Star Trek Discovery Season 3 (CBS/Netflix) S4 tbc

Klippie

Member
I agree...I thoroughly enjoyed EP2 a good mix of on the ship and away team action.

Jett Reno...I love how she gets under Stamets skin at every opportunity, she's a good addition to the show.
 

lucasisking

Distinguished Member
Episode 2

Awful:

  • The 32nd century continues to not impress.
  • Lame, boring action scene.
  • The old "im going to unnecessarily torture you slowly (thus giving you the opportunity to turn the tables on me)" ploy by the villain.
  • Georgiou is the worst character possibly of any Trek regular, and a terrible hammy panto performance as always by Michelle Yeoh. Its inconceivable she would be aboard Discovery, except in the brig.
  • Sick and tired of Stamets always being at deaths door/in pain/ upset/ confused.
  • The obnoxious engineer, funny in small doses but too much this episode. Picard would tear her a new one.
  • Evil-white-man-of-the-week was pretty rubbish. Lets not bring him back.
  • Still nothing to clearly indicate the technologial gap between the 23rd and 32nd centuries, if anything it looks less advanced.

Technical stuff:

  • Yet another
    crash landing
    . I'll say it again: space is unimaginably vast, planets are unimaginably tiny. The idea that space is thick with planets and asteroids round every corner for ships to bump into is utter nonsense.
  • Discovery tech has a working cellular regenerator, but they use 'shovels' to clean up the mess in the spore chamber.
  • Characters have to walk for miles. Still no land vehicles aboard? Couldn't they beam part of the way?
  • When
    Discovery is picked up by a tractor beam, the ensign says 'enemy vessel'. How does he know its an 'enemy'? What enemy?
  • Is every planet in season 3 going to be Iceland?
  • Tilly now resembles General Martok from DS9.

Positives:

  • Superb visual effects
  • Saru is a great captain
  • Still like Detmer- wonder what's up with her...


3/10. Sorry, dreadful this week.


PS. as this is 'Star Trek' and not a cartoon show, I will continue to over-analyse (its the Vulcan in me).
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
i could be way off i thought Detmer is possibly previously compromised by Control, setting up a big bad return in future episodes?

Otherwise unless the parasitic ice has infected her



Episode 2

Awful:

  • The 32nd century continues to not impress.
  • Lame, boring action scene.
  • The old "im going to unnecessarily torture you slowly (thus giving you the opportunity to turn the tables on me)" ploy by the villain.
  • Georgiou is the worst character possibly of any Trek regular, and a terrible hammy panto performance as always by Michelle Yeoh. Its inconceivable she would be aboard Discovery, except in the brig.
  • Sick and tired of Stamets always being at deaths door/in pain/ upset/ confused.
  • The obnoxious engineer, funny in small doses but too much this episode. Picard would tear her a new one.
  • Evil-white-man-of-the-week was pretty rubbish. Lets not bring him back.
  • Still nothing to clearly indicate the technologial gap between the 23rd and 32nd centuries, if anything it looks less advanced.

Technical stuff:

  • Yet another
    crash landing
    . I'll say it again: space is unimaginably vast, planets are unimaginably tiny. The idea that space is thick with planets and asteroids round every corner for ships to bump into is utter nonsense.
  • Discovery tech has a working cellular regenerator, but they use 'shovels' to clean up the mess in the spore chamber.
  • Characters have to walk for miles. Still no land vehicles aboard? Couldn't they beam part of the way?
  • When
    Discovery is picked up by a tractor beam, the ensign says 'enemy vessel'. How does he know its an 'enemy'? What enemy?
  • Is every planet in season 3 going to be Iceland?
  • Tilly now resembles General Martok from DS9.

Positives:

  • Superb visual effects
  • Saru is a great captain
  • Still like Detmer- wonder what's up with her...


3/10. Sorry, dreadful this week.


PS. as this is 'Star Trek' and not a cartoon show, I will continue to over-analyse (its the Vulcan in me).
 
Last edited:

VisionMan

Well-known Member
Episode 2

Awful:

  • The 32nd century continues to not impress.
  • Lame, boring action scene.
  • The old "im going to unnecessarily torture you slowly (thus giving you the opportunity to turn the tables on me)" ploy by the villain.
  • Georgiou is the worst character possibly of any Trek regular, and a terrible hammy panto performance as always by Michelle Yeoh. Its inconceivable she would be aboard Discovery, except in the brig.
  • Sick and tired of Stamets always being at deaths door/in pain/ upset/ confused.
  • The obnoxious engineer, funny in small doses but too much this episode. Picard would tear her a new one.
  • Evil-white-man-of-the-week was pretty rubbish. Lets not bring him back.
  • Still nothing to clearly indicate the technologial gap between the 23rd and 32nd centuries, if anything it looks less advanced.

Technical stuff:

  • Yet another
    crash landing
    . I'll say it again: space is unimaginably vast, planets are unimaginably tiny. The idea that space is thick with planets and asteroids round every corner for ships to bump into is utter nonsense.
  • Discovery tech has a working cellular regenerator, but they use 'shovels' to clean up the mess in the spore chamber.
  • Characters have to walk for miles. Still no land vehicles aboard? Couldn't they beam part of the way?
  • When
    Discovery is picked up by a tractor beam, the ensign says 'enemy vessel'. How does he know its an 'enemy'? What enemy?
  • Is every planet in season 3 going to be Iceland?
  • Tilly now resembles General Martok from DS9.

Positives:

  • Superb visual effects
  • Saru is a great captain
  • Still like Detmer- wonder what's up with her...


3/10. Sorry, dreadful this week.


PS. as this is 'Star Trek' and not a cartoon show, I will continue to over-analyse (its the Vulcan in me).
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear....

You quite clearly don't like this version of Star Trek with a passion. I haven't seen any of them yet but I won't be listening to your reviews as they are your negative opinion only. This new series, set apart from canon, has very largely had positive reviews, so I'll just listen to them, sorry.
 
Last edited:

lucasisking

Distinguished Member
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear....

You quite clearly don't like this version of Star Trek with a passion. I haven't seen any of them yet but I won't be listening to your reviews as they are your negative opinion only. This new series, set apart from canon, has very largely had positive reviews, so I'll just listen to them, sorry.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

You quite clearly didn't read my positive review of the first episode last week (7/10) if you think my opinions are 'negative only'.

I suppose there is always the option of watching it for yourself , before you decide which people's opinions were worth you listening to? Also there's no need to apologise; it's not really my concern who you listen to.

Pleasantly surprised with that, despite the odd eye-roll and technical nitpick. Highly entertaining with some nice character introductions, my favourite being
the Starfleet Administrator
.

Lets get the issues out of the way first:
  • 'Ships collide in space causing them to crash land on a planet' cliche. To quote Douglas Adams; space is big. Really big.
  • Walking distance to the main city. That was lucky.
  • 'Characters have to have a fight when they first meet and gradually bond despite not liking each other' cliche. I guess thats how drama has to happen even in the far future.
  • Why are the early conversations so terse and frustrating? Two people separated by 900 years would have all the questions in the world, yet all Book keeps saying is "I dont wanna know". I bloody well wanna know!
  • Stormtrooper aim.
  • The technology doesn't look that much more advanced than what we're used to, despite the 'antique' comments.

re. Dilithium:
Is it really as big a deal as they make out? Dilithium is a component, not a power source, used to regulate matter/antimatter reactions. They are basically spark plugs. Zephram Cochrane managed without them. And Romulan ships dont even use anti-matter but Quantum singularities. So I can't believe 32nd century people can't find an alternative resource.

Good stuff:
  • Production values absolutely superb, with some nice sci-fi content especially the holo tech on the Federation station.
  • Book could be an interesting character, now we're past the obligatory 'untrustworthy scoundrel who works alone' style introduction.
  • A fun phaser fight, even if it is just another phaser fight (in a century where tech is far more advanced).
  • Michael gets to loosen up and have fun, including getting herself eaten by a space slug lol. Fun seeing her under the influence of the truth gas.
  • Gorgeous locations.
  • Final scene aboard the Starfleet station; wonderful. Got a tingle when they raised the Federation flag. Hope we see more of Aditya Sahil and other parts of Starfleet. (We also now know there are two other Federation Starships out there!)

Thumbs up 7/10. Already beats the **** out of Picard (for the final point alone).
 

Miss Mandy

Moderator
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear....

You quite clearly don't like this version of Star Trek with a passion. I haven't seen any of them yet but I won't be listening to your reviews as they are your negative opinion only. This new series, set apart from canon, has very largely had positive reviews, so I'll just listen to them, sorry.
I don't get the logic in that, why would you only listen to positive reviews? Why not listen to both sides then watch the series and make up your own mind?
 

VisionMan

Well-known Member
I don't get the logic in that, why would you only listen to positive reviews? Why not listen to both sides then watch the series and make up your own mind?
Why? Well, its like having a meal you've never had before. If in your own mind if you've already decided its going to be sh*t then it will be sh*t. In your own mind that is. If that makes sense.

A lot of Star Trek fans pre-judge series before they are even out and in their eyes new series have to perform to and within certain parameters within what they think Star Trek should be. Two episodes in have been released so far its a VERY small minority that have condemned it. The majority are with it. So without even seeing it I'm entitled to my opinion too.
 
Last edited:

Miss Mandy

Moderator
Nope, still makes no sense to me. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would put so much stock into other people's options whether they be positive or negative. For every person you find that loves the show you'll equally find one that hates it.
Your food analogy just doesn't work for me as I never go into anything thinking it's going to be bad or good; I go into things with an open mind and judge them for myself.

You've pulled apart @lucasisking's negative opinion on episode two without noticing that he was positive about episode one. Conversely I was positive about episode two, but slated episode one as I thought it was rubbish. And you'll find different people have views from all across the spectrum.
 

rampant

Well-known Member
@VisionMan - you too give valuable reviews - but you are letting your opinion override this. Not everyone is pro+++ on starttrek - and you have to accept that people also have negative view points - its in the reading (and the disagreeing) with these that makes this site so valuable.

(im a pro+++'er too - but like to read the non-positive stuff also )
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
Watched season one and two over the last month and enjoyed it. The extremely high production values papered over a lot of the cracks, but it was very good fun.

Just watched Ep1 of Season 3 and delighted with the direction they're taking it. Not an original bone in its body Sci-fi wise, but loving it anyway.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
Loved episode two. ST Execs: Just in case we hadn't stolen from enough sci-fi from the last 30 years, have some Firefly.
 

zantarous

Distinguished Member
Another excellent episode, although this is where I would fail the Starfleet office training test as I would have
been on the same page as Georgiou and would have made sure Zareh would not come back to cause trouble which you absolutely know he will.

Loved the little heart to heart with Saru and Tilly as they walked and the way he was encouraging her.

I really enjoy the banter between Reno and Stamets, makes me smile every time, only second to Georgiou walking of arms linked with Linus.

  • When
    Discovery is picked up by a tractor beam, the ensign says 'enemy vessel'. How does he know its an 'enemy'? What enemy?
It stands to reason it is Zareh returning with his buddies, they even say so in the dialogue, they don't have any friends yet so it logical to assume that ship is hostile.

  • Sick and tired of Stamets always being at deaths door/in pain/ upset/ confused.
But then people would complain that he had a spear go into his stomach and a couple hours later he is walking around like nothing happened.

i could be way off i thought Detmer is possibly previously compromised by Control, setting up a big bad return in future episodes?

Otherwise unless the parasitic ice has infected her
Oh I hadn't thought of that, thought it was going to be some lame story about PTSD or her implant malfunctioning but when talking with some friends at the weekend one thought it might be control that uploaded itself. Which I hope is not the case as that story just needs to be over.
 

scrowe

Well-known Member
Loved episode two. ST Execs: Just in case we hadn't stolen from enough sci-fi from the last 30 years, have some Firefly.
And that's another common complaint , the modern Star Trek show writers just seem to borrow concepts from other Sci-Fi movies and films, and regurgitate them as Star Trek. Much of Robert Meyer Burnett's criticisms are spot on where he says its as if the writers entire exposure and knowledge of Science Fiction is from other TV and Cinema, with little regard for in-universe verisimilitude, or theoretical science, or well trodden/researched literary Science Fiction concepts. Sorry to sound repetitive: Fast Food Trek.
 

zantarous

Distinguished Member
As much as I like listing to Burnett he also says that the Inner Light isn't really a Star Trek episode and his favourite Trek movie is TMP. The show has to appeal to a modern audience otherwise there is no chance of growing the fanbase.

Plus I don't get the Firefly reference, Star Trek was the original Western in space, Roddenberry pitched it as Waggon Train to the stars. if anything it is going back more to it's roots.
 

VisionMan

Well-known Member
he says its as if the writers entire exposure and knowledge of Science Fiction is from other TV and Cinema, with little regard for in-universe verisimilitude.
I'm really sorry, I don't know what verisimilitude means?
 

scrowe

Well-known Member
I'm really sorry, I don't know what verisimilitude means?
Sorry, I used the word because I wanted to be clear I was quoting from RMB, and it’s one of his signature phrases. It means ‘the appearance of being true or real”.So when applied to context of a sci-fi show, you still need to build the world and make an audience believe that this could be a real version if the future based on plausible scenarios, backed up with real theory, and explanations, and not just make sh*t up, because then it’s just fantasy, and insulting to a discerning sci-fi audience.
 

scrowe

Well-known Member
As much as I like listing to Burnett he also says that the Inner Light isn't really a Star Trek episode and his favourite Trek movie is TMP. The show has to appeal to a modern audience otherwise there is no chance of growing the fanbase.

Plus I don't get the Firefly reference, Star Trek was the original Western in space, Roddenberry pitched it as Waggon Train to the stars. if anything it is going back more to it's roots.
I don’t really disagree with anything here too much, albeit I don’t get your mentioning of TMP, it happens to be a close 2nd to TWOK for me. Appealing to a wider audience can be done without lazy storytellig, and dumb writing. If I’m watching Pandora, Dark Matter, Killjoys, etc. I expect it, even though I watch and enjoy those anyway. Star Trek should have a higher bar, particularly given the history and budget they have.
 

zantarous

Distinguished Member
When you are talking about science in science fiction you still have a huge chasm to cross, infact on Inglorious Treksperts, which Burnette is a host of, they had one of the original TNG era science advisor as a guest. The idea is to route the idea in a possible reality but there is still a lot of implausibility in it. Star Trek has made a lot of stuff up, slingshot around the sun to travel back in time? Any number of techno babble on Voyager, although to be fair to him he doesn't like that show much anyway.

I mean is warp drive possible? There is a reality that we will never be able to travel fast enough to really explore the galaxy. I thought Time crystal was the most ridiculous thing they could have come up with, but then I found out that they are a real thing in science, obviously they can't make you travel through time, but there is some science behind it.
 

zantarous

Distinguished Member
I don’t really disagree with anything here too much, albeit I don’t get your mentioning of TMP, it happens to be a close 2nd to TWOK for me. Appealing to a wider audience can be done without lazy storytellig, and dumb writing. If I’m watching Pandora, Dark Matter, Killjoys, etc. I expect it, even though I watch and enjoy those anyway. Star Trek should have a higher bar, particularly given the history and budget they have.
It is a matter of opinion TMP will not be on most peoples list of best Trek movies. In your opinion it is lazy writing, that doesn't actually make it so (number one). There certainly seems to be a certain 60s era Trek was the best from Burnett and then he enjoyed some TNG, liked DS9 and he doesn't really care about the rest.
 

VisionMan

Well-known Member
I thought Time crystal was the most ridiculous thing they could have come up with, but then I found out that they are a real thing in science, obviously they can't make you travel through time, but there is some science behind it.
I don't fully understand it and nor would I try to pretend to, but Einstiens theory of relativity proves that tachyon time travel is possible, but only backwards as we understand it now. No doubt some smart-arse scientist will work out how to do it forwards. Hey, SKYNET beckons? Who knows?

I think and feel the number one priority of these sci-fi shows is that they are there to entertain and not be cross-referenced by a public panel of adjudication of scientific accuracy. Because then it wouldn't be future fiction, which is essentially what they are.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
And that's another common complaint , the modern Star Trek show writers just seem to borrow concepts from other Sci-Fi movies and films, and regurgitate them as Star Trek. Much of Robert Meyer Burnett's criticisms are spot on where he says its as if the writers entire exposure and knowledge of Science Fiction is from other TV and Cinema, with little regard for in-universe verisimilitude, or theoretical science, or well trodden/researched literary Science Fiction concepts. Sorry to sound repetitive: Fast Food Trek.
Yes, but I'm really enjoying it. Will I go back and watch it an insane number of times like I have with the reboot movies, DS9 and TNG, probably not. But it's great fun.
 

Klippie

Member
Its interesting having watched all the Trek Shows over the years then having read comments from fans who have this impression of what Star Trek should be like but are always dissapointed, take Enterprise for example this show was universally slated when it first aired but now its being regarded as one of the best shows by the very fans who raged against it in the first place...copy and paste for Voyager when it was released.

CBS dared to spend millions bringing us a new up to date (shock horror it doesn't have the 1960's look, tech or effects so it must be crap) Star Trek show the first for many years and it gets a roasting, just like everthing else these days it get hyper analyzed and then lets rage against it just because it doesn't compare to some idealised show which will never exist....I just don't get it.

The only Trek show I feel that deserves any sort of critisism is Picard...that whole series could have been condensed into one episode of TNG...it was too drawn out and boring.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Hi-Fi products of 2020, Plus Best of the Month for TV Shows & Movies

Latest News

What's new on Sky and NOW TV UK for December 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Which Next-Gen Console is Best?
  • By Rik Henderson
  • Published
Black Friday 2020: Best UK deals currently available
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 25th November 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom