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

[Osprey]

Solving conflicts by non-violent means is one of Trek's trademarks. It's something that sets it apart from other franchises. Often conflicts were presented as being the result of a misunderstanding, and once each opposing side learned to understand each other the conflict was resolved. This is a good progressive message.

This is why Star Trek has fundamentally not been an action franchise for most of it's history. Solving issues with violence requires action, solving conflicts through understanding requires thought and discussion.

STD thinks it's progressive because of its casting, but it usually solves conflicts by violence, so which iteration of Trek is really the progressive one?

That is such an excellent point. TNG, I would argue, was the most progressive series in the franchise, since it presented the most ideal vision of the future. Everyone got along, despite their differences, and worked together to solve conflicts as diplomatically as possible. I have a feeling that Kurtzman would consider it the most conservative Trek series, though, since it took the fewest risks and was relatively free of drama and action. In his vision of the future, co-workers are at odds with one another, cooperation is mostly unnecessary because a single hero figure can save every situation on her own and diplomacy solves nothing. That doesn't seem very progressive or hopeful and how things ought to be. The thought that that could be our future is more depressing than inspiring.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

One of DS9's main story lines for 5+ seasons was the Dominion Cold War + War, yet, the show runners still managed to solve a large majority of the conflicts via diplomatic means, or when they didn't, they brought up difficult questions and made you think about the decision(s) that were made.

STD has none of this.

 

[Blender]

One of DS9's main story lines for 5+ seasons was the Dominion Cold War + War, yet, the show runners still managed to solve a large majority of the conflicts via diplomatic means, or when they didn't, they brought up difficult questions and made you think about the decision(s) that were made.

STD has none of this.

Even in the DS9 finale when Sisko, Ross, and Martok are standing in the smouldering ruins of the Cardassian capital, Sisko and Ross aren't celebrating their victory in the war, they are disgusted with what has happened to the Cardassian people. This is contrasted with Martok who as a Klingon has a warrior culture, who is celebrating their great victory. So even in the series finale where a series long plot has been wrapped up with our heroes being victorious, the series throws the moral and ethical questions in your face about what achieving victory has not only cost our heroes, but the enemies as well. DS9 also did a very good job of putting out very three dimensional enemies.

 

[Osprey]

One of DS9's main story lines for 5+ seasons was the Dominion Cold War + War, yet, the show runners still managed to solve a large majority of the conflicts via diplomatic means, or when they didn't, they brought up difficult questions and made you think about the decision(s) that were made.

STD has none of this.

That's an excellent point. TNG and DS9 (especially the latter) did have lots of moments when things spiraled out of control, but they usually left you wondering if things could've been handled differently, made you feel that the violence was regrettable and let you look forward to the misunderstanding being sorted out. Discovery, on the other hand, moves too fast (always in a rush to get to the action) to pose many questions, glorifies action and resolves very little without a victory for one side or the other.

I will give Discovery credit for bucking that trend once and posing an interesting and difficult question in the Season 1 finale: "Would you destroy your enemy's homeworld to end a bloody war?" Unfortunately, that Trek-worthy dilemma was undermined by a raving lunatic advocating one choice and the sanctimonious star preaching the opposite. Gee, I wonder which option we're supposed to favor? In TNG or DS9, even if Picard or Sisko had strong feelings about something like that, someone else that we trust, like Riker or Odo, would've given a somewhat convincing counter argument and really made us, the viewer, weigh both arguments. Discovery allows for almost no weighing of choices by the viewer because discussion is over as soon as the voice of reason, Burnham, speaks up and tells us what the correct answer is.

 

[Blender]

That's an excellent point. TNG and DS9 (especially the latter) did have lots of moments when things spiraled out of control, but they usually left you wondering if things could've been handled differently, made you feel that the violence was regrettable and let you look forward to the misunderstanding being sorted out. Discovery, on the other hand, moves too fast (always in a rush to get to the action) to pose many questions, glorifies action and resolves very little without a victory for one side or the other.

I will give Discovery credit for bucking that trend once and posing an interesting and difficult question in the Season 1 finale: "Would you destroy your enemy's homeworld to end a bloody war?" Unfortunately, that Trek-worthy dilemma was undermined by a raving lunatic advocating one choice and the sanctimonious star preaching the opposite. Gee, I wonder which option we're supposed to favor? In TNG or DS9, even if Picard or Sisko had strong feelings about something like that, someone else that we trust, like Riker or Odo, would've given a somewhat convincing counter argument and really made us, the viewer, weigh both arguments. Discovery allows for almost no weighing of choices by the viewer because discussion is over as soon as the voice of reason, Burnham, speaks up and tells us what the correct answer is.

In DS9 Section 31 attempted to commit genocide against the Founders, and in that case you had a whole range of feelings and positions on the matter. Odo was of course horrified, Bashir was outraged that they would do that but was making excuses for how the Federation held no responsibility, and Sisko pretty much said he didn't like it but they were at war so nothing they could do. Far more nuanced, and much deeper than anything we got in the Discovery season finale. Really if they didn't have that entirely stupid mirror universe plot and ruined Lorca's character, the finale could have had Lorca attempting to destroy Qo'noS with a logical, reasoned argument about the greater good and saving the Federation with Burnham having to argue against that.

 

[The Nemesis]

That's an excellent point. TNG and DS9 (especially the latter) did have lots of moments when things spiraled out of control, but they usually left you wondering if things could've been handled differently, made you feel that the violence was regrettable and let you look forward to the misunderstanding being sorted out. Discovery, on the other hand, moves too fast (always in a rush to get to the action) to pose many questions, glorifies action and resolves very little without a victory for one side or the other.

I will give Discovery credit for bucking that trend once and posing an interesting and difficult question in the Season 1 finale: "Would you destroy your enemy's homeworld to end a bloody war?" Unfortunately, that Trek-worthy dilemma was undermined by a raving lunatic advocating one choice and the sanctimonious star preaching the opposite. Gee, I wonder which option we're supposed to favor? In TNG or DS9, even if Picard or Sisko had strong feelings about something like that, someone else that we trust, like Riker or Odo, would've given a somewhat convincing counter argument and really made us, the viewer, weigh both arguments. Discovery allows for almost no weighing of choices by the viewer because discussion is over as soon as the voice of reason, Burnham, speaks up and tells us what the correct answer is.

Just to add to this, I remember a good example of such a scenario being "I, Borg"

Picard is totally on board with using Hugh as a weapon to crush the Borg collective. He basically orders Geordi and Data to figure out how to do it. He even refuses to meet with Hugh after Geordi starts having second thoughts, passing it off as having no interest in confronting a thing like a borg drone. Dr. Crusher tells him the idea is horrifying but he persists. It takes Guinan, someone who lost the vast majority of her race to the Borg but still managed to get over her own grief well enough to see that Hugh was just as much a victim as any of her people were, arguing in favor of Hugh to make Picard realize he's acting out of fear and hatred for what happened to him, meet and interact with Hugh, and comprehend the horror of what he was suggesting be done. So over the course of the episode he does a total 180 when he has his moral compass challenged. And then when it comes time for Admiral Necheyev to show up, chew him out over the decision, and order him to take it if another opportunity ever arises, he can, from a strong foundation of his past experience, tell her to shove it.

That as a beautiful of a character arc and moral dilemma presentation as you can hope for. But you don't get that in Discovery. Instead Burnham is right all along and we should just accept it.

Meanwhile Burnham mutinies and gets her captain killed and I never really felt like she wrestled with that. She takes her sentencing by Starfleet in stride and accepts it, but when confronted on why she chose to mutiny in the first place, she halfway blames the Vulcans for teaching her to be coldly logical (which doesn't track since logic wouldn't necessarily dictate automatically continuing a war with the Klingons if there's a chance for peace), halfway blames it on the emotional damage of the Klingons killing her parents (which is at least a reasonable explanation, though when answering her court martial she doesn't really use that to shield herself as much as an "I did what I thought was right" defence that sounds like it doubles as taking the 'noble act of falling on one's sword' approach) and then instead of being tortured by the realization that maybe she's not in the right headspace to make good decisions, she just sort of falls right back into a position where she can moralize and lecture and pronounce, only now she ends up being right. Reasonably it would've been better if the discovery that Tyler was Voq was more visceral for her, had she faced the decision about destroying the Klingon homeworld as the central, conflicted character instead of as the preachy "it's wrong" one. Make Saru the advocate for staying their hand and have her have to come to grips with her history, her guilt over Georgiou's death, Tyler/Voq, and everything else in making the decision. Have her hate herself for having made the right choice. Pay off everything that happened with her character in that moment.

But they don't. Her moral reckoning all but happens off-screen and she continues on her merry way for the entire season being the "better person" only with the backing of actually being on the right side of the writing's moral judgement. All she struggles with instead is a lack of confidence in her abilities. More "can you trust me to make the correct decision?" than "can I make the right decision."

It's disappointing. I guess moral dilemmas would undermine her marysue-ness.

 

[Osprey]

Just to add to this, I remember a good example of such a scenario being "I, Borg"

Picard is totally on board with using Hugh as a weapon to crush the Borg collective. He basically orders Geordi and Data to figure out how to do it. He even refuses to meet with Hugh after Geordi starts having second thoughts, passing it off as having no interest in confronting a thing like a borg drone. Dr. Crusher tells him the idea is horrifying but he persists. It takes Guinan, someone who lost the vast majority of her race to the Borg but still managed to get over her own grief well enough to see that Hugh was just as much a victim as any of her people were, arguing in favor of Hugh to make Picard realize he's acting out of fear and hatred for what happened to him, meet and interact with Hugh, and comprehend the horror of what he was suggesting be done. So over the course of the episode he does a total 180 when he has his moral compass challenged. And then when it comes time for Admiral Necheyev to show up, chew him out over the decision, and order him to take it if another opportunity ever arises, he can, from a strong foundation of his past experience, tell her to shove it.

That as a beautiful of a character arc and moral dilemma presentation as you can hope for. But you don't get that in Discovery. Instead Burnham is right all along and we should just accept it.

Meanwhile Burnham mutinies and gets her captain killed and I never really felt like she wrestled with that. She takes her sentencing by Starfleet in stride and accepts it, but when confronted on why she chose to mutiny in the first place, she halfway blames the Vulcans for teaching her to be coldly logical (which doesn't track since logic wouldn't necessarily dictate automatically continuing a war with the Klingons if there's a chance for peace), halfway blames it on the emotional damage of the Klingons killing her parents (which is at least a reasonable explanation, though when answering her court martial she doesn't really use that to shield herself as much as an "I did what I thought was right" defence that sounds like it doubles as taking the 'noble act of falling on one's sword' approach) and then instead of being tortured by the realization that maybe she's not in the right headspace to make good decisions, she just sort of falls right back into a position where she can moralize and lecture and pronounce, only now she ends up being right. Reasonably it would've been better if the discovery that Tyler was Voq was more visceral for her, had she faced the decision about destroying the Klingon homeworld as the central, conflicted character instead of as the preachy "it's wrong" one. Make Saru the advocate for staying their hand and have her have to come to grips with her history, her guilt over Georgiou's death, Tyler/Voq, and everything else in making the decision. Have her hate herself for having made the right choice. Pay off everything that happened with her character in that moment.

But they don't. Her moral reckoning all but happens off-screen and she continues on her merry way for the entire season being the "better person" only with the backing of actually being on the right side of the writing's moral judgement. All she struggles with instead is a lack of confidence in her abilities. More "can you trust me to make the correct decision?" than "can I make the right decision."

It's disappointing. I guess moral dilemmas would undermine her marysue-ness.

Great post. I imagine that Burnham faces few dilemmas because the writers are keen on presenting a strong, independent female character and think that that means that she must confidently know what to do in every situation and that other people need to listen to her, not the other way around. If she were to wrestle with a decision and listen to counsel from others (and heaven forbid, have her mind changed by a man), she would seem weak and indecisive, I guess.

No one would ever accuse Picard of being weak and indecisive, though, even though he waffled and had his mind changed by a woman in the example that you gave. All that was important was that, by the end of that episode, he was confident in his decision. After all, a good and likable leader isn't expected have all of the answers on the tip of his or her tongue, only to eventually arrive at and make a confident decision in the end. You could absolutely do that with a female character, too--I imagine that Janeway had her mind changed several times and no one would ever suggest that she wasn't a strong woman and leader--but I'm not sure that the Discovery writers grasp that.

 

[NyQuil]

I want to like Burnham but they force it so much.

The actress is good for the role, I like her determination and drive, but the fact that everyone she interacts with tells her how great she is is grating.

I counted at least 5 times in the episode alone.

It’s the kind of thing you see during series openers when they want to show the audience how great someone is so there’s awkward complimenting everywhere.

If we like someone it has to happen organically, not because the writers are telling us to like them.

 

[The Nemesis]

I want to like Burnham but they force it so much.

The actress is good for the role, I like her determination and drive, but the fact that everyone she interacts with tells her how great she is is grating.

I counted at least 5 times in the episode alone.

It’s the kind of thing you see during series openers when they want to show the audience how great someone is so there’s awkward complimenting everywhere.

If we like someone it has to happen organically, not because the writers are telling us to like them.

It's kind of like what TNG did with Wesley. Except Wesley was a supporting character and not the protagonist.

It's also a hallmark of sloppy writing because you should be able to demonstrate how great a character is by showing us their greatness, not by having other characters awkwardly shill it to the audience through dialogue.

The other problem seems to be that the writers are confused about how to demonstrate her positive traits. Almost every trait they try to make for her that's supposed to be positive (confidence, intelligence, vulnerability/compassion, humanity, etc) they show in a way that makes her ether look like a complete tool or a sociopath. Or they just have other characters spell it out through dialogue, which is lazy.

 

[NyQuil]

Where are the stories that incorporate current issues from our culture only framed and disguised in a futuristic setting? Where is the wonder and awe of exploration? Where is both the cunning and diplomacy that was a staple of this franchise?

It's on The Orville.

 

[The Nemesis]

The other thing I just thought of as I went out to grab my empty garbage can from the curb:

Think about all the various "rogue Starfleet captain anti-villain" characters from the assorted series:

John Gill, not a captain, but the researcher/historian who turned that one planet into Nazi Germany in TOS "Patterns of Force" because it made logical sense to him and he thought he was smart enough to make things turn out better because his plan was superior.

Captain Merrick, who sides with the Space Romans in TOS "Bread and Circuises" to save his crew and seems aghast at the idea that it's costing him his soul until he redeems himself through sacrifice.

Ronald Tracey, the "best captain in the fleet" who sided with the eeeeevil communists...erm, "Kohms" in the otherwise forgettably bad TOS episode "The Omega Glory" almost entirely because he believes that the rules suck and he's going to do what he thinks is best, even if it mans selling out.

Ben Maxwell, Chief O'Brien's ex-CO who went off to start a war with the Cardassians because he's bitter and angry and who cares what the consequences are.

Admiral Pressman, Riker's old captain who goes off the paranoid deep end to retrieve his illegal cloaking device because he's terrified of the Romulans and war means breaking the rules when you think they hold you back.

Captain Ransom, CO of the Equinox who responds to be marooned in the Delta Quadrant with all the relish and glee of becoming an amoral pirate hiding behind "the greater good" justifying and acting aghast and appalled that Voyager doesn't see it the same way because they're wrong, dammit.


I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting.

Anyway, look at all those characters. Look at the assorted positive Trek series protagonist captains. And ask yourself this:

which group does it feel like Burnham more closely aligns with?

Exactly.

 

[NyQuil]

There was Lt. Commander Eddington and Ensign Ro Laren.

But I guess they weren’t Captains or Fleet Officers.

Admiral Dougherty from Insurrection.

 

[Osprey]

Anyway, look at all those characters. Look at the assorted positive Trek series protagonist captains. And ask yourself this:

which group does it feel like Burnham more closely aligns with?

Exactly.

That's a good point. Burnham does seem very much like the type of character who is so confident that she can avoid the mistakes of the past that she repeats them. I'd be nervous for the well-being of the universe if she were put in command of something. After all, she did single-handedly started a war, and she didn't even need to be a Captain to accomplish that.

 

[JackSlater]

Ben Maxwell, Chief O'Brien's ex-CO who went off to start a war with the Cardassians because he's bitter and angry and who cares what the consequences are.

No, Captain Maxwell was right. We can pity him, but we shall not dismiss him.

 

[Blender]

The Wounded is one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek.

 

[The Nemesis]

The Wounded is one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek.

I feel like that was the episode that made the DS9 creative staff (in the planning stages of the show) realize the potential that O'Brien had.

 

[Blender]

I feel like that was the episode that made the DS9 creative staff (in the planning stages of the show) realize the potential that O'Brien had.

I know Ronald D. Moore has made comments in the past essentially saying it was obvious to them that Colm Meaney was far too good of an actor to be standing behind the transporter all the time. No surprise he started getting more screen time and was transitioned to DS9.

 

[johnjm22]

In this last episode of STD there was a character named Connolly (the blue shirt A-hole that gets sneezed on in the turbolift).

We've seen A-hole Starfleet characters before. Usually these character learn a lesson, come to realize the error of their ways, and we assume they grow to become better individuals (examples: Stiles in Balance of Terror, Hobson in TNG Redemption II). In STD on the other hand, the A-hole character is just killed off. No redemption. No growth.

So what was the point of Connolly's character? He's just a jerk for the sake of being one. It's a setup so we can enjoy watching the arrogant A-hole get what's coming to him. The writing on STD is so bad, and so dumb, that they tried to make us actually enjoy watching an Enterprise officer get killed.

Connolly was the science officer on the flagship of the Federation (Spock's eventual job). How could you possibly be in that position if you’re an idiot jerk?

Also, you could see Connolly's fate coming from a mile away, so there was no real tension or drama in the scene. That's not good writing. Did the writers think they were being clever because the blue shirt got killed instead of the red shirt? Again this show it totally juvenile.

 

[The Nemesis]

In this last episode of STD there was a character named Connolly (the blue shirt A-hole that gets sneezed on in the turbolift).

We've seen A-hole Starfleet characters before. Usually these character learn a lesson, come to realize the error of their ways, and we assume they grow to become better individuals (examples: Stiles in Balance of Terror, Hobson in TNG Redemption II). In STD on the other hand, the A-hole character is just killed off. No redemption. No growth.

So what was the point of Connolly's character? He's just a jerk for the sake of being one. It's a setup so we can enjoy watching the arrogant A-hole get what's coming to him. The writing on STD is so bad, and so dumb, that they tried to make us actually enjoy watching an Enterprise officer get killed.

Connolly was the science officer on the flagship of the Federation (Spock's eventual job). How could you possibly be in that position if you’re an idiot jerk?

Also, you could see Connolly's fate coming from a mile away, so there was no real tension or drama in the scene. That's not good writing. Did the writers think they were being clever because the blue shirt got killed instead of the red shirt? Again this show it totally juvenile.

The most juvenile thing was that he got sneezed on in the first place.

What the hell is gross-out, lowbrow comedy doing in Star Trek?

Is Pike going to do a 'pull my finger' gag next?

 

[The Nemesis]

Actually, I want to amend my previous statement.

knowing this show, it wouldn't be Pike, it'd be Spock.

 

[Blender]

Actually, I want to amend my previous statement.

knowing this show, it wouldn't be Pike, it'd be Spock.

Maybe that is what he was smiling about in the trailer?

 

[The Nemesis]

Maybe that is what he was smiling about in the trailer?

Not shown in the trailer: Spock and Pike greet each other with an elaborate fist bump/bro hug routine and a "wazzzuuuuuhpppppppp!"

 

[Osprey]

I was just reminded that CBS is also responsible for the misguided MacGyver and Magnum, P.I. reboots. Does CBS have nothing better to do than rip off and desecrate the things that we've loved since we were young?

 

[The Nemesis]

I was just reminded that CBS is also responsible for the misguided MacGyver and Magnum, P.I. reboots. Does CBS have nothing better to do than rip off and desecrate the things that we've loved since we were young?

Coming this fall: A rancher deals with constant threats to his land, deals with his unruly, uncontrollable sons (the fiercely independent, cunningly business-minded eldest, massive middle son with an uncontrollable temper, and the womanizing, gambling, drunkard youngest son), and the memories of all the women he's loved and lost, including some who might not be as 'gone' as he once let on, and the memories of some dark events that he would prefer stay in the past. Can he save his farm, keep his sons out of trouble, and deal with his compounding personal demons? Find out as Karl Urban plays Ben Cartwright in Bonanza. Only on CBS.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

Coming this fall: A rancher deals with constant threats to his land, deals with his unruly, uncontrollable sons (the fiercely independent, cunningly business-minded eldest, massive middle son with an uncontrollable temper, and the womanizing, gambling, drunkard youngest son), and the memories of all the women he's loved and lost, including some who might not be as 'gone' as he once let on, and the memories of some dark events that he would prefer stay in the past. Can he save his farm, keep his sons out of trouble, and deal with his compounding personal demons? Find out as Karl Urban plays Ben Cartwright in Bonanza. Only on CBS.

That's pretty much Yellowstone lol.