Watching SNW S2E2, I couldn’t help but contrast it with Discovery … my thoughts.

https://startrek.website/post/92087

Watching SNW S2E2, I couldn’t help but contrast it with Discovery … my thoughts. - Star Trek: Website

Reposting this from the SNW S2E2 thread as it was removed by a mod for being “off topic”. ::: spoiler SNW S2E2 spoilers and a Discovery critical perspective So I’m not the biggest fan of Discovery. I would say I’ve found it a disappointment and I’m sure I’m not alone in this. I don’t want to convince anyone here of this or even get into the arguments, in part because there’s still a lot I’ve liked about the show and what they tried and the fact that it ushered in more trek! What I did want to talk about, just in case anyone finds it interesting or agrees … is that this last episode of SNW (S2 ep 2, ad astra per aspera) feels like a perfect demonstration of what Discovery was missing. Sure, using a court trial as a vehicle is a bit tropy, but for a reason, it works. The story and premise of the trial, while not particularly deep or even well rooted in character, worked. It made sense, had human and political plot elements to it and was delivered well most importantly … all of which is what, IMO, Discovery often lacked and instead would often just cross the line into being on the nose. I don’t want to be negative against Discovery here. It is what it is and has its fans. I just want to express as someone who didn’t vibe with Discovery that this is what was missing for me, and I’m very pleased to have SNW! Added to original post after removed Watching the episode it felt like writers etc had reflected on Discovery and wanted to do the progressive, ethical stuff differently, and maybe they were trying to do it better too. IMO, what the writers managed to pull off was successfully weaving personal stories and inter personal dynamics with the ethical issue, which, in combination with the court room drama structure, allowed the issue to be explored and unravelled organically. From what I’ve gathered from my own reflections and speaking to others about Discovery, part of the difficulties some of us have had with it is its tendency to resort to speeches/monologues to digest dilemmas. For someone like me, it was tonally off putting, because it took away my ability to feel like I was exploring the issue myself either sympathetically with individual characters or logically/philosophically. With this episode, part of the reason it works, IMO is that Una’s trial takes us through the issue, not any one perspective, character or speech, demonstrating each character’s personal connections and biases while also allowing the issues to stay in focus. Plus, it was cool to see Neera being a badass lawyer! Maybe I just like legal dramas too much!! Thoughts? Am I being too harsh on Discovery? :::

Am I being too harsh on Discovery?

A little bit, I think. To pick an obvious example, "Unification III" is a variation of a courtroom drama that I feel was executed quite well. It put Burnham and Saru's personalities front and centre, and shed light on the personalities of Presidents Rillak and T'rina - two fairly new characters - as well.

Yep ... I was thinking of that episode when I wrote the post. Unfortunately I don't have a clear enough memory of it to get into details, and I might find you to be right on a re-watch.

Nonetheless, my memory of the episode is that it wasn't really about anything "ethically meaty". It might have been enjoyable or interesting, but it seemed primarily character driven, inline with your summary of it (Burnham's character especially and the dynamic of her immaturity, stubbornness and determination/ambition), which would mean it isn't really relevant to my thoughts or as a contrast with SNW S2E2 ... ?

If we're talking about ethics, Discovery's first season is entirely about reactionaries, and the importance of upholding values even in the face of annihilation. Vance's negotiations with Osyraa in season three touched on similar themes. Season four had extensive discussions about the ways to approach the DMA crisis. All ethical dilemmas.

And they're all strong points in Discovery.

But I'm not just talking about ethics, but the delivery of Sci-Fi/Star Trek drama about ethics. I don't think any of the cited examples dug into their issues in the same way, and for me, as well, with the exception of the Vance-Osyraa negotiation (that was wonderful!) ... and all I'm trying to do is use the episode to articulate, even for myself, why I feel the way I do about Discovery.

That's all fair enough, and no one can make you like something.

But you did ask what people thought...

I didn't particularly loved Ad Astra Per Aspera but I agree that this episode demonstrates the tone difference between Discovery and SNW very well, but honestly all of SNW feels like it was a 180 degrees shift from Discovery.

I think this is well laid out and largely accurate, mirroring a lot of what I have felt about the contrast between SNW and DISCO (in my opinion, heavily in favor of SNW).

I will note that Discovery has got this right before in a slightly different format with the Tardigrade in The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry and especially Choose Your Pain. I think they did a wonderful job walking the audience, via Burnham's perspective, through a pretty dramatic shift in how "Ripper" is perceived: first a horrific monster, then a weird, interesting alien and a technical puzzle, and finally a suffering creature deserving of sympathy and protection. They balance that out with competing perspectives around the intimately connected ethical questions around potentially killing that creature to save their lives (and potentially the Federation), culminating in Stamets making an extremely forceful endorsement of the creature's right to life.

Nothing else in Discovery's catalogue (save perhaps S4), or any other pre-SNW nuTrek show, did nearly as good a job tackling a classically Trek ethical dilemma. Plus, they took full advantage of the continuity between episodes to do so, drawing a benefit from the format which seemed to have far less beneficial effects on the later seasons.

Thanks! I don’t have clear memories of that episode, but what you describe rings true. I literally just rewatched Disco S1E3 … and was I like “I forgot about the tardigrade!!” when it showed up.

Relatedly, Disco, and IMO Picard, have oddly underrated first seasons which may actually be the shows’ best, with deeper problems, for some fans, coming in as the show goes.

Relatedly, Disco, and IMO Picard, have oddly underrated first seasons which may actually be the shows’ best, with deeper problems, for some fans, coming in as the show goes.

I fully agree with this take. Or at least the DISCO parts of it.

The first nine episodes of Discovery are a model for what streaming era Star Trek should have looked like - Star Trek: Website

To say Discovery has been “controversial” would be something of an understatement. From the very beginning the show sparked off considerable debate about it’s quality, and the bevy of showrunner changes and resulting shifts in tone and plot choices just adds an extra layer of confusion. Many of the same groups and same people continue to have very similar arguments over what is clearly a completely different show in 2023 than it was in 2017. Personally I’ve become frustrated to the point of disinterest about where this show has gone, which makes it all the more exciting to go back and (re)discover something I thought I knew but had begun to really wonder about: The very beginnings of Discovery are fucking excellent television. Here’s why. ## Early Discovery was actually planned out To start with, the pacing and plotting of both the individual episodes and the overall arc of the season are excellent. In the moment, they are delightfully seamless: pacing is brisk but not rushed, traversing from one important thing to the next, with emotional moments given an appropriate amount of time to be registered and felt without feeling drawn out. Each episode has a clear beginning, middle, and end, with individual stakes that matter beyond simply advancing the season plot. Of course they consistently advance the overall season plot too (with the exception of Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad, which is “merely” a wonderfully executed standalone sci fi story that significantly develops three of our main characters). They do so not by dropping largely inconsequential teases and misdirection in alleged pursuit of a goal fated for resolution only in the finale, but via bite sized, meaningful changes to the circumstances our heroes find themselves in. This demonstrates something which is clearly absent from the subsequent seasons, and even tossed away before the end of this one: detailed long term planning. Not only are we spared the bizare shifts in background information (is the Red Angel suit hyper advanced future tech, or something a research team banged out 20 years ago? Is the 32nd century Federation tiny, isolated, and largely ignored, or are they active galactic participants with genuine political clout?), but it’s also critical for allowing the episodes to flow neatly together as a coherent story. There’s been plenty of debate about if Star Trek should even be trying to tell these long-arc, binge-friendly seasonal stories, but clearly CBS wanted that. So why not do it right? ## Early Discovery (mostly) makes sense Every Star Trek show has had it’s share of silly stuff. Obviously TOS was absolutely loaded with zany things that seem more in keeping with it’s cardboard and hot glue aesthetics than the more serious tone subsequent shows attempted to set, but even the best of TNG era Trek had some whoppers mixed in. Where it has succeeded is by keeping most of the wacky missteps in relatively unimportant places, encapsulated by single episodes and devoid of larger consequence. Then there’s the tech which every Starfleet ship is totally reliant on, most of which has only a fleeting connection to real world physics. The Mycelial Network blends right in: it’s a pretty wild idea and most certainly is not real. Just like warp drive. And just like warp drive, it is at least based on something real [https://www.forbes.com/sites/linhanhcat/2019/03/19/star-trek-discovery-spore-drive/?sh=4aaa6f8d3741]. Ehh, close enough. I have little desire to relitigate in depth the plausibility of S2/S3 Burnham being intimately connected to so many wildly disparate galaxy changing things, or how reasonable it is to have a emotionally distraught child trigger a galactic cataclysm that nobody could solve for over a century, but I’ll certainly contend that early Discovery’s WTF rate [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ilMjE1Gh3Yg/VpUAmd-6TWI/AAAAAAAAAbg/-FJ08zxN42s/s320/WFTPM.png] is more in line with TNG era Trek than it’s more recent seasons have been. A low bar? Sure. But a relevant one. ## Early Discovery did good job developing characters By the end of those nine episodes, we’ve had a reasonable detailed introduction to six main characters, and all of them have at least a little extra dimensionality to them, enough that they feel real and as presented, I do care what happens to them [https://web.archive.org/web/20191008190554/https://old.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/bftmfq/i_dont_care_what_happens_to_these_people_the/]: Burnham is our focusing lens for the story and certainly gets the most screen time, but she’s also far from the most important person on the ship. We know she’s a proficient officer, but also that she fucked up royally with massive repercussions in the opening acts of the show. That dichotomy lines up well with her odd mix of behaviors: conflicted about how much she deserves the second chance she was thrust into, yet supremely confident in her own abilities. Highly empathetic towards the Tardigrade, yet unhesitant and unapologetic in manipulating Saru into being a walking danger meter. There’s clearly major unresolved trauma there, and I’d like to see this person develop more naturally from here. She should have her redemption, but she’ll need to earn it: not through one grand gesture of genocide refusal, but by demonstrating over time that she is dealing with her demons, and really has learned from the disaster at the binaries. Speaking of the most important people on the ship, Stamets is chief among them. He has neither the desire nor the mentality to be a warrior, and yet he serves an irreplaceable and absolutely critical role in what has clearly become a ship of war. He’s a jerk when we first meet him, but his military necessitated chance to get close and personal with his research shows us a softer side, and likely changed him in ways that we’re just starting to see develop. Culber is still mostly one-note, but as a couple they play very well off each other. Saru has a decidedly alien mentality for a military officer, but is clearly good at what he does. He is both thoughtful and candid about his past and present conflicts with Burnham, and his stint as acting captain in Choose Your Pain showed considerable growth. I want to see more of this guy learning to command (and I will get some, if less than I’d like). Tilly is an absolute delight. She has her share of minor and harmless tics, babbling when she’s nervous and occasionally blurting things out when excited, and she’s vulnerable to getting flustered… but can still pull herself together and do what must be done. She shows an impressive level of emotional intelligence in her interactions with Burnham and Stamets, and she also has the awareness and confidence to identify what she wants in life, and fight for it. That’s an incredibly endearing combination, and makes her the emotional heart of the show. Give me more, much more, of Burnham mentoring Tilly up to an eventual captaincy. Maybe Tilly could only reasonably work her way to full Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander over the course of a seven season show, but that would be plenty: I’m not here to see four pips, I’m here to see believable growth in an already sympathetic character. Lorca and Tyler I’ll be touching on later. (Continued in the comments [https://startrek.website/comment/149302]…)