Reposting this from the SNW S2E2 thread as it was removed by a mod for being “off topic”.
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?
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…
All good!