Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 40 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Wed, May 20, 2020, 10:10pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Favorite Son

Just rewatched this with my wife. I cannot believe all the vitriol over this episode. I thought it was a fascinating idea and I did not see the twist coming at all. It was not perfect, the only change I would've made was I think Harry "figured it all out" too quickly. I think it would've been way better if he was fooled until the end.
Overall, a fairly campy story but a fascinating idea and they pulled it off. I feel like people are so overly harsh on this show. If this had been a TNG episode and it was Geordi who got abducted, I think people would've eaten it up.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Mon, Apr 6, 2020, 8:48pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

With the utmost respect, Jammer, I think you were far too charitable in your treatment of the writers making this series "about picard saying goodbye to data."
It was one scene at the end of a very long, labored series, that, while superficially satisfying, I don't think really holds up under scrutiny. First of all, it makes the series over-stuffed. Not only did we have to wiz through a hundred other plot points to get here, to top it off they inject a very heavy-handed scene into the finale that really seems to come out of nowhere.

"I always wished that I could have said I was sorry, that it was you and it wasn't me."

Come on, really? The dialogue is clumsy, written in a strange tense that creates disconnection between the viewer and the events unfolding on screen. And it's fan service--basically, totally meaningless for someone who hasn't seen the TNG movies.

"A butterfly that lives forever, is really not a butterfly at all."

Again, wordy, clumsy dialogue. And, then of course they go ahead and turn picard into a synth. So the butterfly really is a butterfly after all, even if its synthetic. Oh the depth! The magnitude!

Really? You would say this fan-servicey tacked-on finale made the show "about" something? You completely ignore how the writers left loose plot strings frayed all over the place, meandered incompetently all over the place? Relied on violence, gore, spectacle? And somehow one poorly scripted scene between Stewart and Spiner somehow fixes it all?

You are one charitable Trek fan, and I salute you :)
Set Bookmark
brian l
Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 4:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@wolfstar
"The show just wanted to go "look, some gays" without wanting to put any of the work in of showing an actual relationship. That applies to all the straight characters too."

And, sadly, it also applies to everything else in the show as well:
"Look a borg cube."
"Look a murder."
"Look a horrible future event."
"Look a head getting sliced off with a sword."
"Look someone saying fuck."

They treat the audience like an infant, trying to get them to look in the camera. Snap your fingers, make a funny face, maybe they'll look for a few seconds.
Set Bookmark
brian l
Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 3:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@Daniel
"Raffi and Seven holding hands isn't a big, shocking thing. It isn't "in your face". In a series (and franchise) where people have hooked up with members of the other species--often only shortly after meeting, this is an extremely tame expression of affaction. What it is, is a possible avenue for character development and story building. I'm all for normal, and even subtle depictions instead of showpiece "in-your-face" or "to make a point" kind of depictions."

well here's the problem, it's a token "relationship" thrown in with absolutely no background, no buildup, essentially no story. It's probably the most cliche and lazy thing they could have done. "Hey audience, LOOK at THIS! This is where the former borg who desperately wanted to be normal and human instead turns into a vengeful, murdering alcoholic, and finds solace in another bitter substance user who abandoned her family, and now they can HOLD HANDS. LOOK at them holding hands. Isn't TRUE LOVE so beautiful? Aren't we a great writing team? Look how awesome we are."

They did the same thing with Jurati and Rios. Another "relationship" launched after a random sexual encounter that makes literally no sense, with no buildup, no story, and really, no chemistry between the actors (and how could there be when they had no time to build any).

Look, your missing the point. What the writers are doing, is thinking that they can get away with tossing a relationship up on the screen in the laziest way possible. Any TV series where relationships just "start" at random without any explanation or backstory, comes off like the writers are just lazy, or very young, or both. It's tailor-made for a generation of young people who swipe faces on Tinder. "Relationships" appear and disappear at random, depending on the situation. "Stuck on La Sirena for a few weeks? Aw shucks, I guess we should hold hands."

"It's so deep".

Please...it's not.
Set Bookmark
brian l
Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 2:01am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

It had some nice character moments (finally), but the nail in the coffin for me was the "magic device" which is able to create an entire fleet of ships with warp signatures at precisely the moment the plot requires, to give Picard enough time to give his pep talk to Soji. They literally hinged the entire plot and resolution of the season on a magic device that is hand-waived away. I literally burst into laughter and was done with the show in that moment. It was like the writers were subliminally telling us "just use your imagination, pretend this is a good show, just smile and nod."

I also hate what they did to 7of9. Turning her into a confused old lesbian alcoholic vigilante is just asinine, and worse than that is how the writers cannot even figure out how to use her. They just copy-paste her into the script whenever the plot demands it.

All the build up on the borg cube felt like a waste of time they could've used to develop more important characters.

Retconning in a new Soong at the last minute makes it seem like the writers were desperate.

And finally, the division between synths and humans is academic at this point. Soji is basically a human. And now Picard is a synth. And the real synths are a race of extra-dimensional space worms ala Stephen King's "The Langoliers".

Sorry, I'm just not into it. Give me a show where Seven becomes a house-wife in suburbia with kids and then suddenly gets activated again. Give me a show where Picard becomes a xeno-archaeology professor who is obsessed with returning to the dyson sphere and he drags his graduate students into an epic indiana jones style adventure. Give me a show where ANYTHING, PLEASE ANYTHING happens except a retread of the same old science fiction tropes we've been wearing out for decades now.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Broken Pieces

@kukalaka
"Aren’t holograms synths too?"

YES. Thank you for bringing this up. Every time someone brings this up, it gets hand-waived away. STP itself completely ignores this problem. I'd like to explore the idea behind this more.

People forget that the fear of AI and synths is really just a proxy for a generalized fear of technology. The overarching theme in most all "dangers of AI" story is that humans start on a path of self-destruction the moment we begin to transcend our biological niche. Humans have been afraid of the changes we ourselves are undergoing for all of human history. That's why we keep on re-telling this doomsday story to ourselves, over and over again. The idea that our technology will one day destroy us has become cliche to the nth degree.

At its root lies fear, and this is the reason why I object to its use in a Star Trek show. Star Trek has always been a show about defying and resisting fear of the unknown, and fear of the future. The reason Trek resonates so deeply with us, is that deep down we all know the only way to avoid destroying ourselves is to to precisely that--to defy and resist fear while going forward. "To boldly go."

And so the best thing a Star Trek show could do, the most defiant and daring thing, would actually be to show us a future where synthetic organisms are widespread and relatively benevolent. A sort of modern-day "Roddenberry's box" for the writers. No "our own tech kills us" scenarios. You have to come up with something better than that.

If ST:Picard ends up giving us a novel, creative take on this story, for example if they end up having the advanced AI save us from some other threat we never anticipated, or god forbid, ourselves, I'd drop my popcorn and give a standing ovation.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 1:19am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Broken Pieces

Trent, thanks for your perfect explanation for "why we still watch" and what we are hoping for. I didn't realize just how much of a "workplace" show Trek can be. It totally is! But it hides it well. Regardless, I think TOS, and then TNG, showed an entire generation of kids how to work together as a team. I imagine that must have some kind of concrete effect in the real world. Unfortunately, in the real world, people are a little less perfect. And in some ways, I think those shows set us up for massive disappointment when dealing with real people. Still, there is real value to those early lessons, and I think Roddenberry knew that.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Sun, Mar 8, 2020, 8:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Nepenthe

I really don't understand why a lot of people who didn't like Discovery, now like Picard. I think Picard feels 99% the same as Discovery and I dislike it for all the same reasons.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 9:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

how come no one is talking about the reveal by RLM that the Icheb torture scene was motivated by a real life situation, where the actor who originally played Icheb made disrespectful comments towards Anthony Rapp when he accused Kevin Spacey of making a move on him years ago?

It actually scares me that STP would perform an onscreen torture/murder for the purposes of a real life political retaliation.
Set Bookmark
brian l
Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 1:31am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@Drea
Manipulation. You can see the change in Soji's demeanor to someone who's aware her partner is manipulating her, staying with him because of that manipulation, and aware of it but also not accepting the full reality of that means. It's subtle, complex, painful to watch, and has me sold on Briones as an actor, if I wasn't already. In the prior episode, Narek straight up uses access to knowledge that matters deeply to her to keep her around. It'd be nice if people broke things off when they became aware of a partner's coercive tactics--but they don't, because that's how relationships driven by deception and coercion work.

@Rahul
Narek and Soji want info from each other but in their last interaction prior to this episode in "Absolute Candor" Soji was upset with/far more suspicious of Narek (after their stupid sliding around the Borg cube) -- so this is why I question why she'd go back to sleeping with him. Thinking rationally about how she'd react going forward, I believe she'd stop sleeping with him. But maybe you know more about "relationships driven by deception and coercion" than I do ;)

@Drea
Yes, as a woman, it's statistically more probable that I have been on the receiving end of a coercive relationship, so that winky face is a little misplaced.

Before I go to my opinion on their relationship, let me state that I don't think your gender has anything to do with how much experience in manipulative relationships you have. Manipulation and coercion flows in both directions, regardless of gender.

In the case of Soji and Narek, it flows both ways as well. There have been multiple scenes where it is clear that Soji is also using Narek for infomation...she has actually grilled him a little bit. I'm fairly certain that Rizzo's fears are legitimate and Soji is the dangerous one here. I think all the protagonists at this point are being played for fools.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 1:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

this is a good episode of ST:P, but IMO not a good piece of art or storytelling. I guess at this point I have to admit that I just don't believe calling Soji a "synth" makes any sense. She is a flesh-and-blood human who experiences the entire range of normal human emotions perfectly well, who just so happens to have a good memory and is pretty strong and good at martial arts.

We are being way too loose with who we label "synths". Data was a synth. It was very obvious that he was not a flesh-and-blood human, but instead a very advanced machine designed to look like one. New-BSG made the same error with the new Cylons. Why do people think its so compelling to be told that a human is in fact "not really" a human, but in fact a "synth". But there isn't anything about them that would suggest that, not even close. It is entirely conceptual and just seems rather inconsequential to me.

"It's like they're a human but in reality they're not, they're a synth!"

Well, what IS that? What does that MEAN? If they are made of flesh and blood, and experience the full array of human emotions, but are just a little stronger and with better memory, then THEY ARE human.

This is why I appreciated when classic trek did the "augments". They didn't try to pretend they weren't human. In fact, that was the whole point, that they WERE human, just modified, broken, augmented, but HUMAN.

I'm just not buying it anymore, the whole narrative of "synths" that are indistinguishable from humanoids, who have ultimate power and can destroy the universe. I'm sorry but the premise to me doesn't make any sense. I know some people find these types of questions compelling, and I can see how it leads to a discussion of what makes us who we are, but for me, it doesn't really do that. At least not anymore. It holds back the narrative and the stories. We are constantly stuck on this beat of "well what is she?" and "what is real?"

Can we just have a show where everyone is real, everyone is alive, and just tell good stories about them? And if there is synthetic life being toyed with, make it...grounded in reality a bit more? Like even Data was a huge stretch for me. A very rewarding stretch, and an essential part of the stories, but his existence was pushing the boundaries of what I could believe in.

I mean, we are machines, biological machines, but we inhabit a physical body with physical processes. We are all "synths". What is Soji? A synthetic synth? Maybe a synthetic synthetic synth. Are her cells constantly flip flopping between being organic and "inorganic"? Would that matter? We're all made of the same elements.

To me that whole trope leads nowhere. Just an infinite regress of "well, what is real?" and then you look outside, feel the sunshine on your face, and admit grimly that that's probably real and maybe you should just go outside and do something good or productive instead of sitting inside moping and ruminating about "what is really real really really?"
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 12:08am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

Coca-Cola. It's a drink, made out of coca extract, and cola nut extract. That's what coca-cola is. The "coca cola" produced today is not Coca Cola. It's just "Cola". And not even "Cola" because it's an artificial flavoring. There is no coca or cola in Coca-Cola, and thus, it is not Coca-Cola. It does not matter how many cans of it they produce, it is not and will never be Coca-Cola.

The original Trek series, and everything up to and including enterprise, were Star Trek. Trek is an adventure, going into the unknown, a journey. Star Trek = a trek in the stars. That's what Star Trek is. Millions of people, along with the creators, writers, and producers of that thing, got together and agreed that that is what it is.
Set Bookmark
brian L
Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 9:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

More of the same, essentially a filler episode where 7of9 is brought back and paraded around to keep fans subscribed to CBS. Oh, and some random political statements too. Is she "bisexual" now? Of course she is. Now she's a gun-slinging bisexual vigilante with a "heart of gold". Can you get anymore cliche? Tropey?

The "reveals" are seen coming a mile away and the audience is 2-3 episodes ahead of the writing at all times, and so the show is essentially boring. The violence, gore, swearing and grimdark are turned up to 11.The show is an absolute joke.

The references and callbacks to Trek-lore are highly specific and seemingly disconnected from the larger established universe. "Hugh" shows up for 2 minutes and then he's gone. Icheb shows up for 1 scene and is brutally tortured and killed. They seem to be there only so that the rabid fans have something to point to to defend it---"no really guys, its canon, look, they made REFERENCES!"

I recently saw Rick Bermans twitter post asking "How are you all enjoying Picard"? And 75% of the responders were negative to nu-trek.

Meanwhile the media echo-chamber continues to heap praise on the show, similar to throwing paper and gasoline on a fire that is going out. It will burn bright for a few minutes but its dead unless you find some real wood, but there isn't any.

What are we, 3...4 years into nu-Trek TV now? It's not going to get better.
Please, do not give a single dime to CBS, this whole project needs to burn out and die so someone can come in and replace it with something good.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 6:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Absolute Candor

@Rahul
"But what I'd also say that since Trek is no longer using the 25 episodes a season model running for several seasons, our expectations should be higher. While being a tighter, more focused product will likely prevent a truly terrible (1* or below) episode from being produced, I'm disappointed at the lack of excellent (3.5* or better episodes) produced by DSC and PIC."

Many people aren't comfortable dealing with emotions, and they look for something to numb them out. And, having been there at one time, where I would rather just feel nothing than gamble with the good and bad, now as an older person I see things differently.

I'll gladly take an occasional "Code of Honor", to get an occasional "Tapestry" or "Inner Light". Just like in real life, where you're sort of required to push through the dark times, in order to have a chance at the peak experiences.

Nu-Trek is like Star Trek on anti-depressants. Watching it makes me feel...flat. Nothing. It's never horrible. It's never breathtaking. It's just kind of there. And to me that is the biggest disservice we could ever do to the Star Trek franchise.
Set Bookmark
Brian L
Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 6:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Absolute Candor

@ Dougie
"If I were a studio exec, and stumbled upon this place, I’d formally send Epsicokhan an email requesting a shutdown. Anyone aged 6-16 who came by here and read this nonsense about a new series might be convinced not to view it."

So you literally advocate censorship? And I think you underestimate 6-16 year olds. By the way, you're welcome to express your opinion about the show, but you are not welcome to advocate censorship or personally attack the opinions of others. People are allowed to actively dislike the show. If that bothers you, there's always r/startrek.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Maps and Legends

90 minutes in to an 8 hour mini-series and I should be hooked, but I'm not. The dialogue is cringe-inducing and overtly expository. The plot is hammy and derivative. All the women are "independent badasses" whether we are meant to side with them or not. The plot is spoon-fed to us one bite at a time, like feeding a baby. Each step is literally narrated by one of the characters on screen. The overall tone is extremely grim--clearly intentional as a way to set us up for a supposedly emotional catharsis at some later point, which I predict will not be nearly as rewarding as you think. It's shaping up to be a very stock "uncover the conspiracy" story, and of course, each layer is carefully removed, once per episode so that once you start, you must finish. The whole thing absolutely reeks of Kurtzman and company. It's generic sci-fi with the Star Trek label slapped on it, by people who don't understand what the Star Trek label means. Average Joe and Jill who fill their evenings with football and CSI:NY will feel really edgy watching this. They'll talk about it at work on Friday morning while real Trek fans snicker from afar. Black costumes, crazy robots, spaceships, earl grey, borg cubes, ninja swords, oh my. The series feels like it was written by a guy wearing skinny jeans with an ironic t-shirt that reads "Earl Grey, Hot".
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 3:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

Imagine there are two patients, both in need of a heart transplant to live. One of them has a lethal disease that will kill him in just a couple years. The other patient does not have the disease and will likely gain decades of quality life years with the new heart. There is only one heart available. Which patient should get it?

This episode initially asks us to judge the relative utility of saving a race that will eventually die out anyway, versus doing nothing. It then seamlessly transitions to asking us to consider the larger question of whether we should even be concerning ourselves with the first question in the first place. And I think that's where a lot of people fell off the train. The first question wasn't really answered. But the second question was. They decided not to answer the first question, because they couldn't. Not that time, not that place.

That non-answer is what really threw people off this episode. But I urge those of you in that category to reconsider. My enjoyment of this episode does not hinge on the decisions made. If it does for you, I suspect you are too close to the material, and not seeing the big picture. Take a few steps back and re-watch it. Try not caring whether they answer the question or not, and just enjoy watching them wrestle with it. It's the journey people, not the destination.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Terra Nova

Disagree, I thought this was a good episode. Your vision for what "could have been" on Terra Nova, is definitely the more predictable scenario. I like how they didn't go that direction. They did something different, and, while it didn't succeed wildly, at least it made me sit up and think. The idea of an isolated colony of humans converted to subterranean life after a natural disaster is a good one. I would have liked to see a thriving and complex society down there too, it would be fun. But I think the more realistic scenario is the one we got. Humans completely isolated on a planet with few supplies and forced underground. Do you really think they would have come up with the type of underground society we saw in the caretaker, in just a couple generations? Those types of societies take thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years to evolve.

I do agree that the novans should have gotten better dialogue.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 6:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

^^^
well put but it still sounds like apologizing for a very poorly conceived scene.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 12:50am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Oh I've read the stars explanation page long ago. But then, if they don't mean anything, why do you have a star rating system? Are we meant to skip 1 or 2 star episodes? Because that doesn't seem right. I always recommend people watch all of a good series, even the bad episodes.

The star system seems especially irrelevant with the new serialized format of Discovery, and that's probably all I was picking up on.

Like, are there people out there choosing which discovery episodes to watch based on how many stars Jammer doles out? :)
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 9:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Jammer, you're awesome and I really appreciate your balanced take on things. But I feel like you rate Discovery according to a completely different set of criteria. You were extremely tough on Enterprise. And Voyager. You do call out Discovery's mistakes but I don't see that ever translating into your ratings. A show that consistently displays deep logical flaws and over reliance on spectacle regularly pulls 3 star ratings and up?

If these episodes had come from any prior Star Trek series, I feel like you'd be giving them 1.5-2.5 stars max. Yet somehow, Discovery gets a huge pass and I believe the justification is that you review each show on its own merits, and there is a "4 stars for TNG" and a "4 stars for Discovery" and those may be completely different criteria. That's fine, I get that. I just feel like you were much tougher on previous Trek series than this one. You seem to call out all the mistakes, bad writing, and poor execution in your reviews, but it never seems to affect the star rating.

For example, you say this:
"Looking back at the season arc from beginning to end, you see the shortcuts the writers often took and the plot holes apparent in doing so, and few of those are mitigated with what happens in the finale. Discovery's plotting has never been iron-clad, and there's always been a tendency for the series' writers to leave big narrative gaps and expect us to fill in the ellipses with our imaginations. This creates a sense of sloppiness more than anything else, as if the writers couldn't be bothered to put in the time to create narrative clarity and credibility."

.....and.....3 stars.

So, sloppy writing, writers couldn't be bothered, plot holes left gaping open, over-reliance on spectacle, gets 3 stars.

What the hell would they have to do to get down to a 1? or a zero? Intentionally insult the audience perhaps?

:)
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

I sure would love to see the defenders respond to Galadriels points line by line, since he so coherently put them together for us.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 1:02am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Oh, and is anybody else sick of the fact that only female characters can solve problems on Discovery?
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 12:56am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Oh, and I will also say that the entire idea underlying the Control/sphere data plot makes no sense. Sorry it just doesn't. The sphere is an ancient lifeform that observed and recorded data about the universe for many years. I don't feel that the show ever really convinced me that the data in that sphere could reasonably be expected to allow an advanced AI to obtain consciousness, or, why that consciousness would be evil and seek destruction, as opposed to simply being a reflection of what it observed of sentient life in the universe for its entire history--a complicated mixture of evil, good, and everything in between. I would expect the sphere data to result in a consciousness that was both REALLY evil and REALLY compassionate and good at the same time--just like any living being. Wouldn't have been amazing if that character was created from the sphere data, and, you know, actually made into a likable character? Maybe a sort of "Q" for star trek: discovery.

But no, nothing that cool could ever happen on discovery. The sphere data would be shoe-horned into the rest of the season and used to build a paper-thin, non-interesting villain who was necessary for the plot to advance from point A to B. What could have been an awesome exploration of humanity was squandered.
Set Bookmark
Brian Lear
Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 12:14am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

The finale does what its supposed to do, re-establishes the canon timeline, and it does so with typical fanfare, and typical Discovery junk-level writing--Cornwell closes the blast door from the inside and, instead of escaping under the closing door, "heroically" sacrifices herself off the show. It was a laugh out loud moment in my living room. We get extended filler sequences such as the video-retrospective of the entire season with Burnham in the superhero suit. Burnham's travel through time was, artistically interesting but it really dragged on. After a few seconds my only thought was "filler".

With each passing moment we see more and more that the Michael Burnham show, excuse me, Discovery, is miles wide but only inches deep.

The "7 signals" plot was not the uber-interesting mystery it was made out to be. It was actually just all about Michael Burnham flying around in a trick super-hero time suit saving the galaxy. Yawn. I knew that would be the case since the first episode of the season. I believe many of us were hoping the red signals would lead to some kind of fascinating exploration of space, perhaps a new ultra-powerful race. Instead, the show remained locked in the tiniest of possible universes, basically the Discovery and Michael Burnham, and those that help her move the plot forward. The entire season was an incestuous circle that never really went anywhere.

Then the writers said screw it let's start over. Ironically, using the exact thing they were trying to avoid with the serialized arc format--the much reviled reset-button. And of course, given us all ample reason to tune in for season 3.

Now that they've gifted themselves a blank slate, we'll see if they just continue the Michael Burnham show in the future, or actually give us a Star Trek show worth re-watching.

I can say that for me, personally, I hated the Michael Burnham show so much, that when she slipped into the future with the Discovery, my first thought was that I hope we never see them again and I'd rather just keep watching Pike and Spock on the Enterprise. Then I caught myself and remembered, no, prequels are bad. Let's stay in the future. But...but...I just don't know how much more Michael Burnham I can take.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.