Despite Star Trek: Discovery’s critical success, it was far from a fan-favorite. Though all four seasons boast an average 85 percent critical score, the audience score is at a dismal 37 percent. Since audience scores are more strongly correlated to overall viewership, Discovery simply wasn’t pulling the numbers to make it a financially viable intellectual property.
Butchering the Klingons I understand (although from what I understand, they’re into that kinda thing). I also understand not liking the interpersonal dynamics as written. Out of curiosity, can you quantify bad storytelling? I’m guessing it’s more than just the technological Deus Ex Machina that Trek is famous for?
Hard disagree on the MC being Mary Sue. But to each his own, I asked and that’s one of your problems with the show.
One thing I don’t understand is your last statement. And I mean that as the general principal behind the statement. When an IP does something new, it’s hated. When it does what it’s always done, it’s stale. Somehow Strange New Worlds walks that tightrope. But I don’t see a problem with innovation and experimentation within a franchise. Especially with a new series that isn’t ruining existing character arcs (cough Rise of Skywalker cough). How, exactly, is a new series that goes a different direction a slap in the face of existing fans? Was DS9 a slap in the face? The Mandalorian? Without experimentation you don’t get innovative things.
Anyway, define bad storytelling. I’m not being antagonistic, I genuinely want to know. I like film theory and the art of storytelling, even if I don’t fully understand it at times and can’t do it myself
Sure. To be fair though, it’s been several years since I’ve watched DISC and it’s nowhere near fresh in my mind now… I watched up until they went to the future, and then like one episode of that was all I could take. So I’m just going off of what I remember hating back when I watched it.
The bad storytelling goes hand-in-hand with what I see as Michael being a Mary Sue. Since you don’t see her that way, you’ll probably disagree. But she got away with everything to an unrealistic degree in season one. She was insubordinate and rebellious. I think I remember things like her talking back/questioning the captain on the bridge. Other Treks showed things like that, and showed how it was not tolerated by anyone, even superior officers. Michael got away with it at every turn. She was technically a traitor to Star Fleet and she basically started the Klingon war, and she suffered zero repercussions for that. This is bad storytelling on several fronts. First off, it makes it feel like Starfleet has convenient blindness to whatever the main character does (aka plot armor), so it makes Starfleet seem comically unbelievable. Second, it starves the viewer of what should be major plot and character points. Other Trek shows occasionally had bad characters like Michael, but we got to see them feel the consequences of their actions. Ro Laren did some traitorous things, and that developed into a fascinating plot. There are plenty of other examples… Barclay, Geordi, Worf to name a few… But Michael never seemed to suffer any consequences as a character, and it felt unsatisfying as a viewer to watch that.
Then, plot stuff. The Lorca bait-and-switch was really lame. The Empress Giorgio/mommy issues subplot was really annoying. The superweapon that was the spore drive was a bad idea. The intelligent nano machines sucked. But the biggest issue with all of these is that they were underdeveloped and just got written off lazily. Each of these had a bad start, but they could have been turned into something interesting with good writing. But they never got the story development they deserved. Maybe this is because DISC’s seasons were shorter than old Trek, and they just didn’t have enough time to develop all these subplots. But they just sucked and felt half-assed.
(I’m sorry I can’t get more specific than that… it’s a memory issue. I honestly have put most of those problems out of my mind now, and I can’t remember specifically why I hated them after so long…)
Also, Michael in general… besides being a Mary Sue character. Sonequa Martin-Green is just not a good actor. It might be that I hate the character of Michael, or it might be that she was just not capable of carrying the show on her back, but DISC was at its best when Michael was in the background. Saru was an awesome character and the highlights of DISC were when he took charge of the ship. But just about any time the show got good, Michael came in and spoiled it somehow, either by poor acting or by Mary Sue-ish plot garbage.
The best thing to come out of DISC was the spinoff Strange New Worlds, which really captured the feeling of the old Trek series. DISC feels like the JJ Abrams movies, which are also trash and feel like a slap in the face for long-term fans. I’m all for experimentation, and I am certainly not saying that doing something new is necessarily bad. The shows you mentioned (DS9, The Mandalorian) tried new things and nailed it. And I love SNW, so that nullifies that theory. DISC isn’t bad because it tried new things. It’s bad because it failed at executing those things well, and it did so on so many levels.
I get it, thank you, appreciate it. I can see the reasoning and it makes sense. And I understand your Mary Sue perspective a bit more.
I can see an argument could be made for her having repercussions at the beginning of the series. But I can also see that being a traitor didn’t have long lasting effects (because of Plot) and that she never learned from her mistakes. That tracks.
I don’t really have an issue with the Lorca or Giorgio plots, and I’ve watched/read/played enough Star Wars to not be phased by stupid superweapons lol. Still I can see your reasoning on the sloppy writing and development.
As far as the Abrams movies, I’m with Plinkett. Star Trek the Star Trek was… a pretty decent action movie actually. It’s not high art, but it’s fun and high energy. It’s not Real Trek™, but it doesn’t have to be. We have Real Trek™ movies, and they’re great. Let the kids have some junk food. I’ll be over here eating Wrath of Khan again, and liking it.
I think you make really valid points, and as I said, I appreciate the time you took to do the write-up. I think my standards are lower for Entertainment. If I want to escape for an hour or two I don’t really mind if it’s fuzzy along the edges. By having the goal of being distracted from my life’s cares for a bit I wind up very pleasantly surprised when a show like Andor or Asteroid City comes along and knocks my socks off with actual Art. Or when a quality piece of Entertainment like Strange New Worlds land at my feet. “Ooh, neat!” I think, “I wanted a hot dog and was delivered Filet Mignon.” Which means, if I get a hot dog, I’m not terribly disappointed.
I think Discovery was a Coney Dog, with some average meat sauce and a really sharp cheddar. But the beef dog at the core was pretty okay and it didn’t make me sick. The bun was stale though
Zero negative ones. As far as I could tell she was rewarded for every mistake even if there was a tiny slap on the wrist first.