Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - III - Spock's Beard

[Osprey]

You would think that it would dawn on the writers that the fact that they had to develop a character after her death suggests a fundamental problem with the character and their own writing skills. Viewers shouldn't have to first learn details about a character's personality at her funeral, much less from characters like Stamets who never even shared a scene with her. Apparently, she had a loving husband--in the past, in the present, who knows--that we never knew about. You would think that it'd be more effective to explore such interactions and details before killing her off. It just seems so backwards and cheap.

As for the big reveal...

Spoiler

Are we supposed to believe that a mother who was separated from her daughter couldn't find her for over 25 years and, then, when she came upon a time travel suit, somehow resisted the temptation to go back in time to spare her daughter 25 years of anguish and not having parents? The only way for that to possibly make sense is for Burnham to tell her mom in the future of the times that she was saved by a time traveler (because how else would she know?) and for her mom to decide that she has to go back in time to be that time traveler... but why would she if Burnham is alive and healthy in front of her? Is her daughter going to just vanish in thin air if she doesn't go back?

 

[Cloned]

You would think that it would dawn on the writers that the fact that they had to develop a character after her death suggests a fundamental problem with the character and their own writing skills. Viewers shouldn't have to first learn details about a character's personality at her funeral, much less from characters like Stamets who never even shared a scene with her. Apparently, she had a loving husband--in the past, in the present, who knows--that we never knew about. You would think that it'd be more effective to explore such interactions and details before killing her off. It just seems so backwards and cheap.

As for the big reveal...

Spoiler

Are we supposed to believe that a mother who was separated from her daughter couldn't find her for over 25 years and, then, when she came upon a time travel suit, somehow resisted the temptation to go back in time to spare her daughter 25 years of anguish and not having parents? The only way for that to possibly make sense is for Burnham to tell her mom in the future of the times that she was saved by a time traveler (because how else would she know?) and for her mom to decide that she has to go back in time to be that time traveler... but why would she if Burnham is alive and healthy in front of her? Is her daughter going to just vanish in thin air if she doesn't go back?

I think the bigger problem is the actual format of the series, as CBS has ordered it.

Try being a writer and being told that you have to tell a serialized story with an ensemble cast in the span of 14 one hour episodes. There isn't very much time for standalone episodes that focus on world-building, unfortunately.

If this were a "regular" TV show and had the luxury of 20+ episodes to tell a story over a season, there would be a lot more time for the things that we are complaining aren't being done.

As such my irritation gets directed more at the studio and the execs than the writers and production team. I think someone like Paradise (for example) clearly has writing talent, but imagine being thrown into the season mid-way through, given some baggage and plotlines to work with from the previous (disgraced) producers, and then being told to write a death episode for a character which she very well knows hasn't been well developed up to that point. Given all that I think she did quite well.

I'm going to be annoyed if Season 3 is another 14 episode rushed season like this one is.

 

[Harbinger]

So why didn't they beam robot girl into the brig?

 

[Osprey]

I think the bigger problem is the actual format of the series, as CBS has ordered it.

Try being a writer and being told that you have to tell a serialized story with an ensemble cast in the span of 14 one hour episodes. There isn't very much time for standalone episodes that focus on world-building, unfortunately.

If this were a "regular" TV show and had the luxury of 20+ episodes to tell a story over a season, there would be a lot more time for the things that we are complaining aren't being done.

I think that Game of Thrones, the modern model for developing and then killing off characters, proves that the problem isn't the format. Discovery's format is very similar to Game of Thrones. Both feature highly serialized stories with ensemble casts and Discovery's seasons of 13 ~50-minute episodes exactly equal the 650 minutes of GoT's 10 ~65-minute episodes. In other words, in the same amount of screen time, GoT has been able to juggle a large ensemble cast while still allowing for proper character development. When each character is killed off, it really hits viewers hard because they've become attached to them and consider them almost main characters, and the characters die unexpectedly (i.e. you don't get the feeling that one is just about to die because of he or she is suddenly receiving an unusual amount of character development). If GoT can manage all of that under the same constraints as Discovery, then there's no excuse for Discovery's writers to handle Airiam as they did.

 

[Cloned]

I think that Game of Thrones, the modern model for developing and then killing off characters, proves that the problem isn't the format. Discovery's format is very similar to Game of Thrones. Both feature highly serialized stories with ensemble casts and Discovery's seasons of 13 ~50-minute episodes exactly equal the 650 minutes of GoT's 10 ~65-minute episodes. In other words, in the same amount of screen time, GoT has been able to juggle a large ensemble cast while still allowing for proper character development. When each character is killed off, it really hits viewers hard because they've become attached to them and consider them almost main characters, and the characters die unexpectedly (i.e. you don't get the feeling that one is just about to die because of he or she is suddenly receiving an unusual amount of character development). If GoT can manage all of that under the same constraints as Discovery, then there's no excuse for Discovery to handle Airiam as it did.

GoT has had how many seasons to build up characters though? And to be fair a lot of GoT early minor character deaths felt like Airiam’s.

Discovery desperately needs a consistent and sustained vision from a show runner who can stay in place for more than a year.

It doesn’t help when the show jumped from Fuller to Berg and now to Paradise.

 

[Jussi]

William Shatner is 88 today.

 

[Osprey]

GoT has had how many seasons to build up characters though? And to be fair a lot of GoT early minor character deaths felt like Airiam’s.

I disagree. In the first few seasons of GoT, lots of minor characters died whom we didn't know much of anything about, yes, but they didn't get big roles in the plot just before their deaths and they weren't treated like they were bigger characters after the fact. They just quickly died and were forgotten. Their deaths were comparable to that redshirt who mouthed off to Burnham several times before crashing into space debris. Airiam's death, on the other hand, was drawn out and, then, was treated as though a main character had died (with the funeral and the eulogies). Unlike most minor deaths in GoT and that redshirt, we were supposed to be shocked and saddened for her death. The writers wanted us to be affected more like the biggest death of GoT Season 1 (which I won't spoil for anyone), but that was a main character who was well developed, and Airiam wasn't. They tried to have it both ways: kill off a minor character but pump her up just before and after her death to get us to feel that they really killed off a main character. That kind of cheap writing is something that GoT hasn't ever done (even after the writing on that show slipped).

 

[Cloned]

I disagree. In the first few seasons of GoT, lots of minor characters died whom we didn't know much of anything about, yes, but they didn't get big roles in the plot just before their deaths and they weren't treated like they were bigger characters after the fact. They just quickly died and were forgotten. Their deaths were comparable to that redshirt who mouthed off to Burnham several times before crashing into space debris. Airiam's death, on the other hand, was drawn out and, then, was treated as though a main character had died (with the funeral and the eulogies). Unlike most minor deaths in GoT and that redshirt, we were supposed to be shocked and saddened for her death. The writers wanted us to be affected more like the biggest death of GoT Season 1 (which I won't spoil for anyone), but that was a main character who was well developed, and Airiam wasn't. They tried to have it both ways: kill off a minor character but pump her up just before and after her death to get us to feel that they really killed off a main character. That kind of cheap writing is something that GoT hasn't ever done (even after the writing on that show slipped).

I don’t think it was bad writing. A bad decision, maybe, but if anything it’s a demonstration of Paradise’s writing ability that she was given a task of making a undeveloped character’s death feel more resonant than it normally should, and for the most part she succeeded.

Give her the reigns to the show where she can plan everything out herself instead of being forced to tie up another producer’s loose ends and baggage, and I think the results will be far better.

 

[Blender]

I think the bigger problem is the actual format of the series, as CBS has ordered it.

Try being a writer and being told that you have to tell a serialized story with an ensemble cast in the span of 14 one hour episodes. There isn't very much time for standalone episodes that focus on world-building, unfortunately.

If this were a "regular" TV show and had the luxury of 20+ episodes to tell a story over a season, there would be a lot more time for the things that we are complaining aren't being done.

As such my irritation gets directed more at the studio and the execs than the writers and production team. I think someone like Paradise (for example) clearly has writing talent, but imagine being thrown into the season mid-way through, given some baggage and plotlines to work with from the previous (disgraced) producers, and then being told to write a death episode for a character which she very well knows hasn't been well developed up to that point. Given all that I think she did quite well.

I'm going to be annoyed if Season 3 is another 14 episode rushed season like this one is.

I completely disagree. You only need to look at the currently best sci-fi show as an example of this as well. The Expanse averages 10-13 episodes per season, is a serialized show, and completely blows Discovery out of the water as far as quality goes. They have a fraction of the budget to work with as well, so there's no excuse.

 

[The Nemesis]

I think the bigger problem is the actual format of the series, as CBS has ordered it.

Try being a writer and being told that you have to tell a serialized story with an ensemble cast in the span of 14 one hour episodes. There isn't very much time for standalone episodes that focus on world-building, unfortunately.

If this were a "regular" TV show and had the luxury of 20+ episodes to tell a story over a season, there would be a lot more time for the things that we are complaining aren't being done.

As such my irritation gets directed more at the studio and the execs than the writers and production team. I think someone like Paradise (for example) clearly has writing talent, but imagine being thrown into the season mid-way through, given some baggage and plotlines to work with from the previous (disgraced) producers, and then being told to write a death episode for a character which she very well knows hasn't been well developed up to that point. Given all that I think she did quite well.

I'm going to be annoyed if Season 3 is another 14 episode rushed season like this one is.

I don't think season length is an issue or an impediment to good character development and storytelling. Hell, if you look at a lot of shows that run 20-24 episodes with a serialized plot, they tend to get criticized by fans who complain that the have to draw things out too much or stuff the story with filler to run the full episode order. All they had to do with Airiam was have her be in a couple of B-plots before now. Or have a couple of throwaway-style scenes within episodes to do some establishing of who she was before the episode where they kill her off. She didn't need a dedicated whole episode to her or even the A-plot of an episode with multiple story threads. Just a little bit of attention enough to form a bond with the fans beyond "hey, she looks cool. She must have a really awesome backstory"

 

[Cloned]

I completely disagree. You only need to look at the currently best sci-fi show as an example of this as well. The Expanse averages 10-13 episodes per season, is a serialized show, and completely blows Discovery out of the water as far as quality goes. They have a fraction of the budget to work with as well, so there's no excuse.

That’s fair, but that’s also why I’m more optimistic now that Paradise will take over for Season 3. I don’t think the previous showrunners knew how to properly plan a season around 13 episodes.

 

[Osprey]

I don’t think it was bad writing. A bad decision, maybe, but if anything it’s a demonstration of Paradise’s writing ability that she was given a task of making a undeveloped character’s death feel more resonant than it normally should, and for the most part she succeeded.

Airiam's death is being criticized partly because it fell flat (i.e. it didn't resonate). If Paradise is the one responsible for that episode, then I'm not sure that that speaks very highly of her writing skills. If you have a poorly developed character and you have to kill her off, you should know better than to make her a focal point of the episode and give her a death that she's not worthy of, IMO. After all, it's not such a bad thing to have background characters that aren't developed... if they stay that way. It's a mistake, though, to suddenly bring them to the foreground, where their under-development is put under the spotlight, and treat them as more than a background character for a short while.

Give her the reigns to the show where she can plan everything out herself instead of being forced to tie up another producer’s loose ends and baggage, and I think the results will be far better.

That’s fair, but that’s also why I’m more optimistic now that Paradise will take over for Season 3. I don’t think the previous showrunners knew how to properly plan a season around 13 episodes.

Paradise isn't really being given the reigns or taking over. She's going to be co-showrunner, meaning that she's going to have to work alongside Kurtzman, one of those showrunners that you don't think can plan a season, and someone with seniority over her. While it could work, there's just as great of a chance that Season 3 will have no cohesiveness because the two showrunners are on different pages. I'm not even sure that I understand why you're so optimistic that she can plan a better season when she's written only a single episode so far and been co-executive producer all of this season (so, in a way, she's already a co-showrunner and is just getting an upgraded title next season).

 

[Cloned]

Airiam's death is being criticized partly because it fell flat (i.e. it didn't resonate). If Paradise is the one responsible for that episode, then I'm not sure that that speaks very highly of her writing skills. If you have a poorly developed character and you have to kill her off, you should know better than to make her a focal point of the episode and give her a death that she's not worthy of, IMO. After all, it's not such a bad thing to have background characters that aren't developed... if they stay that way. It's a mistake, though, to suddenly bring them to the foreground, where their under-development is put under the spotlight, and treat them as more than a background character for a short while.



Paradise isn't really being given the reigns or taking over. She's going to be co-showrunner, meaning that she's going to have to work alongside Kurtzman, one of those showrunners that you don't think can plan a season, and someone with seniority over her. While it could work, there's just as great of a chance that Season 3 will have no cohesiveness because the two showrunners are on different pages. I'm not even sure that I understand why you're so optimistic that she can plan a better season when she's written only a single episode so far and been co-executive producer all of this season (so, in a way, she's already a co-showrunner and is just getting an upgraded title next season).

She only started halfway through this season as a writer and they liked her writing enough that they made her show runner for next season. As far as I know the remainder of this season is based entirely on the original plan by Kurtzman and Harberts/Berg.

She was given a job to do in the episode (to write a death for Airiam) and did a decent job with it despite having to deal with the baggage from before (namely no character development for Airiam prior to the episode). Give someone like her a blank slate to actually plan AND write the entire season and it should be much better.

 

[Osprey]

She only started halfway through this season as a writer and they liked her writing enough that they made her show runner for next season. As far as I know the remainder of this season is based entirely on the original plan by Kurtzman and Harberts/Berg.

According to imdb.com, Episode 9 is her only writing credit on the show so far. It's very unlikely that they made her showrunner because they liked her writing, especially in one episode. That doesn't happen to writers. When they write a good episode, they get pegged to write more. It's much more likely that her serving as co-executive producer since episode 4 is what convinced them to promote her.

She was given a job to do in the episode (to write a death for Airiam) and did a decent job with it despite having to deal with the baggage from before (namely no character development for Airiam prior to the episode). Give someone like her a blank slate to actually plan AND write the entire season and it should be much better.

You're basing that on one episode. That's really no basis to speculate that she'll be able "plan AND write" an entire season. You're wishing and hoping that she's able to, and that's fine, but that shouldn't be characterized as though she's someone proven and a reason that next season "should" be better.

 

[Cloned]

According to imdb.com, Episode 9 is her only writing credit on the show so far. It's very unlikely that they made her showrunner because they liked her writing, especially in one episode. That doesn't happen to writers. When they write a good episode, they get pegged to write more. It's much more likely that her serving as co-executive producer since episode 4 is what convinced them to promote her.



You're basing that on one episode. That's really no basis to speculate that she'll be able "plan AND write" an entire season. You're wishing and hoping that she's able to, and that's fine, but that shouldn't be characterized as though she's someone proven and a reason that next season "should" be better.

They obviously liked her combination of producing, writing, creativity and other experience. And I’m inclined to agree.

I like her a great deal more like Fuller and Harberts/Berg, that’s for sure. Even if she has to work with Kurtzman.

 

[JetsFan815]

Was anyone else hoping that Michael would die and stay dead when she was on that facility on that planet without a breathable atmosphere? What an annoying and self righteous character. And of course everything comes down to the Michael Burnam family drama as the season concludes.

 

[Jussi]

Too much stuff again on this episode which meant it didn't flow very well. Also the whole idea of capturing the Red Angel if it had been Burnham, would have been sort of a predestination paradox? One would think they would want to avoid her present to not know the plot so the future self wouldn't be prepared for it? But the Red Angel showing up already confirmed it to not be Burnham.

 

[Blender]

So how did they confuse a bio-scan of Michael's mother for Michael herself? If Michael's mother can see the past, how would a trap for her possible work in any way? She would know it was a trap, that Michael was being used as bait, etc.

That entire Ariam scene was cringe worthy. There was absolutely no emotional payoff for the death of an undeveloped background character, and trying to now pretend like she had a profound impact on the main characters of the series in an attempt to score some cheap reaction is laughable. Terrible writing.

 

[Jussi]

So how did they confuse a bio-scan of Michael's mother for Michael herself? If Michael's mother can see the past, how would a trap for her possible work in any way? She would know it was a trap, that Michael was being used as bait, etc.

That entire Ariam scene was cringe worthy. There was absolutely no emotional payoff for the death of an undeveloped background character, and trying to now pretend like she had a profound impact on the main characters of the series in an attempt to score some cheap reaction is laughable. Terrible writing.

Well it was a genetical match.

 

[Blender]

Well it was a genetical match.

Your genetics are not 100% identical to your mother.

 

[Osprey]

It was a "bio-neural signature" match. That's a scientific/medical-sounding term that the writers invented so that they could define it as something that only Burnham and her mother could share without having the issue of viewers complaining about bad science. Basically, they don't have to explain it because they made it up. Normally, that's not really an issue for a science fiction show, but it can look a little cheap when it's invented for a deus ex machina or twist (the latter being the case here).

 

[Blender]

It was a "bio-neural signature" match. That's a scientific/medical-sounding term that the writers invented so that they could define it as something that only Burnham and her mother could share without having the issue of viewers complaining about bad science. Basically, they don't have to explain it because they made it up. Normally, that's not really an issue for a science fiction show, but it can look a little cheap when it's invented for a deus ex machina or twist (the latter being the case here).

I didn't think it was even a great twist, because when Leland was telling her the story about her brilliant mother being killed and the suit going missing, one of my thoughts was that maybe it's actually her?

 

[Osprey]

I didn't think it was even a great twist, because when Leland was telling her the story about her brilliant mother being killed and the suit going missing, one of my thoughts was that maybe it's actually her?

I got bored and read the spoiler in this thread just minutes before, so I knew that it was her mother when that scene happened. I'm not sure if it would've occurred to me if I hadn't known, but it did seem like a rather obvious foreshadowing.

Something a little amusing and seemingly ironic just occurred to me. Much has been made of how Rey's parents in the new Star Wars trilogy were assumed to be important figures and how disappointing it was to learn that they were, in fact, nobodies. Here, we assumed that Burnham's parents were nobodies, but are disappointed that they were, in fact, top scientists who worked for an infamous organization and co-discovered time travel. With one franchise, the "small" universe is embraced and people don't mind every character being connected to another, and, with the other, the same receive criticism. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it's hypocritical. It's just that the two epic space franchises are pretty different in that sense.

 

[Cloned]

I got bored and read the spoiler in this thread just minutes before, so I knew that it was her mother when that scene happened. I'm not sure if it would've occurred to me if I hadn't known, but it did seem like a rather obvious foreshadowing.

Something a little amusing and seemingly ironic just occurred to me. Much has been made of how Rey's parents in the new Star Wars trilogy were assumed to be important figures and how disappointing it was to learn that they were, in fact, nobodies. Here, we assumed that Burnham's parents were nobodies, but are disappointed that they were, in fact, top scientists who worked for an infamous organization and co-discovered time travel. With one franchise, the "small" universe is embraced and people don't mind every character being connected to another, and, with the other, the same receive criticism. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it's hypocritical. It's just that the two epic space franchises are pretty different in that sense.

Fans are fickle. Goes for sports, entertainment, everything really.

 

[Osprey]

Fans are fickle. Goes for sports, entertainment, everything really.

I don't think that it's being fickle. It's that a "small universe" suits the franchise that's more fantasy and doesn't suit the franchise that's less so.