Star Trek Discovery - A Flawed Journey

Despite being a long time fan of Trek, Discovery is a series which I have yet to properly discussed on here. In truth, part of that was to try and avoid the controversy surrounding the series given how it had split the fandom, and part of it was to just give it a chance to spread its wings. Outside of Deep Space Nine and the original series, every Star Trek incarnation has typically suffered from a horrible start, and it's rarely anything besides its weakest episodes which show up first. With that in mind, Discovery was no exception in this regard. It fell squarely into the middle, but that was only due to the horrible beginnings of The Next Generation, Voyager, and Enterprise, which isn't a high bar.

So, by the end of the second season, my opinion has come down to this - It's a series that I like bits of, but I desperately want to be given a reason to love it.

Let's get into why to start with.

Now, a big point of controversy at the time were major changes done throughout Discovery. This was evident in the level of technology present and even the very designs of the aliens they meet. Some could be excused for a variety of reasons (and to a degree they were) given the nature of how dated the original Enterprise looked. I might be a big fan of In a Mirror, Darkly, but I will freely admit it would be very difficult to film an entire series on a ship with that look these days. Others were sadly much more difficult to stomach. The Klingons turning into a hybrid of Middle-Earth Orcs and Warhammer 40,000's Dark Eldar was the big one, with little of their original identity remaining. Plus, Klingon was a rather frustrating language to listen to for minutes at a time.

Most of this could have been fixed as it went on, but many of those fixes felt as if they were very begrudgingly written into the later stories. The Klingons were largely fixed, but their designs were limited to glimpses compared to what we had before. We see a ship with a very nice balance between Discovery and Star Trek: The Original Series' aesthetics, but it only crops up in the final episode. Plus, when it did need to address a major plot hole or huge inconsistency, the writing typically went for the fastest and laziest route possible. This is most evident in how the series tried to wrap up all of Discovery's problems at once in the finale, but it did so in a way which largely resolved very little.

While going into the exact details behind this would be problematic bordering upon spoiling most of Discovery, consider this for a moment: During Voyager's return journey and the entire Dominion War, what was to stop Starfleet using a drive which was a hundred times more efficient than their current FLT? The answer: Because they agreed never to talk about it again, and a flaw came up which they didn't bother to investigate further. Really, that's it. The rest of the plot holes in the big story are typically no better.

This is to say nothing of how it undermined itself. Discovery often treated itself as a science show, but used the worst possible science. The use of mushrooms as a god-entity was so facepalming that I honestly gave up on the series almost as soon as it was introduced. The problem was, it only became worse as it went on, and became progressively dumber. From describing mushrooms as the only lifeform which links life with death to giving it a better FTL than Warp travel, it just kept doubling down on its stupidity. This ended up with the Mycelial Network, as it became known, making it seem like the multiverse was one spill of Greenclear away from total destruction. Say what you will about Star Wars' Force, but that at least treated itself as a largely magical entity with some link to microscopic lifeforms. The Mycelial Network came with a message of "mushrooms are both heaven and the walls of reality".

Now, this might sound like I am harping on the series' flaws, and it admittedly is that case. However, it highlights the broader problem within its stories. The macro elements of the arcs often overshadow the better ideas evident in its smaller parts, or when characters are given a chance to properly grow. Even when they are poorly written, the parts themselves are very well acted, and the actors visibly jump onto any chance to give scenes more life. This results in scenes like this being a beautiful representation of what Star Trek is about, but they are often buried within large stories or ideas which are boneheaded or downright stupid. In that episode's case, the ideas behind it only became more problematic as answers were offered as to the mystery behind it.

This isn't to say that Discovery has not improved in some ways, however. While still very flawed, the second season was a notable improvement over its first for many reasons, chief among them being a better focus. In the first season, the entire series was treated as being a war story with the ship on the frontlines. The problem was that this made it joyless and we had nothing to be happy about. It then kept dodging around showing the frontlines themselves, and diverted itself into a Mirror Universe story arc which resulted in an extremely truncated overarching plot. Equally, a number of decisions were made for the sake of plot rather than making sense, which led to some facepalming decisions on the part of many characters. These are ones which could be argued were mistakes made in the heat of the moment and during heightened emotions. However, the story so very rarely frames them that way. It also didn't help that the finale just didn't offer enough to engage the watcher, and felt like a push just to wrap up things ASAP over a more dynamic character piece.

When the second season rolled around, there was a better focus on a single broader story idea. It wasn't nearly so dominating as the war idea, and there was a mystery to it which was engaging. It allowed for more room to explore other themes and to give a few characters some much needed time for growth and focus which the original episodes had lacked. Combined with a better sense of humour and humanity, it felt as if Discovery was not trying to be a Battlestar Galactic knock-off so much as a proper Star Trek show again. It had problems, certainly, but it there was much more of a sense of direction behind it. Plus, there was room to have some more episodic content among the broader stories which did not feel out of place against the major arc. Or, for that matter, so utterly joyless.

To give a comparison between the two seasons: In the first season, there were only three characters I cared about: Tilly, Georgiou and Lorca. Tilly felt like a Wesly Crusher done well, with the awkwardness and uncertainty needed to balance out her brilliance. She was given time to shine and - even with a few irritating points relating to learning disabilities - Mary Wiseman's performance gave it a direction which reflected both fantastically. For a character who could have easily been the Neelix of the ship, she instead became the Data in my eyes. Lorca, meanwhile, showed far more of a depth that previous characters of his nature had lacked. Jason Isaacs is a brilliant actor no matter his role, but even the writing gave him less of an out-and-out "bad boss, oh, and I am really bad" direction. Instead of simply being evil and cruel, he seemed more like a driven and desperate man who would not suffer insufferable geniuses lightly. It's saying something when he so easily fitted into Starfleet during its desperate war. It's just a shame that his story ended how it did.

By comparison, the second season introduced more developments which helped to flesh out the crew as a whole. Saru (played by the ever-awesome Doug Jones) was well acted and had a fantastic design, but lacked staying power within the story. Getting both his own arc, more of a say within how events went and shedding light on his species went a long way to making him far more engaging as a character. He became a sort of "reverse Worf" which helped to make it all the more surprising when he underwent a very different character arc than would be associated with his role. Stamets, meanwhile, went for being "the arsehole" to someone with more of a grounding in terms of the universe's mysteries and a sense of loss which helped to give him a level of focus he so desperately needed. This made him much more likable and engaging than most of his first season material.

Atop of these, the inclusion of Christopher Pike as a contrast to Lorca helped to round out the group and their dynamic. He felt much more distinct in his role and his more upbeat presence helped change the atmosphere of Discovery for the better. It was a much better indication of what Starfleet's Captains should be than most of what Discovery had offered to that point, and he honestly became a high point within the series. Especially given the revelations he undergoes which adds a lot more depth to his character's eventual fate. It's also a damn shame we did not get more of Number One - really, we don't even get her proper name - than just a couple of episodes, as Rebecca Romijn proved to be a huge upgrade over the more tertiary characters who were never fleshed out.

The reason this was so fleshed out here is that it showed probably the biggest change within the series: Michael Burnham. Michael is a point of contention among watchers, and it's not without good reason. It's also not down to Sonequa Martin-Green's performance, as I would honestly say that it would have been far worse with a less capable actress in the role. Really, her talents are mostly what makes the character work over the writing in many places. However, the real problem lies in two elements here - Firstly, it was clear that the writers were in love with the character, and the overall story suffered as a result. Secondly, Discovery often ended up overexposing her to the detriment of other characters.

Think of the pilot for a moment. Michael is the key focus in all of this and the story is squarely set upon following her above all others. The problem is that she contributed not only to a weak opening, but it meant that the entire first season was "orbiting" her. Every plot development was associated with her relationship to her, most characters were (at least initially) heavily defined by how she related to them, and the big twists were concentrated on her own histories. The problem was that she wasn't so much a part of the series as being the series in its whole. You could remove Kirk from the original Star Trek and, while you would lose a key part of it, the series could keep going on the strengths of its other characters. Equally, you could watch The Next Generation while hating Riker but still enjoy most episodes. Discovery's first season lacked that benefit, and this was only somewhat rectified during its second season.

Equally, Michael's story ended up being equal parts frustrating and facepalming. The decision to make her Sarek's foster daughter was a bold but ultimately poor one. An apprentice or disciple would have worked, by this is such a fan-fic of an idea that I am amazed they went with this. It was less making her important and more of the "Look, my new character is special!" you see with bad DeviantArt OCs or the like. This only paid off somewhat with her relationship with Spock in the second season, but it was only then made worse by the whole Red Angel reveal. It just took up scenes at a time. The ideas behind her tale became overwhelming until the audience could end up disengaged by it, where her backstory was repeated so often it was white noise. By the time it resolved her character journey in the first season finale, I just did not care anymore.

It honestly seems like a good deal of the initial hate for Discovery was linked to a dislike for Michael, as she seemed to just take over everything. It was a more extreme version of what we ended up with of Seven of Nine on Voyager, and then ramped up to eleven. I make no apologies for that pun. The attention given to her exceeded what the series needed, until it was eclipsing other characters, resulting in the much-needed change of the second season.

As a result of all of this, Discovery seems like a program which started awkwardly but keeps trying to take one step forward only to stumble back again. I truly hope that the lessons learned here make for a much stronger third season, and there are individual bits which certainly benefit the series overall. With that said, it still keeps fumbling with many essential ideas and it can't strike a proper balance needed to properly stand out on its own. With the loss of Pike, Spock and Number One, it will be losing a major benefit that helped the second season, so it remains to be seen just how this will play out.

At the moment, Discovery really seems like a series where you need to force yourself through a lot of bad to get to the individual good moments, or great performances. But, as the intro to this article said, that was true of most of its predecessors as well.