Star Trek: Discovery

[abake]

Haven't made my way to DS9 yet, but it's next on the list.
I must say I was a bit letdown with the finale of Voyager. It was pretty unsatisfying. There was zero closure for any of the characters, not even a hint of where they would be going or how they would evolve. Where they counting on more shows to continue the individuals' stories so they didn't want to write themselves into a corner?
Also, truth be told, I felt the writing wasn't so good in the latter seasons. Other than some of Seven of Nine's arc/stories, the best writing was in the first few seasons. Also, how unceremoniously they got rid of of Kes was disappointing. Too bad, because she did show some good acting chops in the episode where her body is taken over.
Ah well...

 

[Kebron]

I get what you’re saying, and you’re not the only one to say that. But it also didn’t have to be Discovery (or the Discovery that we got) that led the Trek revival. And I’m not saying that just to hate on the show. I did give it a shot multiple times and really tried to like it.

If the suits had chosen more capable people who better understood what Star Trek is at its core to helm the revival, then we could’ve had a lead series that was less divisive and appealed evenly to fans, critics, and newcomers alike.

We only got to SNW and PIC S3 because Kurtzman and co. finally got the message after enormous critical and fan feedback. But we went through a ton of wasted potential, time, and resources to get to that point.

Imagine if we didn’t have to go through that and the revival had been led by shows more like Strange New Worlds and Picard Season 3 six years ago. Arguably the franchise, the characters, and the setting would be in a better place.

But it is what it is. At least we’re here now, and hopefully there’s a bright future for Star Trek moving forward.

Agree to disagree. If it wasn't the Discovery we had, there is no way to know what the state of things would be. If it wasn't the Discovery we had that appealed to a different demographic, it wouldn't have brought in a new audience to discover the older Trek shows. You can second guess and what if, but the facts are Discovery was a success, and Trek is back.

 

[Kebron]

Haven't made my way to DS9 yet, but it's next on the list.
I must say I was a bit letdown with the finale of Voyager. It was pretty unsatisfying. There was zero closure for any of the characters, not even a hint of where they would be going or how they would evolve. Where they counting on more shows to continue the individuals' stories so they didn't want to write themselves into a corner?
Also, truth be told, I felt the writing wasn't so good in the latter seasons. Other than some of Seven of Nine's arc/stories, the best writing was in the first few seasons. Also, how unceremoniously they got rid of of Kes was disappointing. Too bad, because she did show some good acting chops in the episode where her body is taken over.
Ah well...

All the finales are like that. Allows them to continue their adventures in books.

 

[Skyroes]

RE: Discovery reviving Trek

From the bits and pieces I've read over the years, there were a few things going on that led to the end of the golden age:

1. Rather than the super successful straight-to-syndication model like TNG and DS9 used, VOY and ENT were used to try to launch a new TV network, UPN.
2. Les Moonves hated Rick Berman.

When UPN failed, Moonves used it as his opportunity to fire Berman and kill every project he had going, which included Enterprise. Prior to that Moonves wanted Berman to fire Scott Bakula ahead of Season 4 and Berman basically told him to FO.

It’s unfortunate Moonves’ skeletons didn’t come out of the closet sooner otherwise we would’ve gotten a Season 5 and the show likely would've survived long term given the widely positive reception to Season 4. If this would’ve happened, who knows what series would’ve followed.

Following ENT’s cancellation, I’m more inclined to think the Abrams trilogy ignited the spark that got things in motion for a series.

Nothing has come remotely close to the quality of the series’ that Berman was behind. I’m most optimistic in SNW which is literally the only positive thing that came out of Discovery.

 

[Kebron]

RE: Discovery reviving Trek

From the bits and pieces I've read over the years, there were a few things going on that led to the end of the golden age:

1. Rather than the super successful straight-to-syndication model like TNG and DS9 used, VOY and ENT were used to try to launch a new TV network, UPN.
2. Les Moonves hated Rick Berman.

When UPN failed, Moonves used it as his opportunity to fire Berman and kill every project he had going, which included Enterprise. Prior to that Moonves wanted Berman to fire Scott Bakula ahead of Season 4 and Berman basically told him to FO.

It’s unfortunate Moonves’ skeletons didn’t come out of the closet sooner otherwise we would’ve gotten a Season 5 and the show likely would've survived long term given the widely positive reception to Season 4. If this would’ve happened, who knows what series would’ve followed.

Following ENT’s cancellation, I’m more inclined to think the Abrams trilogy ignited the spark that got things in motion for a series.

Nothing has come remotely close to the quality of the series’ that Berman was behind. I’m most optimistic in SNW which is literally the only positive thing that came out of Discovery.

I'd be inclined to think that if Discovery wasn't such a drastic departure from what the movies were and set in the same timeline. The movies are/were dead after STB. There was no continuation, spin offs, etc from the movies. The movies may have showed there is still a interest in Trek which helped launch DISCO, but it was DISCO that brought new fans in, and old fans back (even if they were just hate watching), and launched all the various series we have now.

 

[abake]

So, I'm halfway into the first season of DS9 and so far it's the weakest of all Star Trek shows for me.
The stories seem somewhat pedestrian compared to TOS, TNG and Voyager. Each of those shows featured some very thought-provoking themes and also managed to have humor and action in them, despite the limitations of budget and the era in which they first aired.
Of course, they all had their duds, but so far DS9 has the weakest opening season, and I think it comes down mostly to Sisko. He's really not a very inspiring character. He has none of the swagger of Kirk, the gravitas of Picard or the unbreakable will of Janeway.
And just to be clear, I didn't find Janeway very likeable, but her character was so interesting that it was always rewarding to watch her. Sisko just seems to be trying too hard to be a badass, but comes across as arrogant and conceited. All he does is bark orders while doing very little himself. A far cry from the other leading characters we've had in Star Trek. I hope his character evolves throughout the first season and the next six...
The one thing I've found fascinating is the character of Dax and their (I suppose the pronoun they/them is truly appropriate here) relationship to Sisko. It's very cool how forward thinking that character was looking back from our gender politics vantage point, but so have always been the best parts of Star Trek. A huge disappointment -on the other hand- is how quickly the incorporeal/timeless aliens of the pilot were completely forgotten... I can only hope those are explored more as the show moves forward.

 

[Skyroes]

So, I'm halfway into the first season of DS9 and so far it's the weakest of all Star Trek shows for me.
The stories seem somewhat pedestrian compared to TOS, TNG and Voyager. Each of those shows featured some very thought-provoking themes and also managed to have humor and action in them, despite the limitations of budget and the era in which they first aired.
Of course, they all had their duds, but so far DS9 has the weakest opening season, and I think it comes down mostly to Sisko. He's really not a very inspiring character. He has none of the swagger of Kirk, the gravitas of Picard or the unbreakable will of Janeway.
And just to be clear, I didn't find Janeway very likeable, but her character was so interesting that it was always rewarding to watch her. Sisko just seems to be trying too hard to be a badass, but comes across as arrogant and conceited. All he does is bark orders while doing very little himself. A far cry from the other leading characters we've had in Star Trek. I hope his character evolves throughout the first season and the next six...
The one thing I've found fascinating is the character of Dax and their (I suppose the pronoun they/them is truly appropriate here) relationship to Sisko. It's very cool how forward thinking that character was looking back from our gender politics vantage point, but so have always been the best parts of Star Trek. A huge disappointment -on the other hand- is how quickly the incorporeal/timeless aliens of the pilot were completely forgotten... I can only hope those are explored more as the show moves forward.

This is a common opinion about early DS9 but I assure you it does pick up even in Season 2. The finale of that season really sets the tone of what is to come.

 

[a-dev]

You're probably not wrong in your assessment of DS9 Season 1, Abake (long time since I watched it). However you should definitely stick with it. It really comes good.

 

[abake]

I will definitely stick with it. It was tough to get through parts of the first couple of seasons of TNG, but the pay-off in the end was great.
Funnily enough, the next episode I watched after posting here was really good and gave Sisko a lot more character, so we're already moving in the right direction.

 

[Kebron]

So, I'm halfway into the first season of DS9 and so far it's the weakest of all Star Trek shows for me.
The stories seem somewhat pedestrian compared to TOS, TNG and Voyager. Each of those shows featured some very thought-provoking themes and also managed to have humor and action in them, despite the limitations of budget and the era in which they first aired.
Of course, they all had their duds, but so far DS9 has the weakest opening season, and I think it comes down mostly to Sisko. He's really not a very inspiring character. He has none of the swagger of Kirk, the gravitas of Picard or the unbreakable will of Janeway.
And just to be clear, I didn't find Janeway very likeable, but her character was so interesting that it was always rewarding to watch her. Sisko just seems to be trying too hard to be a badass, but comes across as arrogant and conceited. All he does is bark orders while doing very little himself. A far cry from the other leading characters we've had in Star Trek. I hope his character evolves throughout the first season and the next six...
The one thing I've found fascinating is the character of Dax and their (I suppose the pronoun they/them is truly appropriate here) relationship to Sisko. It's very cool how forward thinking that character was looking back from our gender politics vantage point, but so have always been the best parts of Star Trek. A huge disappointment -on the other hand- is how quickly the incorporeal/timeless aliens of the pilot were completely forgotten... I can only hope those are explored more as the show moves forward.

DS9 picks up is season 2/3 just like TNG. Took a bit to find all the characters voices but once they did it becomes the best Trek IMO. Has some of the best character arcs in all Trek.

 

[Masters3]

So, I'm halfway into the first season of DS9 and so far it's the weakest of all Star Trek shows for me.
The stories seem somewhat pedestrian compared to TOS, TNG and Voyager. Each of those shows featured some very thought-provoking themes and also managed to have humor and action in them, despite the limitations of budget and the era in which they first aired.
Of course, they all had their duds, but so far DS9 has the weakest opening season, and I think it comes down mostly to Sisko. He's really not a very inspiring character. He has none of the swagger of Kirk, the gravitas of Picard or the unbreakable will of Janeway.
And just to be clear, I didn't find Janeway very likeable, but her character was so interesting that it was always rewarding to watch her. Sisko just seems to be trying too hard to be a badass, but comes across as arrogant and conceited. All he does is bark orders while doing very little himself. A far cry from the other leading characters we've had in Star Trek. I hope his character evolves throughout the first season and the next six...
The one thing I've found fascinating is the character of Dax and their (I suppose the pronoun they/them is truly appropriate here) relationship to Sisko. It's very cool how forward thinking that character was looking back from our gender politics vantage point, but so have always been the best parts of Star Trek. A huge disappointment -on the other hand- is how quickly the incorporeal/timeless aliens of the pilot were completely forgotten... I can only hope those are explored more as the show moves forward.

The first two seasons of discover where the best then it really falls off as they push the woke agenda and becomes like a day time soap .

 

[abake]

Since I haven't been able to find a "general" Star Trek thread, I guess I'll continue posting my thoughts on DS9 and other Star Trek shows here...

Finished season 2 of DS9 last night and I'm really happy to finally have arrived at the Dominion storyline. It was very cool how they were teased and mentioned in passing throughout the season, it shows how well planned the show was.
However... Sisko.
I don't know how he'll evolve in the next couple of seasons, but I feel there's an underlying problem: Avery Brooks seems to be a terrible actor. He over-acts every single scene! And not in the theatrical/shakespearean, slightly amusing Shattner way... The man over-emphasises every single line, look, movement. It was actually painful to watch him the mirror universe episode. Every time he's with Gul Ducat, Mark Alaimo pulverises him. Heck, even Quark -with all those heavy prosthetics on him- can show more nuance than Sisko.
So, yeah... I guess I'm in for a rough time with Sisko.

One thing I didn't like very much about the finale of Season 2 was how little emotion the DS9 crew showed at the destruction of the Odyssey. I mean, this is a Federation flagship humiliated and annihilated. They should have been utterly devastated. The only one who showed some sort of reaction/empathy was Kira.

 

[a-dev]

When he shaves his head and grows the beard Sisko becomes much cooler.....if memory serves.

 

[Kebron]

When he shaves his head and grows the beard Sisko becomes much cooler.....if memory serves.

Yes once he grows the beard and shaves his head the writers finally figure out the character and he becomes much better. Pale Moonlight in particular is probably one of the best Sisko episodes.

 

[Skyroes]

One thing I didn't like very much about the finale of Season 2 was how little emotion the DS9 crew showed at the destruction of the Odyssey. I mean, this is a Federation flagship humiliated and annihilated. They should have been utterly devastated. The only one who showed some sort of reaction/empathy was Kira.

In the TNG episode Contagion [2 x 11], the Enterprise crew witnesses the destruction of the Yamato with 1,000+ people aboard. Shortly after, Wesley Crusher approaches Picard explaining how he’s struggling and that he keeps thinking about all those who perished and asks Picard how he and the bridge crew don’t appear bothered by the loss.

Picard responds that it’s not that they’re not reeling from loss but that they have been trained in how to respond to these situations.

Sisko (Wolf 359), O’Brien (Cardassian War), Kira (Bajor Occupation) have all dealt with loss in their lives so I’m sure that while they were likely shocked with what happened to the Odyssey, they know how to maintain composure while in the field.

I don’t think the Odyssey was humiliated. This was the very first engagement with an unknown hostile species. They held their ground without shields, the ship took a pounding yet the only reason it was destroyed was because of a direct ship-to-ship ramming.

I suspected the Jem'Hadar had surmised that they were not going to be able to destroy the Odyssey before their escape so they resorted to extreme tactics. If the Odyssey had use of their shields it would’ve been a different outcome.

 

[Kebron]

Picard responds that it’s not that they’re not reeling from loss but that they have been trained in how to respond to these situations.

Sisko (Wolf 359), O’Brien (Cardassian War), Kira (Bajor Occupation) have all dealt with loss in their lives so I’m sure that while they were likely shocked with what happened to the Odyssey, they know how to maintain composure while in the field.

Skyroes statement is one of the biggest differences between older Trek and Discovery. Older Trek (and from the looks of Picard Season 3 and SNW so far) is about the best of the best, people trained to do a job and they do it well. They control their emotions and work as a team to get the job done. Discovery had people wearing their emotions on their sleeves for all to see and had people struggling to overcome their emotions, but in the end eventually got the job done. Discovery IMO spent way too much time showing people dealing with emotions where the other Treks spent maybe one episode every so often dealing with it, or had a line or two in an episode.

I get what they were going for with Discovery. Make the characters relatable so people would easily get invested in the overall story. But what they lost was making them people we should aspire to be, people we can look at as role models to make ourselves better.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

When he shaves his head and grows the beard Sisko becomes much cooler.....if memory serves.

IMHO, the major misfire was not Sisko, but his son Jake.

Bad actor, bad writing for him, no idea how to use him, no idea where to take the character. The entire Jake situation was a mess.

Gene Roddenberry was still alive during the beginning of DS9, so according to Ron Moore, both shows, TNG and DS9 were still forced to adhere to the "Star Trek Bible" that Roddenberry laid out on what could and could not shown and covered.

Avery Brooks had the same problems that Dennis Haysbert had on 24. Haysbert was President David Palmer, and since he was a black President ( pretty edgy for the time and place in TV), he could not be shown as malicious or evil, but he also couldn't be shown as incompetent. So he was constantly being betrayed by his Chief Of Staff, his wife and his brother. The character was forced into a corner.

Whatever people think of JJ Abrams, I did love Star Trek 2009, and I felt it did a good job conveying young Kirk as having failures and making bad mistakes.

Fox's 24 was stuck. Which is why the Palmer character only lasted three full seasons. The writers simply ran out of people in his family to betray him.

You can't have a lead character with no flaws. If you watch Sisko in the early seasons, his flaws were all rooted in someone else's failures, not his own. Once Roddenberry was too old and then when he passed away, you can see a bit of a shift in all the characters. I don't find Brooks to be a good actor, but he was in a pretty difficult situation. I'd also assess Janeway (Mulgrew) in that same kind of dilemma. She had to be good and righteous all the time. Hence she drove many fans nuts. However when you watch Orange Is The New Black, you can see Mulgrew is a pretty versatile and interesting actress if she's given some kind of useful material.

For Star Trek to grow, it had to move past Roddenberry's dogmatic vision of it. Sucks as it might sound, but just like George Lucas before he sold to The Big Mouse, there were lots of fans quietly waiting for him to die. I mean I know lots of Ender's Game fans who wanted Orson Scott Card dead. ( He apparently keeps vetoing any chance to make an Enders Game TV show)

 

[MeatHookGekko]

One thing I didn't like very much about the finale of Season 2 was how little emotion the DS9 crew showed at the destruction of the Odyssey. I mean, this is a Federation flagship humiliated and annihilated. They should have been utterly devastated. The only one who showed some sort of reaction/empathy was Kira.

I tend to give early DS9 a bit of a pass ( others might not, I understand that too)

In part because I remember listening to a Ron Moore interview where he basically inferred that the writers and producers of DS9 had to essentially sneak stuff into the show.

There was, at some point, an internal power struggle during the middle of TNG's run. Moore has talked about, in the past, about essentially other people being too "busy" to bother with micro managing DS9 anymore. He also politely alluded to his short time on Voyager, where he lost much of the freedom he had with DS9 under Michael Piller, and that drove him to leave very quickly. The BSG reboot, was apparently a visceral reaction by Moore to do all things with a sci fi show that he was told over and over for years that he could not do.

IMHO, that timeline, where Piller and his crew were basically left on an island with DS9, that's when the storylines and depth of the show really take off.

 

[Kebron]

It was more Ira Behr more then Piller. Ira ran DS9 and he pushed as much as he could, which is why DS9 was different from the other Trek's of its time.

Jake had some good episodes, and I found him a lot more interesting then Wesley. The most important thing about him was the relationship he and Sisko had. It was a positive POC father and son relationship, and at the time only one of a few on the air. But in later seasons Jake was definitely out shined by Nog in the adolescent becoming a young man/finding his place in the world department.

First couple of seasons of DS9 is like a lot of the first seasons of TV from that time, a lot of setup and figuring the characters out, instead of having all that figured out before you start filming the show.

 

[Skyroes]

Skyroes statement is one of the biggest differences between older Trek and Discovery. Older Trek (and from the looks of Picard Season 3 and SNW so far) is about the best of the best, people trained to do a job and they do it well. They control their emotions and work as a team to get the job done. Discovery had people wearing their emotions on their sleeves for all to see and had people struggling to overcome their emotions, but in the end eventually got the job done. Discovery IMO spent way too much time showing people dealing with emotions where the other Treks spent maybe one episode every so often dealing with it, or had a line or two in an episode.

I get what they were going for with Discovery. Make the characters relatable so people would easily get invested in the overall story. But what they lost was making them people we should aspire to be, people we can look at as role models to make ourselves better.

That and the fact that the bridge crew seemed like glorified extras for the first three seasons.

I tend to give early DS9 a bit of a pass ( others might not, I understand that too)

In part because I remember listening to a Ron Moore interview where he basically inferred that the writers and producers of DS9 had to essentially sneak stuff into the show.

There was, at some point, an internal power struggle during the middle of TNG's run. Moore has talked about, in the past, about essentially other people being too "busy" to bother with micro managing DS9 anymore. He also politely alluded to his short time on Voyager, where he lost much of the freedom he had with DS9 under Michael Piller, and that drove him to leave very quickly. The BSG reboot, was apparently a visceral reaction by Moore to do all things with a sci fi show that he was told over and over for years that he could not do.

IMHO, that timeline, where Piller and his crew were basically left on an island with DS9, that's when the storylines and depth of the show really take off.

His work on BSG was nothing less than stellar and exemplifies a true story of survival against all odds.

While I liked Voyager, it never really felt that their survival was a stake. To your earlier point, Janeway was always conveniently righteous. The concept around Equinox was more impacting as they were constantly on the brick of destruction and faced with real moral dilemmas, how far would one go? Voyager needed to up the risk factor a few notches.