Jocephus wrote: ↑September 9 21, 6:36 am
i'm not trying to keep this "argument" going, i'm not interested in changing peoples minds and stuff but RLM had a mid season review of discovery season 1 (i've been re-watching their ST reviews hah) and they brought up a point that may not prove anything but i do think is interesting
https://youtu.be/DpHbLewg79c?t=240
basically if you look at rotten tomatoes of discovery and the orville
I'm good. Not looking at it as an argument.
Interesting about the ratings, because the first season of Discovery is the weakest so far in my opinion. The Klingons and trying to fill that story in were a big drag on it.. Funny thing is I've read that Bryan Fuller, who I've liked since Hannibal and Pushing Daisies before that, was supposedly responsible for a lot of story in the first season and the Klingon redesign. Neither of which I liked. He's a huge trekkie who worked on DS9 and Voyager and I was looking forward to what he'd do with it. No idea what ideas were his beyond the Klingons though, assuming that's true. The second half of season 2 was good up until they got to
- [SHOW]
- the parallel universe and the Terran version of Georgiou
a character who I've warmed up to in terms of her function on the show, but who was originally both a terrible person and cartoonish.
Going to throw in here that I generally don't like RT, and I think citing it as a measure of quality has a lot of problems. That's really a separate topic, but the way things are determined to be "fresh" or not leaves a lot to be desired. It leans into what I feel are the worst aspects of criticism.
Since the first season I think it's a big improvement. Second season, while much better in general, had a pretty terrible and I'll admit Marvel-like finale. They shoehorned everything they could into it - lots of pregnant goodbyes and characters saying what they think of other characters vs showing it, and the way it went down was just confusing. But it got them where they are now, which I'm enjoying.
While I'm complaining, there's often a scene where someone will inexplicably intuit something, and then the other character goes "of course!" and I find that pretty unsatisfying. But then a lot of shows do that, sci-fi or not, and IIRC even old Trek did that fairly often.
Here's some pros and cons off the top of my head -
Pros:
Characters generally, Saru in particular. Burnham for the most part, though the writers can't seem to decide what her character is about. Both actors are really good, and I'm glad Doug Jones has gotten to do something beyond just look creepy and lanky in something.
The tension/admiration between those two is interesting and they should have more of it. It's kind of a reverse Kirk/Spock, with some Bones/Spock mixed in. Maybe Sisco and Kira, though I'm less familiar with DS9.
Again - Photography/Lighting. I really appreciate the trouble they go to. Even the Expanse, which I think is a better show, can be very flat much of the time. A common thing now is to light everything like it's either in the middle of a Target or in a cave. Well lit from all sides or barely lit at all. I don't like Zack Snyder, but if you find that video comparison of the Justice League scene between Lois and Clark's mom, switching between Whedon and Snyder's version, Whedon's looks like total dog [expletive] by comparison.
They do a good job of incorporating different species and, Klingons aside, the design and execution is great. Again, Saru in particular.
For the most part I think they stick to the positive/optimistic nature of Star Trek. Late Season 1, early season 2 had some cringey ethics around Section 31 and I didn't think it worked. Just felt wrong. That whole "you don't like them but they do what needs to be done" attitude doesn't mesh with what I think of Trek, and there were a few dull "this is not who we are" arguments. Georgiou is kind of a wild card here, and her role in season 2 made zero sense, but since they've moved on I think she's worked much better. I hated Baltar on BSG and that's sort of how they were using her. It's the kind of characters writers often seem to think is interesting, but usually don't pull off. Doesn't work for me, anyway.
Other than that, my bar is spaceships, good characters, interesting situations, strange new worlds and I think it clears all that.
Cons:
I feel like I've covered these, but the dialogue too often tends toward discussing of emotions and away from discussing of ethics.
The "yay, science/math" stuff is indeed cringey. Tilly talking too much can get very old.
Ash - almost everything about him. Plots, relationships, his poorly explained duality. Blecch.
The episode where Pike goes to Q'onos.
- [SHOW]
- Ash's kid has not only grown up (fine) but is in charge? They don't indicate that more time has passed there, just that things might grow faster. So how does an accelerated 1 year old get to be in charge? Like I said, plotholes are ok, but here the entire plot was a hole. Shouldn't Pike have aged while he was there? Also - they way Pike gets one of these precious time crystals, which they've never given to anyone, is... he confronts his future? That episode was like what Joc' is talking about, where it seemed they just needed something to happen and didn't sweat the details. And worse, the details of a Klingon monastery could have been interesting. Set a whole episode there instead of 15 minutes of it.
One very JJ Abrams thing they do is milk moments. You'll get 11 different reaction shots to a character entering the bridge or making some personal sacrifice. Someone frequently tells Burnham how special she is, or maybe that happens with another character. Feels like there should be a way to convey that that doesn't get so maudlin.
) will enjoy this