SPOILERS NEVER GO OUT OF FASHION!
It’s been a year and a half since we saw Michael Burnham leading the U.S.S. Discovery and her crew into the far future. Eighteen months for us, 930 years for them. Either way, it’s a whole new world for us and for the actors/writers/producers (hey, anyone remember 2019—before the pandemic?), and a whole new galaxy for the show. And it seems like we’re going to need to get used to both 2020 and 3188!
Okay, so it’s time to start these editorial reviews again. When last we left CBS’s flagship Star Trek series, I had a LOT to complain about:
- The show was way too serious.
- The plots were too convoluted.
- The scripts were overly contrived showing lazy/sloppy writing.
- There was almost no banter between characters.
- Michael Burnham remained an undeveloped character—coming from a place of controlled logic from a demanding Vulcan upbringing, Burnham was never much “fun” as a character and often uninteresting to watch (despite SONEQUA MARTN-GREEN being a strong actor)
- The writers jumped from beat to beat without giving the characters a chance to breathe in between.
- The stories felt too dark and seemingly hopeless most of the time.
- Trek canon was, more often than not, completely out the window.
- For a franchise born from “exploring strange, new worlds,” we almost never made it down to an actual planet.
- The series didn’t feel like Star Trek…only a sci-fi mish-mash with Star Trek elements hung on it like decorations on a Christmas tree.
So when STAR TREK: DISCOVERY jumped to the far future and added a new co-showrunner, MICHELLE PARADISE, to join the always-controversial and always-rumored-to-be-fired-and-never-actually-being-fired ALEX KURTZMAN, I wondered if the series would finally be able to course-correct in its third season. I really wished it would because it’s hard to be a Star Trek fan with such mixed and often frustrated feelings about a current Star Trek TV series.
Well, folks, be careful what you wish for…Continue reading “Is STAR TREK: DISCOVERY overcompensating? (editorial review)”