rose tinted glasses and a whole lot of nostalgia as well. There were a lot of very poor episodes on those shows, a lot of mistakes and terrible acting. The episode format helped these older shows too. For the most part everything was solved in the course of the episode and then moved onto the next adventure. Whereas With Discovery the problem they are solving is spread over the season which makes it harder to separate the good episodes from the bad.

    In regards to Firefly, what a terrible mistake it was to cancel that show. It can't be remade, they will never get that unique blend of cast and story together again.
     
  5. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    You are describing television as a whole there plenty of things that gets stuck in the time they were produced some genres are more sensitive to time then others.

    There is plenty of TV with bad acting today in any genre.
     
  6. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,470
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    On the other hand, Discovery is pure garbage at every point of the space-time continuum.
     
    Skyblue likes this.
  7. reaper12

    reaper12 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,285
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Which is your opinion and others will agree with you, Others won't.

    I think it's ok and it's getting better, season 2 was better than season 1.
     
  8. reaper12

    reaper12 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,285
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    erm? what? I am just purely talking about Star Trek. We forgive the Original Star Trek and TNG for all the terrible acting, bad stories, plot loopholes, bad science and all that other crap because we are looking back at them in their entirety and a lot of emotion. The first two seasons of TNG were saved because of the Episode with Q and the Borg.
     
  9. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,352
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    There was some bad acting from the secondary players, but for the main character there is no comparison at all. Patrick Stewart's worse acting across the entire series would/should shame the best Sonequa Martin-Green moment by an order of magnitude. It's Stewart that held TNG together. It's Martin-Green that destroys Discovery.


    It can't get to tolerable levels of better until they kill off Michael Burnham. Terrible character, terribly written, terribly acted, and she's is the main character, so ruined show.

    While that is the most glaring problem, I think most of Discovery is dreck.

    It feels like a committee designed season 2 for fan service: "Throw in Spock, everyone loves Spock", "Give Klingons hair again, that will make the nerds happy", "throw in Pike, a nod to the TOS fans"...

    The whole series feels like it was a bunch of bullet points in a slide presentation, followed up with weak writing, trying to connect them.
     
    hurleybird likes this.
  10. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,910
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    That is the key problem with Discovery, up until now Star Trek was about an ensemble cast, not a singular hero.
     
  11. PeaKr

    PeaKr Gawd

    Messages:
    724
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    A big problem today is the cut throat attitudes of tv execs. If a show doesn't draw enough audience at specific age groups its over. rather than build up a story and characters gradually they're written in with heaps of shock and awe off the bat and slathered with ideologies. For sci-fi to work you need believable characters with relateable problems since you are asking people to believe in warp tech, phasers and mind melds. Dizzy Florez is believable. Ripley's arc works, she goes from emotionally wrecked space miner to ass kickin warrior and we're shown how, not choked with cliched sub plots and high T females.
     
    dgz and Skyblue like this.
  12. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,352
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    IMO, whatever the Genre, it is Characters, Characters, Characters.... (cue Steve Balmer).

    Well developed, believable characters are key (I would throw in charismatic/compelling). Every show I ever really liked had great characters. That is from "The Wire", to "DS9", to "Firefly" to "Deadwood", to "Justified" to "Westworld S1" to "Breaking Bad", to "BSG", to "GoT"...

    It's characters that you can't look away from, that you will dearly miss when gone.

    Discovery has the opposite of that. I want to fast forward through Burnham scenes. She is the Wesley Crusher of Discovery(and miscast lead), and the best characters are already off the show (Lorca, Pike).

    Too often SciFi tries to skip on characters, and fall back on nerd tropes, instead having "good enough" characters for SciFi, like SciFi watchers will put up with lower quality characters to get some SciFi. :(
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  13. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    261
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    I couldn't agree more. Do give Babylon 5 a go. Its got the best characters in scifi. And the best arcs. Nothing short of amazing.
     
  14. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,318
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    They still have Georgiou and Saru. Those two absolutely have potential. All they need is to not turn them to shit.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  15. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,608
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    They have robot-chick replacement too, and as a blond, she's pretty cute.

    With respect to Burnham, I think it's important to remember that she wasn't meant to be likable, initially. Her character was written to be broken, and one of the enduring and endearing themes of Star Trek is learning what it means to be human by way of non-human examples. The times where Burnham showed her humanity were the times that the actress shined and I expect that to be more the case going forward.

    And, as we've had a few vacancies, we can probably expect new 'guest star arcs'.
     
  16. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,318
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    My wife was just complaining about the writing of Burnham's character over dinner. The actress is good but in the end she's just a mouthpiece for the people running the show. Season 2 was in that department.

    What about the rest of the crew, though? The best they could hope for is to report shield levels during battle. I know there isn't enough time for everyone but they seem to have plenty of minutes for Tilly's feelings on science and broken gay doctor's hearts.
     
  17. hurleybird

    hurleybird [H]Lite

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Sadly, I think that's been the case for Georgiou since at least midway into S2. Saru on the other hand, seems much more resilient to crappy writing if only by virtue of Doug Jones' tremendous acting talent.
     
  18. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,352
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    That was off the top of my head, so of course there were show omissions. I really like B5 as well. Londo and especially G'Kar were real standouts for me, though most of the rest were serviceable. But at least there were no Wesley Crushers or Michael Burnhams. ;)

    For whatever reason, "Enterprise" popped into my head. That was also pretty bad, but I Want them to do some kind of "Andorian Tales" show, staring Shran. He was awesome.
     
  19. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,352
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    I almost brought up Saru, he was the main standout of the regular cast for me. Even better now that they got rid of the pop out ganglia gimmick when he senses death or gets scared.

    Georgiou is OK, if a little over the top, but still fine.
     
  20. hurleybird

    hurleybird [H]Lite

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012