Star Trek: Discovery

[Dynaman]

7 hours ago, Dobber said:

 The lack of willingness to put in one’s time to move up, learn, and grow. Just total entitlement. 

Those days are long gone, except in the military and Unions (no judgement there, those are the only two places I know where you have to start at the bottom and move up).  The days where the mail room boy (do they still have them anymore?) stays with one company to eventually become CEO is long gone.  

[Seto Kaiba]

7 hours ago, Dobber said:

One of my biggest problems with a lot of the Kurtzman Trek was the utter lack of professionalism displayed by quasi-military officers who are supposedly the best and brightest. The snide remarks and quips etc. An utter lack of discipline. 

[...]

I PERSONALLY think that is one reason why so many of these characters don’t resonate with a good portion of the audience. Not because of (insert personal affiliation) but more because of attitude.

That broadly echoes one of the main complaints audiences have with the writing in Star Trek: Discovery.

Namely, that the lighthearted camaraderie that audiences are used to seeing among Starfleet crews in Star Trek is almost totally absent from Star Trek: Discovery.  We see bits of it here and there, on the USS Shenzhou early in the first episode and among the crew of the USS Enterprise, but the crew of the USS Discovery seem to absolutely LOATHE each other.  It might have been understandable if it were confined to interactions with Burnham, who'd given everyone in Starfleet and especially the survivors of the Shenzhou ample reason to despise her, but it's almost everyone.  It says a lot that the most affable person on the crew in the first season is (Mirror) Gabriel Lorca, a man considered excessively evil and overly racist by Mirror Universe standards.  It never really gets better either. 

Captain Pike replaces Captain Lorca as the token nice character and he treats people with more respect, but it's not until season three that the writers seem to realize that the crew are frankly awful to each other and they seem to struggle to address it.  There's that dinner party in S3E4 "Forget Me Not" where the crew's loathing of each other spills out into the open and almost everyone storms out after several minutes of trading barbs.  

It gets a little better in season four, but that's partly because the focus of the discontent shifts from Burnham and the Discovery crew to their interactions with the rest of the Federation and especially the new President.  They never really manage to overcome the fact that these characters vocally hated each other and there's no real resolution to it.  It just sort of peters out.

 

8 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Those days are long gone, except in the military and Unions (no judgement there, those are the only two places I know where you have to start at the bottom and move up).  The days where the mail room boy (do they still have them anymore?) stays with one company to eventually become CEO is long gone.  

That's not a generational thing.  As a hiring manager, I can say with a good deal of confidence that's a change in how corporations operate and especially in how they consider the question of staffing.

That's also off-topic, and veering towards another warning from the mods.

[JB0]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Namely, that the lighthearted camaraderie that audiences are used to seeing among Starfleet crews in Star Trek is almost totally absent from Star Trek: Discovery.  We see bits of it here and there, on the USS Shenzhou early in the first episode and among the crew of the USS Enterprise, but the crew of the USS Discovery seem to absolutely LOATHE each other. 

It seems worth noting that cameraderie even existed in Voyager, where half the crew was supposed to be arrested by the other half.

 

Granted, it's considered a large flaw in the show that they brushed aside a justifiable interpersonal conflict to put the maquis into Starfleet uniforms, but if people who are ACTUALLY enemies can set it aside and work together that easily, why can't Discovery's crew?

[Dynaman]

2 hours ago, JB0 said:

It seems worth noting that cameraderie even existed in Voyager, where half the crew was supposed to be arrested by the other half.

Even Next Gen was supposed to have Picard and Riker not get along all that well, not openly antagonistic but having a different idea of how things should work - I can't remember if that even lasted through the pilot.

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, JB0 said:

It seems worth noting that cameraderie even existed in Voyager, where half the crew was supposed to be arrested by the other half.

It likely helped considerably that many of Chakotay's people were ex-Starfleet to begin with, that the Voyager crew outnumbered the Maquis more than five to one, that serving under Janeway as part of the Starfleet crew promised a far higher standard of living than spending the next seventy years in an improvised jail cell, and that Starfleet disciplinary measures are a lot less Klingon than "the Maquis way":

 

Just now, Dynaman said:

Even Next Gen was supposed to have Picard and Riker not get along all that well, not openly antagonistic but having a different idea of how things should work - I can't remember if that even lasted through the pilot.

I don't think that was ever really a thing.  Esp. since Gene Roddenberry had full creative control of the early seasons of TNG and he was death on the entire idea of interpersonal conflict among the crew.

 

2 hours ago, JB0 said:

Granted, it's considered a large flaw in the show that they brushed aside a justifiable interpersonal conflict to put the maquis into Starfleet uniforms, but if people who are ACTUALLY enemies can set it aside and work together that easily, why can't Discovery's crew?

Disliking and distrusting Burnham is a completely understandable reaction for most anyone on the Discovery, but the only crew member who really has a reason to be unhappy to be on the Discovery at all is Chief Engineer Stamets.  He was a researcher who was more or less drafted into the war effort because Starfleet shifted to exploring military uses of his technology.  Nobody else in the crew really has a reason to just hate everyone on the ship the way so many of them seem to.

[mechaninac]

Characters are only as good/interesting as the people writing them; that most of Discovery's characters were miserable drecks, and the main protagonist a loathsome one, speaks volumes about those penning the scripts and producing the show... garbage in, garbage out.

[Dynaman]

12 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

I don't think that was ever really a thing.  Esp. since Gene Roddenberry had full creative control of the early seasons of TNG and he was death on the entire idea of interpersonal conflict among the crew.

 

It was certainly there for all of a few minutes at least, kind of a carryover from the Kirk/Decker dynamic.  Which also seemed pretty forced.  

[Thom]

14 hours ago, Dynaman said:

Even Next Gen was supposed to have Picard and Riker not get along all that well, not openly antagonistic but having a different idea of how things should work - I can't remember if that even lasted through the pilot.

 

1 hour ago, Dynaman said:

It was certainly there for all of a few minutes at least, kind of a carryover from the Kirk/Decker dynamic.  Which also seemed pretty forced.  

It appeared again during Yesterday's Enterprise, where they clearly had a merely working relationship with some cold shoulder thrown in.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Thom

[pengbuzz]

19 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

I don't think that was ever really a thing.  Esp. since Gene Roddenberry had full creative control of the early seasons of TNG and he was death on the entire idea of interpersonal conflict among the crew.

I think Gene was trying to portray people having a professional working relationship (just my take on it). Spock and McCoy didn't see eye to eye, but it didn't prevent them e from working together and doing their jobs. I imagine with different backgrounds, Picard and Riker didn't always see things the same way either, but for the good of the ship they had to work as a command unit.

with ST:D, those people should have been dead by now with all the grudges and snippery they engage in on a regular basis.

[Seto Kaiba]

3 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

I think Gene was trying to portray people having a professional working relationship (just my take on it). Spock and McCoy didn't see eye to eye, but it didn't prevent them e from working together and doing their jobs. I imagine with different backgrounds, Picard and Riker didn't always see things the same way either, but for the good of the ship they had to work as a command unit.

Gene... had a lot of ideas that were not necessarily suited to television, both from a writing perspective and a general "the limits of good taste" perspective.

One of his stranger and more problematic mandates after gaining full creative control over Star Trek with Star Trek: the Next Generation was that 24th century humans were simply too advanced and enlightened for interpersonal conflict.  That caused a lot of writers and production crew to quit or get fired during the show's first two seasons, until Gene's failing health and mounting problems with the production led to him being ousted and Rick Berman taking his place for the third season.  

 

3 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

with ST:D, those people should have been dead by now with all the grudges and snippery they engage in on a regular basis.

It's actually kind of amazing that their distrust and borderline sociopathy didn't get more of them killed in the series thus far.

Somehow - by which I mean a directorial fiat - Michael Burnham's rogue actions never seem to have actual lasting negative consequences for her or anyone else... except at the very start where it's required to kickstart her "arc".

[pengbuzz]

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Gene... had a lot of ideas that were not necessarily suited to television, both from a writing perspective and a general "the limits of good taste" perspective.

One of his stranger and more problematic mandates after gaining full creative control over Star Trek with Star Trek: the Next Generation was that 24th century humans were simply too advanced and enlightened for interpersonal conflict.  That caused a lot of writers and production crew to quit or get fired during the show's first two seasons, until Gene's failing health and mounting problems with the production led to him being ousted and Rick Berman taking his place for the third season.  

 

It's actually kind of amazing that their distrust and borderline sociopathy didn't get more of them killed in the series thus far.

Somehow - by which I mean a directorial fiat - Michael Burnham's rogue actions never seem to have actual lasting negative consequences for her or anyone else... except at the very start where it's required to kickstart her "arc".

Very badly used plot armor, to be sure. In ST4, Kirk's actions got him demoted, and the only reason he and the crew didn't go "mine beryllium for the rest of their lives" was that Earth and several other starships were up the creek without a warp nacelle. But all that was a result of Kirk's actions to retrieve Spock's body.

Burnham, on the other hand, was pulling this kind of stuff fairly often. And IIRC, for much less noble and world-shattering reasons.

[Seto Kaiba]

10 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Very badly used plot armor, to be sure. In ST4, Kirk's actions got him demoted, and the only reason he and the crew didn't go "mine beryllium for the rest of their lives" was that Earth and several other starships were up the creek without a warp nacelle. But all that was a result of Kirk's actions to retrieve Spock's body.

In Star Trek IV, Kirk et. al. had a LOT of mitigating factors that prevented them from experiencing the full consequences of their actions... the biggest of which was probably not having just saved Earth, but having just saved the son of the hugely influential Ambassador Sarek.

 

10 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Burnham, on the other hand, was pulling this kind of stuff fairly often. And IIRC, for much less noble and world-shattering reasons.

Burnham's various Karma Houdini moments never really end up making sense.

There's really not a lot that could be called meritorious about using a weapon of mass destruction intended for a planetary genocide to force a regime change on Qo'nos which is propped up by "obey me or I will destroy us all".  That it works at all is kind of outrageous.  That the Chancellor that Burnham installs manages to hold onto power for any length of time is astonishing.  Somehow, this is enough to convince the Federation president to not just pardon her for her earlier crimes of mutiny and assaulting a superior officer, but also to reinstate her commission AND award her a medal.

Luckily, they never get a chance to put her on trial for visiting Talos IV.

In season three she violates direct orders from both her Captain and the Starfleet Commander in Chief to go charging off on a rescue mission that results in Starfleet's only non-warp starship falling into enemy hands and nearly causes a second Burn... but she's rewarded for it with a promotion to Captain and command of the single most stratically-important starship in the fleet.  Made worse by the fact that she'd been told just a few episodes earlier that she was unsuited for command precisely because she couldn't follow orders.

[pengbuzz]

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

In Star Trek IV, Kirk et. al. had a LOT of mitigating factors that prevented them from experiencing the full consequences of their actions... the biggest of which was probably not having just saved Earth, but having just saved the son of the hugely influential Ambassador Sarek.

That's my point here: Kirk's actions at least were for something other than himself, and on the behalf of the saving the Federation (and now that you mention it: Ambassador Sarek had some serious pull in the Federation).

 

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Burnham's various Karma Houdini moments never really end up making sense.

There's really not a lot that could be called meritorious about using a weapon of mass destruction intended for a planetary genocide to force a regime change on Qo'nos which is propped up by "obey me or I will destroy us all".  That it works at all is kind of outrageous.  That the Chancellor that Burnham installs manages to hold onto power for any length of time is astonishing.  Somehow, this is enough to convince the Federation president to not just pardon her for her earlier crimes of mutiny and assaulting a superior officer, but also to reinstate her commission AND award her a medal.

Yeah... as compared to ST IV, Burnham's actions were just plain....dumb. Even dumber was restoring her former rank and awarding her for said dumbery.

 

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Luckily, they never get a chance to put her on trial for visiting Talos IV.

More like unfortunately. Maybe they should have LEFT her there on Talos IV, but that might have started a war with the Talosians.

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

In season three she violates direct orders from both her Captain and the Starfleet Commander in Chief to go charging off on a rescue mission that results in Starfleet's only non-warp starship falling into enemy hands and nearly causes a second Burn... but she's rewarded for it with a promotion to Captain and command of the single most stratically-important starship in the fleet.  Made worse by the fact that she'd been told just a few episodes earlier that she was unsuited for command precisely because she couldn't follow orders.

At this point, I really wonder who's worse: her or her "superiors"?

Thank heaven this debacle is about to die.

[Dobber]

I stopped watching Discovery pretty early in season 3, but I’ve heard it said that all of Burnhams accomplishments are basically solving the problems that she, herself, created. Is that more or less accurate?

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

At this point, I really wonder who's worse: her or her "superiors"?

Her.  Poor Admiral Vance seems to be something approximating a decent, principled being.  

He's an arse for enabling her, and he had many far better options to command the Discovery than her, but Burnham is very much a Designated Hero.

 

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Thank heaven this debacle is about to die.

It won't be missed.

Ironically, Picard's sudden reversal thanks to becoming the TNG cast reunion it promised it would never become has left Star Trek: Discovery as the worst-rated Star Trek series of all time by a substantial margin.

 

17 minutes ago, Dobber said:

I stopped watching Discovery pretty early in season 3, but I’ve heard it said that all of Burnhams accomplishments are basically solving the problems that she, herself, created. Is that more or less accurate?

Not all of them... but most.

For instance, her saving the day by recapturing the USS Discovery after the Emerald Chain pirates take it over is 100% solving a problem she herself created.

She wasn't responsible for "the Burn", though... so solving that incredibly stupid mystery and unintentionally securing a new source of dilithium for the Federation is one of her few genuine achievements despite being a confluence of multiple massive plot holes.

Spoiler

Namely, the writers forgot a bunch of separate facts from previous Star Trek titles:

1. It's not possible for the galaxy to hit "peak dilithium" because:
   • Dilithium is not a fuel, it's a porous medium used to regulate the reaction between matter and antimatter.  It isn't consumed by its use in that context.
   • Using dilithium in a matter/antimatter reactor can cause it to degrade, but that degradation is reversible and the technology to reverse that degradation has existed since the 2250s (previously believed to be the 2280s via Star Trek IV).  By the 2360s, the Federation had developed the means to recrystalize dilithium without even needing to remove it from the warp core.
   • Dilithium's not even necessary to power a warp drive.  The Romulans had developed a dilithium and antimatter-free version of warp technology by the 2360s, as seen in Star Trek: the Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  Based on the relaunch novels that DSC and PIC have both referenced recently, they'd had versions of that technology going back as far as the 2160s.  The Romulans were Federation members for hundreds of years before "peak dilithium" in Discovery, meaning the Federation should 100% have had the knowledge to build warp drives that need neither dilithium nor antimatter.
2. There's no reason for the Federation to be using conventional warp drive, a technology that is nearly a thousand years old by that point, when there are far better and antimatter-free alternatives like quantum slipstream, infrastructure-based systems like transwarp corridors, or space fold drives (designer Doug Drexler asserted that's what the Enterprise-J had).  The lack of quantum slipstream is especially glaring, since it's not only exponentially faster than warp drive, it explicitly can be powered off impulse reactors (eliminating the need for antimatter) and the crystals needed to produce the effect are synthetic.
3. There's no reason for the Federation to be dependent on antimatter as a fuel, when they explicitly have had superior alternatives for hundreds of years.
4. Why would the Federation not use time travel to discover the origin of the Burn or even prevent it?  I'm pretty sure every signatory to the Temporal Accords would agree that the destruction of galactic civilization in the single worst catastrophe in history is worth preventing... especially since it can be prevented SO EASILY.

The fact that the show has plot holes so large they comprise entire seasons is something Discovery will NEVER escape.

[JB0]

16 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

In Star Trek IV, Kirk et. al. had a LOT of mitigating factors that prevented them from experiencing the full consequences of their actions... the biggest of which was probably not having just saved Earth, but having just saved the son of the hugely influential Ambassador Sarek.

I've always been annoyed by the "odd movie rule", mostly due to Search For Spock.
This is very tangental, but... it needed to be said.

[Thom]

10 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Her.  Poor Admiral Vance seems to be something approximating a decent, principled being.  

He's an arse for enabling her, and he had many far better options to command the Discovery than her, but Burnham is very much a Designated Hero.

Admiral Vance is a product of a show centered on Michael Burnham, and since she is the star, she is the one who must succeed. It is a trope that is both a strength (in other shows) and a weakness (in this one) seeing how they (the writers) have to tie themselves into knots in order to justify the end goal; Captain Burnham.

He really is the best character on that show.

[Seto Kaiba]

4 hours ago, Thom said:

Admiral Vance is a product of a show centered on Michael Burnham, and since she is the star, she is the one who must succeed. It is a trope that is both a strength (in other shows) and a weakness (in this one) seeing how they (the writers) have to tie themselves into knots in order to justify the end goal; Captain Burnham.

He really is the best character on that show.

Like the real/original Captain Georgiou and Captain Pike, he's one of the few characters on Star Trek: Discovery who seems to understand he's in a Star Trek series and what that means in terms of themes and tone.

[Seto Kaiba]

Also, given the recent news, can we now say that Disco is, in fact, dead?

[pengbuzz]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Like the real/original Captain Georgiou and Captain Pike, he's one of the few characters on Star Trek: Discovery who seems to understand he's in a Star Trek series and what that means in terms of themes and tone.

BTW: Oded Fehr (the actor that plays Admiral Vance) also played Medjai Chieftain Ardeth Bay in the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies.

[Thom]

5 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

BTW: Oded Fehr (the actor that plays Admiral Vance) also played Medjai Chieftain Ardeth Bay in the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies.

That was on last night, and suddenly I saw him and made the connection! He also plays the lead bad guy in the first season of Blood and Treasure.

On seeing actors in other movies, I just watched the Director's Cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Carl Weathers was in a scene cut from the theatrical release and Lance Henrikson is wandering around in the background when the aliens arrive at the end.

[sh9000]

 

[Seto Kaiba]

So... who's up to watch Discovery finish stumbling into the unmarked shallow grave that's been open and waiting for it since season one?

Kind of amazed it made it this far, considering Netflix tried to cancel it after seasons one and two and the season three course correction was one of the most poorly received story concepts in the franchise's history.  It can't claim responsibility for all or even most of the red ink on Paramount's earnings calls since it came out, but it definitely put a huge dent in the franchise's bottom line.

[pengbuzz]

14 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

So... who's up to watch Discovery finish stumbling into the unmarked shallow grave that's been open and waiting for it since season one?

Kind of amazed it made it this far, considering Netflix tried to cancel it after seasons one and two and the season three course correction was one of the most poorly received story concepts in the franchise's history.  It can't claim responsibility for all or even most of the red ink on Paramount's earnings calls since it came out, but it definitely put a huge dent in the franchise's bottom line.

This is still a thing? I thought they fired the cast and crew quietly, and Michael Burnham was on the street holding a sign that read "Will Dramatize for Food".

[Big s]

I thought STD was done. I guess the herp comes back

[Seto Kaiba]

3 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

This is still a thing? I thought they fired the cast and crew quietly, and Michael Burnham was on the street holding a sign that read "Will Dramatize for Food".

It is, but not for very much longer.  Paramount announced back in March that season five would be Discovery's last and they're sticking to it.

Looks like Paramount finally decided to cut its losses after three major efforts to overhaul the series failed to get the show's viewership up to a reasonable level.

We can't really blame this on the cast, though.  The lion's share of Discovery's problems came from the writers room.  There's only so much even the best actors and directors can do to salvage a truly awful script... and the Discovery writers room seemed to produce nothing but.  It honestly seems like every bad decision that could be made was made, from going all-in on a single painfully unlikeable main character to developing whole seasons around pitches that previous teams of producers had rejected as unworkably awful ideas.

 

Spoiler

TBH, I expect season three's "Burn" storyline will go down in Trek history as Discovery's contribution to Star Trek's "Worst Ever" storylines alongside the likes of "Spock's Brain", "Code of Honor", "Move Along Home", "Threshold", and "These are the Voyages".  Not just for the nonsensical reveal at the end, but because the entire premise doesn't make sense and is actually one massive plot hole.

 

[mechaninac]

Season 3 was actually very apropos to the series as a whole; after all, several STDs do burn... 

[mikeszekely]

On 12/2/2023 at 7:02 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

So... who's up to watch Discovery finish stumbling into the unmarked shallow grave that's been open and waiting for it since season one?

The first season had it's issues, but I'd say it was tolerable.  I actually liked the second season; I could do without the writers shoehorning Burnham into Spock's backstory, but the mystery of the Red Angel was kind of intriguing (at least, until they solved it in a pretty unsatisfactory way), and Pike and Spock were great.  But the third season was, as you said, a huge plot hole, and quite frankly the move to the future was really less about the writers needing room to tell stories without worrying about canon and more an admission that the writers flat out did not understand Star Trek enough to get the canon in the first place.  As bad as the third season was, though, somehow the fourth season was worse.  And yet, despite hating most of the crew, despite hating the future setting, and despite disliking three out of the five main story arcs in Discovery, yeah.  I'm going to hate watch it.

[Thom]

Season 2 was the best one. Season 3 could have been great, except for all the already posted reasons. The Burn could have been a truly compelling story, but just ended up being a child's tantrum. Maybe I'll watch this last one if I'm bored enough.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Thom

[wm cheng]

8 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

...I'm going to hate watch it.

LOL, I thought I was the only one hate watching it...

[Seto Kaiba]

1 minute ago, wm cheng said:

LOL, I thought I was the only one hate watching it...

I feel like hate-watching is the only viewership Star Trek: Discovery has left.

I'll be hate-watching the final season... if only because I want the satisfaction of knowing it's over and won't come back.

 

For me, it's been all downhill from Discovery's already low starting point.  Season one had a tight, focused narrative until that mirror universe plot tumor cropped up.  Each season has felt progressively less like the writers and showrunners have an actual plan and more like they're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

[tekering]

20 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Season one had a tight, focused narrative until that mirror universe plot tumor cropped up.

My God, you're right.  I remember being very impressed with Discovery at the beginning.

How ironic, given the awkward growing pains that most Star Trek series have suffered through in their first seasons...  The early episodes of DS9, Enterprise and Voyager are easily the worst, and The Next Generation's first season is best ignored entirely. 🤨

How is it that Discovery squandered so much promise, so quickly...? 🤔

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, tekering said:

My God, you're right.  I remember being very impressed with Discovery at the beginning.

How ironic, given the awkward growing pains that most Star Trek series have suffered through in their first seasons...  The early episodes of DS9, Enterprise and Voyager are easily the worst, and The Next Generation's first season is best ignored entirely. 🤨

How is it that Discovery squandered so much promise, so quickly...? 🤔

Just because it was a tight, focused narrative doesn't necessarily mean it was good or fit for purpose.

Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners and writers seem to have gone into the project with a clear and consistent vision... for something almost entirely unlike Star Trek.  Even now, it honestly still feels like Discovery's season one story was developed as an original IP and hastily rebranded as Star Trek when there were no takers. 

It's really easy to spot where Discovery's writers literally lost the plot.  It's the mid-season break.  For some reason, likely an executive poking their oar in, they hit that mid-season break and went "Sh*t, we're writing for Star Trek.  That means we have to do Star Trek things!".  And from that we got the extended digression to an even darker and edgier version of the mirror universe.  Why darker and edgier?  Because the regular one is a significantly nicer place than Discovery's normal setting.  That was followed by the season's hastily-composed conclusion wherein the crew realize their time over in the land of evil twins has taught them the true meaning of christmas and they take the strong and controversial moral position that... *checks notes*... "genocide is bad".  It isn't a moral stance they're completely committed to, though, as they still use the very real and immediate threat of genocide to force their enemies into a ceasefire... a decision that's lauded as the very model of Federation ideals for some reason.

... and the producers wondered why this left fans wanting to tar and feather them.

The reason the series continues to fall apart as time goes on is because its showrunners keep making half-baked course-corrections intended to "win back the fans"... but without the courage to acknowledge that the problem lies in their concept for the series being at odds with Star Trek thematically and tonally.

If they'd stuck to their original concept and run it as an original IP instead of as Star Trek, they'd probably have done OK for themselves.

[Seto Kaiba]

Since season five starts in a few months, I decided to wade back in and attempt to watch season four.

One thing I've realized while watching the first three episodes of Star Trek: Discovery's fourth season is that the reason this show feels so exhausting to watch is that the stakes are always as high as they can go and there's never any relief from the tension.  The survival of the Federation itself was at stake in season one's plot, and from season two onward the stakes rose to the fate of the entire galaxy.  Without an opportunity to relax - a breather episode like those classic Trek followed heavier stories with - the all-consuming emphasis on the impending doom du jour just becomes suffocating for the audience.

(And the writers still don't seem to have realized that adding Tilly to an already tedious scene takes it from boring to change-the-channel level agonizing.)

[pengbuzz]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Since season five starts in a few months, I decided to wade back in and attempt to watch season four.

One thing I've realized while watching the first three episodes of Star Trek: Discovery's fourth season is that the reason this show feels so exhausting to watch is that the stakes are always as high as they can go and there's never any relief from the tension.  The survival of the Federation itself was at stake in season one's plot, and from season two onward the stakes rose to the fate of the entire galaxy.  Without an opportunity to relax - a breather episode like those classic Trek followed heavier stories with - the all-consuming emphasis on the impending doom du jour just becomes suffocating for the audience.

(And the writers still don't seem to have realized that adding Tilly to an already tedious scene takes it from boring to change-the-channel level agonizing.)

It's akin to the reason why an archer unstrings the bowstring on their hunting bow when not in use: constant tension will remove any ability to respond and the string will lose all resilience, resulting inevitably in snapping.

Not to mention it's not realistic al all; the world isn't in constant danger 24/7 forever. Even after the end of the world, the fragments of the planet float peacefully in space.