Star Trek Discovery - Season 3 [Spoilers]

[dehro]

Well, yes, but the difference is Ivanova is always right...



It's streaming on HBO Max starting on the 26th, so wish granted!

I've heard they've upsampled the resolution and restored the original 4:3 format, so I'm looking forward to revisiting the show myself. (Love the show, but the zoomed in CGI on my DVDs gets harder on the eyes every time I go back)

I'll have to look for it elsewhere..not sure HBO max is available here without a vpn proxi..and I don't really want to just for B5
thanks for the info though ;)

[Psyren]

Except she's not the captain...

Irrelevant - part of the point of the series is that she's captain material, but neither Discovery itself nor this continuity's Starfleet have ever been in a stable enough position to recognize that. (Until now.) She herself also had some personal demons to deal with before she felt ready for the chair, unrelated to her technical competencies.

that said, the way she's scripted...
She's much more the standout hero of the show than anybody else was in any previous iteration of Star Trek.. where team effort was often more central, and many characters got their moment to shine.
the 360 degree of competence/excellence of pretty much every bridge crew member in TOS and TNG has always annoyed the crap out of me... and it's been quite a while since I've seen any of those episodes, but I am fairly sure that most of the people on those crews got several moments of individual character development and glory, with the spotlight entirely upon them. (more so in TNG)
This is occasionally done in Discovery too, but to a much lesser degree, and then often for characters on the way out... or as a way to further Michael's "told you so".
pretty much every major thing goes through Michael and very rarely is it a team thing.
More importantly however, she routinely goes against authority, against her training, against everybody else's opinion (sometimes because everybody else has purposefully been handed the idiot ball).. occasionally without real knowledge or assurance that her intuition, decision or choice is right..and then goes all in and commits everybody else to it.. and nobody calls her on it to any real degree.. ok, she was demoted..for.. 2 episodes?

In a perfect world, I would have liked more development and dedicated episodes for characters like Detmer and Bryce prior to this season too. But Discovery doesn't have the luxury of an episodic, dedicated timeslot, monster-of-the-week format like prior Trek did. They had an overarching plot to tell and precious little time to get through it. Fleshing out a smaller core of main cast members like Saru, Tilly, Stamets and Georgiou was a more effective strategy in the long run.

There really are moments in this show where I just wished that the admiral, ruler, king or whatever just turned to her and said something to the effect of "I'm sorry.. why are you talking? in fact..who even let you in this room and why are you not at your desk when I speak to your captain?"

of course, she's the hero of the show and she happens to in the end be always right. it is a bit lazy, to be honest.

She's not "always right," this is a ridiculous meme.

Spoiler

Show

The show opens with her biggest regret/blunder. Her gamble with the vulcan logic debate failed, and they only got the data they needed because of her mother very publicly humiliating and dressing her down in front of the president of Ni'var. Her plans are brilliant, but often have unintended consequences that other characters have to bail her out of (if they don't just get killed, e.g. Airiam and Landry.)

Yes, she ultimately wins in the end because protagonist, but you keep counting that as a negative against her when every other captain (fine, "main character") in the series' history has both gambled with and gotten away with far more. Sisko was the chosen one of an alien prophecy, Picard routinely caught the personal attention of a godlike entity (and was ALSO a prophesied chosen one) and Janeway has saved her crew solo more times than I can count. If Burnham being a hero bothers you so much more than all the other examples of such throughout Trek history, it might be good to reflect on exactly why that is.

[Maelstrom]

Great last episode *except*... what was going on with the turbolift? Are we to believe there is *that* much open space in the Discovery in between/around decks? Or is the Discovery actually the The Tardis?

[Dire_Flumph]

Yes, she ultimately wins in the end because protagonist, but you keep counting that as a negative against her when every other captain (fine, "main character") in the series' history has both gambled with and gotten away with far more. Sisko was the chosen one of an alien prophecy, Picard routinely caught the personal attention of a godlike entity (and was ALSO a prophesied chosen one) and Janeway has saved her crew solo more times than I can count. If Burnham being a hero bothers you so much more than all the other examples of such throughout Trek history, it might be good to reflect on exactly why that is.

I'll point out that Michael is the focus of Discovery far more than any of the characters you mention are the focus of their shows. I didn't like Janeway as a character very much, but the show would just as often focus on Tuvok, Torres, Paris, Seven or the Doctor who were characters I did like so that wasn't a problem. Discovery is much less of an ensemble show and while it's personal preference, I don't feel that Michael is interesting enough to earn the spotlight she's been given.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Yes, she ultimately wins in the end because protagonist, but you keep counting that as a negative against her when every other captain (fine, "main character") in the series' history has both gambled with and gotten away with far more.

This is the core discrepancy. As the main protagonist, Michael has the narrative force equivalent to what we’ve seen from captains in previous series—but Michael is not the captain of Discovery, and that disconnect causes many of the issues that have been mentioned.

I would call this something of a narrative legacy effect. Trek is used to having its main characters be captains, but they wanted this series to be different by telling the story from the perspective of a junior officer. Which is fine, except they ended up investing her with the narrative authority of a captain, which translates to giving her actual captain's authority without any service rationale for exercising it.

Originally Posted by Maelstrom
Are we to believe there is *that* much open space in the Discovery in between/around decks? Or is the Discovery actually the The Tardis?

You know, I had this exact reaction the first time I saw the turbolift cruising around. If there’s that much open space inside the Discovery, you might as well skip the rails and simply have the turbolift as a self-propelled travel pod. Another case of dramatic CGI effects over common sense.

Originally Posted by Dire_Flumph
Discovery is much less of an ensemble show and while it's personal preference, I don't feel that Michael is interesting enough to earn the spotlight she's been given.

I agree that Discovery is less of an ensemble, and I think it’s the weaker for it. I went through all of Season One with the feeling that Detmer, Airiam and all the others were just window dressing. It wasn’t until Season Two that we realized Detmer actually has a hilarious personality, as well as a thoughtful story of struggle and acceptance. There are hints of that earlier—she doesn’t try to hide her enhancement—but giving us more of that story in the first season would have made it a far richer experience.

As for Michael, I’d say that she’s interesting enough, but not inherently pivotal enough for the spotlight without a great deal of contrivance. From the first moment it came up, I was nonplussed that she was Spock’s adoptive sister who has somehow never been mentioned before now. To me that is utterly forced and completely unbelievable, and only James Fraim made it bearable from moment to moment.

.

[JadedDM]

Great last episode *except*... what was going on with the turbolift? Are we to believe there is *that* much open space in the Discovery in between/around decks? Or is the Discovery actually the The Tardis?

Actually, yes. I believe that was meant as a subtle reference to Enterprise. In the episode, "Future Tense," the crew of Enterprise discover a small craft that appears to be from the 31st century. One of the discoveries about it is that it was 'bigger on the inside.'



Seeing as how Discovery now takes place in the 32nd century, a hundred years later, it makes sense that many starships have this technology, and since Discovery got a bunch of upgrades (like the detaching nacelles), it stands to reason that might be one, too.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by JadedDM
Actually, yes. I believe that was meant as a subtle reference to Enterprise.

Interesting, because my comments and reaction were based on seeing the turbolift rushing through vast internal spaces in Seasons One and Two, before whatever upgrades Discovery received in Season Three.

Has it gotten even bigger in Season Three?

[JadedDM]

Interesting, because my comments and reaction were based on seeing the turbolift rushing through vast internal spaces in Seasons One and Two, before whatever upgrades Discovery received in Season Three.

Has it gotten even bigger in Season Three?

I was responding to Maelstrom's comment about the third season finale.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Was the turbolift interior shown in seasons 1 and 2? If so, I have no memory of it.

[Psyren]

I'll point out that Michael is the focus of Discovery far more than any of the characters you mention are the focus of their shows. I didn't like Janeway as a character very much, but the show would just as often focus on Tuvok, Torres, Paris, Seven or the Doctor who were characters I did like so that wasn't a problem.

I covered that; when you have to fill a required timeslot for X number of episodes, and a very flabby show structure with little to no overarching plot and where the episodes are designed for reruns/syndication where they can be shown out of order more often than not, chopping up the spotlight among the ensemble is not just more feasible, it's a downright necessity. That kind of show structure doesn't work (or at least, hasn't been shown to work) for a streaming model.

This is the core discrepancy. As the main protagonist, Michael has the narrative force equivalent to what we’ve seen from captains in previous series—but Michael is not the captain of Discovery, and that disconnect causes many of the issues that have been mentioned.

I would call this something of a narrative legacy effect. Trek is used to having its main characters be captains, but they wanted this series to be different by telling the story from the perspective of a junior officer. Which is fine, except they ended up investing her with the narrative authority of a captain, which translates to giving her actual captain's authority without any service rationale for exercising it.

I would turn this 'narrative legacy' viewpoint on its head. Why were the captains the ones constantly risking their lives on away missions, bucking Starfleet's authority, and getting their hands dirty? It's not like Mass Effect where the leader also happens to be far and away the most capable fighter on the vessel. If anything, more of the series should have focused on the XO's exploits than just this outing. Yes, the Captain getting captured or trapped on an away mission is an easy source of drama, but we've established that a Starfleet vessel would bend over backwards even to get their Counselor or Wesley out of harm's way, so it doesn't really do anything except make most of those captains look a lot more foolhardy than the likes of Saru, Pike, or even Lorca.

So the fact that Burnham got more focus despite not being a captain doesn't matter an iota to me.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by JadedDM
Was the turbolift interior shown in seasons 1 and 2? If so, I have no memory of it.

Several times during the first two seasons, we're treated to an outside view of the turbolift as it shuttles through guiderails suspended in a truly vast, mainly open superstructure.

My reaction when I saw this was the same as Maelstroms: "Seriously, is this the Tardis?" It's a colossal space to fit anywhere within the volume of the Discovery, much less between decks or compartments.

It seems to follow the same "logic" as the second-season finale, in which hundreds of fighters pour out of the Enterprise's shuttle bay without regard for how much volume is actually available. We had a number of good views of the shuttle bay in TOS, and there's room for only a handful of standard shuttles. Turning the Enterprise into an aircraft carrier, with no rationale for how they stored that many fighters or their pilots, is just more frosting on the layer cake of ridiculous.

[dehro]

I wouldn't be bothered by her not being the captain either...if the captain and the rest of the crew got half as much screen time as she got.
this show is called Star Trek Discovery... but it might as well be called the story of Michael Burnham.
that, at the core, is the main gripe I have with it.

As for Discovery not having the luxury of a dedicated timeslot... that's the choice of the creators, who decided to revolve the story around her. Discovery is also not the first Star Trek iteration to deal with an overarching plot. It is possible to write complicated overarching plots that still give time to an ensemble cast to feel like an ensemble and not like hangers on to the coattails of the main protagonist.

You chose to focus on the "always right" portion of my observation, which I agree is debatable... I am more annoyed by the fact that she was front and center always, and regularly part of conversations where she should not even have been in the room. Her being always right in the end, in the context of that observation, is the plot excuse for having her be part of conversations that should normally not involve her directly. I just don't think it's a valid excuse.

She's more of a Mary Sue than pretty much anyone we've seen in this franchise except maybe Wesley Crusher.

[Psyren]

I have yet to see that term used for anything beyond "female character I don't like." It's practically a Godwin at this point, shutting down any rational discussion.

Yes, not being monster-of-the-week was the showrunners' choice, but the alternative would have been pretty unwatchable in this day and age, so I don't see it being much of a choice at all.

[dehro]

I have yet to see that term used for anything beyond "female character I don't like." It's practically a Godwin at this point, shutting down any rational discussion.

not my issue.. If she'd been a guy I'd have said Gary Stu.
trying to reduce my arguments to me disliking her because she's a woman...I'm sure there's a name for it.
that said, if that's the avenue you want to derail this discussion in, you'll have to walk down it on your own. I've simply stated my gripes with the show, a show that I like despite those gripes. Clearly you disagree. Let's agree to that and move on.

[Psyren]

She's no more competent than any other main character in a Star Trek show. She's better at hand-to-hand since they can actually choreograph a proper fight scene now instead of skipping it with a neck pinch, but it's not hard to imagine that Starfleet Academy was always meant to include that kind of training too. So yes, I do believe the "Mary Sue" label is shorthand for "I don't like her and can't adequately articulate why."

[dehro]

She's no more competent than any other main character in a Star Trek show. She's better at hand-to-hand since they can actually choreograph a proper fight scene now instead of skipping it with a neck pinch, but it's not hard to imagine that Starfleet Academy was always meant to include that kind of training too. So yes, I do believe the "Mary Sue" label is shorthand for "I don't like her and can't adequately articulate why."

English is not my first language, but I believe I've articulated it quite clearly, and I'm not alone in this. I don't dislike her.. I dislike that the whole show revolves around her rather than the team.
I dislike that Discovery is, as I said in my last post, functionally the story of Michael Burnham instead of the story of the Discovery.
Again, you might not share my opinion, and that's perfectly fine, but please don't try to insult my intelligence by selectively picking what you react to and what you decide to ignore and put intentions and meanings to my words that are clearly not there.
I'm not going to reply any further, if that's what you insist on doing.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
She's no more competent than any other main character in a Star Trek show.

With Seasons One and Two still fresh in my mind, I’d say she’s hypercompetent. She’s an ace pilot, a master spy, a xenoanthropologist and an all-around genius at science, not to mention seat-of-the-pants temporal navigation with untested technology. All she needs is a red plom bloom on her lapel.

[Psyren]

English is not my first language, but I believe I've articulated it quite clearly, and I'm not alone in this. I don't dislike her.. I dislike that the whole show revolves around her rather than the team.
I dislike that Discovery is, as I said in my last post, functionally the story of Michael Burnham instead of the story of the Discovery.
Again, you might not share my opinion, and that's perfectly fine, but please don't try to insult my intelligence by selectively picking what you react to and what you decide to ignore and put intentions and meanings to my words that are clearly not there.
I'm not going to reply any further, if that's what you insist on doing.

You are certainly not alone in your misuse of the "Mary Sue" canard, no.

With Seasons One and Two still fresh in my mind, I’d say she’s hypercompetent. She’s an ace pilot, a master spy, a xenoanthropologist and an all-around genius at science, not to mention seat-of-the-pants temporal navigation with untested technology. All she needs is a red plom bloom on her lapel.

All of this can be applied to Kirk, among others. Even the "untested temporal navigation" bit, as oddly niche as the wording of that complaint is.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Palanan
She’s an ace pilot, a master spy, a xenoanthropologist and an all-around genius at science, not to mention seat-of-the-pants temporal navigation with untested technology.

Originally Posted by Psyren
All of this can be applied to Kirk, among others.

None of that applies to Kirk.

[Cikomyr2]

I have yet to see that term used for anything beyond "female character I don't like." It's practically a Godwin at this point, shutting down any rational discussion.

Yes, not being monster-of-the-week was the showrunners' choice, but the alternative would have been pretty unwatchable in this day and age, so I don't see it being much of a choice at all.

I dont mind Michael Burnham as a character. She is interesting, is well acted, has a lot of drive.

I don't even mind a Star Trek series centered around her character, more or less.

I just feel the writers just want to fit a square peg in a round hole. She isn't suited to be a Starfleet bridge officer. She is suited to be an operative, a diplomat. An independant go getter who works alongside Starfleet to further the Federation interests.

Like, could we have seen the network of contacts she built in her year alone? Which other Starfleet/Federation believers she joined? Why does she have to be the ****ing Captain, when she works so much better when she isn't put in the Captains chair, or event as part of the chain of command.

[Psyren]

None of that applies to Kirk.

Except it does, both versions. But nobody complained until Burnham exhibited similar traits.

Like, could we have seen the network of contacts she built in her year alone? Which other Starfleet/Federation believers she joined? Why does she have to be the ****ing Captain, when she works so much better when she isn't put in the Captains chair, or event as part of the chain of command.

She hasn't been a captain until now; how do you know she works better not being one?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Except it does, both versions.

Examples? You’re not offering specifics. (Forget the Kelvin timeline, I don’t care about that.)

Kirk has always deferred to Spock on science, and claiming he’s a xenoanthropologist is just silly. And no, he’s never flown untested technology back and forth through time.

[Psyren]

(Forget the Kelvin timeline, I don’t care about that.)

Why should I? Is he not a starship captain there? Did it not predate Discovery?
For the purposes of this one post I'll humor you and draw the arbitrary line, but my larger point that people didn't care about multitalented Trek protagonists until Burnham came along stands, and that I see either suspect motivations or lack of awareness behind that stance.

Kirk has always deferred to Spock on science, and claiming he’s a xenoanthropologist is just silly. And no, he’s never flown untested technology back and forth through time.

Spock knows more science, but that's not the same as saying Kirk doesn't know any. "Comprehensive knowledge of starship systems" is science, and Kirk has solved plenty of science problems without Spock, e.g. modifying the deflector dish solo in Generations to free the ship from the energy ribbon.

For xenoanthropology, I could make a joke here about Kirk's many alien conquests counting as anthropology, but I'm curious as to what you think Burnham's excessive exploits are here. Figuring out a new alien culture on the fly? Every series captain has managed that.

As for untested time travel technology, Kirk has so many exploits here that Temporal Investigations has a file just for him. The one that comes most readily to mind (since it showed up again in Discovery) was the Guardian of Forever, but there were many others.

And again, that's just prime Kirk; I didn't go into Kelvin Kirk or any of the other captains yet.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
"Comprehensive knowledge of starship systems" is science….

No, it’s not. It’s basic competency with the tools of his trade. He read the manuals and he has on-the-job experience with the systems. That has nothing to do with conducting science.

Originally Posted by Psyren
…modifying the deflector dish solo in Generations to free the ship from the energy ribbon.

This is engineering, not science. And as I recall, Scotty came up with the solution; Kirk provided the pair of hands in a dangerous environment. Heroic, yes, but no science on his part.

Originally Posted by Psyren
The one that comes most readily to mind (since it showed up again in Discovery) was the Guardian of Forever, but there were many others.

Kirk didn’t build the Guardian, he just walked through it. And given how old the Guardian is, it hardly qualifies as “untested,” since there’s no reason to believe that Kirk was the first person to ever use it.

Originally Posted by Psyren
…I see either suspect motivations or lack of awareness….

Which is ungenerous at best. And, as several of us have tried to express, entirely unfounded in each of our cases.

[Psyren]

This is engineering, not science.

"This is applied science, not science."

Kirk didn’t build the Guardian, he just walked through it.

Burnham didn't build the suit either.

[Cikomyr2]

"This is applied science, not science." .

In the context of starship operation, that's actually a huge difference. Kirk knows his ship, knows tech. But besides that never shown interest or specific acuity for theoretical knowledge.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
"This is applied science, not science."

There’s a colossal difference between the two. Applied science is the application, not the science itself.

A digital camera is based around a CCD, which is based on the principle of the photoelectric effect which Einstein first elaborated.

Einstein, it’s safe to say, was doing science. But knowing how to take a good photo with a digital camera is not science. Kirk is the photographer; he knows how to make use of technology based on principles elaborated by scientists, but he's no scientist himself.

Originally Posted by Psyren
Burnham didn't build the suit either.

Please rewatch S2E14, starting at 03:00, in which we see Burnham synthesizing suit components, carrying them to a workbay and giving orders to everyone else helping with assembly. Note 03:37, when she attaches a component with her own hands, and 4:11, when she rides herd on Reno about the time crystal.

Burnham is physically assembling the suit and quarterbacking everyone else on the team. So yes, she built the suit.

[Psyren]

There’s a colossal difference between the two.

Engineering is science, end of.

Please rewatch S2E14, starting at 03:00, in which we see Burnham synthesizing suit components, carrying them to a workbay and giving orders to everyone else helping with assembly. Note 03:37, when she attaches a component with her own hands, and 4:11, when she rides herd on Reno about the time crystal.

Burnham is physically assembling the suit and quarterbacking everyone else on the team. So yes, she built the suit.

No, her mother built it. She had a blueprint to follow.

[Cikomyr2]

No, her mother built it. She had a blueprint to follow.

Yhea. The exact same blueprint everyone else is also following, no? Why make a scene where they is quarterbacking and one-upping the entire crew?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Engineering is science, end of.

The engineering/science divide is well-known in both communities. You don’t seem to have a working knowledge of either field.

I get that it’s fun for you to stake out a position and defend it with clever lines, but in this case it’s not productive and not enjoyable for anyone else.

[Cikomyr2]

Engineering is science, end of.

Yes. Because everyone knows that in Star Trek, the Science Department and the Engineering Department of a starship IS THE SAME, right?