RED LETTER MEDIA SEASON 2 REVIEW

[Lord Garth]

Some of my favorite video games are still the SNES games I played when I was a kid.

You know how in the '80s, there was the one kid on the street who had the Nintendo? I wasn't that kid. If we wanted to play video games, we went over to that kids' house. Or I went to the arcade whenever I saw a movie. Duck Hunt, Super Mario Bros., Afterburner, Shinobi, Mega Man 1 and 2. That's my type of video game. Pac-Man at the arcade. Some random race car game where I speed right out of control and crash into everything. Nothing better.

Even SNES is "new" to me. Plain old NES. That's what I go with.

I still find many things that I like today, but it's hard to match the feeling I felt seeing Jurassic Park in the theater when I was 11. Or watching TNG every night with my dad or the first time I saw Star Wars.

So you're actually a few years younger than me. I saw Star Trek VI in the theater when I was 12. I'll never have an experience watching a Star Trek movie in the theater like that again. FC came close, but even that didn't quite make it. Neither the TNG Films nor the Kelvin Films can compare to the TOS Films, IMO.

For music, I heard a lot of Top 40 Music in high school but even by that point, I wanted to look into alternatives and deeper cuts.

Even with my own biases in mind, I still feel confident in saying Discovery is a poorly written messy show.

Fair enough.

 

[Rahul]

This is a general observation. In advance, I know there are exceptions. But this is what I've noticed. Not just here but everywhere and about anything.

I think it's amazing how most people think the "best" stuff is from when they were young. What an amazing coincidence that someone came of age when everything happened to be the best. Except when everything was the "best" depends upon when that person was young. "The '40s were the best!" "The '50s were the best!" "The '60s were the best!" "The '70s were the best!" "The '80s were the best!" "The '90s were the best!" "The '00s were the best!" "Now is the best!"

They can't all be right. I think when people are young that's when their brain most wants to pick up "This is the way things should be!" Then, as soon as they have those bearings, it sticks. And the minute it deviates from that, "It sucks!" You show them something from before their youth, they'll say, "What the Hell is this?!" If you show them something from after their youth, they'll say the same thing, "What the Hell is this?!"

"It was better before!" No, you just liked it better before. "It's better now!" No, you just like what they're doing now better. I try not to discount something based on when it was made. And I don't want it to stay one certain way forever and ever and ever.

In fairness, some people don't like DSC but also like plenty of other new stuff. But there's a definite sub-set who think "Everything new sucks!" So, in effect, nothing Discovery or any new Star Trek does will ever be good enough to them, because it's never going to be TOS or TNG.

I agree, though with the caveat that this usually applies to the aggressivley mediocre to sub-par stuff. Like, that fighting game on your SNES, that you spend hundreds of hours on, but in retrospect has really bad controls and no matter who plays always the same character wins. Or the run-of-the-mill crime show where you can spot the culprit by who's an actor that you have seen from somewhere else. The stuff that will be forgotten soon anyway, and which was never that great to begin with, but was the show/game/movie where we saw certain tropes and twists for the first time. (And in this regard, DIS might fit very well within your observation)

The truly great stuff though? The Mario? The Kubrick films? That's timeless, and usually holds up. Of yourse, someone who has seen every episode of TNG a hundred times already, can get jaded with it as well on his 101th watch. But a friend of mine watched TNG for the very firsst time recently - and while it was hokey, she really, really loved it, especially the little moments between Picard and Data. And I've observed that on myself as well: I don't get a kick out of a generic superhero movie anymore that would have absolutely blown my <10 year old mind. But every once in a while, something magical happens, and even stuff that I'm really not into anymore - superheroes - there comes one along that truly blows my mind and makes me happy again, say Nolan's movies, or Wonder Woman recently.

 

[fireproof78]

Nothing ever again equals that first time you fall in love.

The problem is we are constantly trying to replicate that feeling instead being present in the moment.

 

[Cake]

There are so many good recent stuff, especially when you are a science fiction and fantasy fan. There are just so many options nowadays. And the special effects are so much better now, too, so everything looks more convincing. So I don't get the "everything was better in the past" thing. I like some movies and series from before my birth, some things from my teenage years, but also a lot of more recent stuff. I might know all the tropes as an adult now, but watching characters I like doing interesting things is still very entertaining to me.

 

[EnderAKH]

I love TV now WAY more than I love TV from my past. There are classics here and there, but there are SO MANY MORE shows that I am invested in now versus when I was even in my 20s. Movies, I love movies now just as much as I did when I was in my teens and 20s in the 80s and 90s, I would just argue that they released more back then. Back then they would release movies against each other on a date to let them fight it out, now you have one big movie per weekend.

 

[fireproof78]

I might know all the tropes as an adult now, but watching characters I like doing interesting things is still very entertaining to me.

Exactly.

 

[GaiusBaltarBand]

I enjoyed Discovery enough during the first season despite finding many of the design choices baffling. I had high hopes after enjoying the first two episodes. Episode three had be very worried, then I loved episode four. Five and Six were great, episode eight being the best of the season. ...then... then everything went downhill quickly. To the point of where I'll watch season 3 but am not anticipating it.

The mellow drama has to go. I can't stand it. There's a lot to dislike with the show. The overall arch of the season was convoluted, way worse than I was expecting. It sucks, because I really want to like it and did enjoy a decent chunk of the season.

 

[eschaton]

I enjoyed Discovery enough during the first season despite finding many of the design choices baffling. I had high hopes after enjoying the first two episodes. Episode three had be very worried, then I loved episode four. Five and Six were great, episode eight being the best of the season. ...then... then everything went downhill quickly. To the point of where I'll watch season 3 but am not anticipating it.

The mellow drama has to go. I can't stand it. There's a lot to dislike with the show. The overall arch of the season was convoluted, way worse than I was expecting. It sucks, because I really want to like it and did enjoy a decent chunk of the season.

I'd agree with your general point as to the arc of the show. Through episode eight there were some I didn't like so much (Point of Light and Saints of Imperfection in particular) but it really felt like the show was finding its feet. Then it just quickly deflated like a punctured balloon, with four stinkers in a row from The Red Angel to If Memory Serves Part 1.

The main problem I felt is that it really came across like Kurtzman decided to jettison whatever plan that Berg/Harberts originally had for the show prior to being shitcanned, and came up with something new on the fly with the entire tedious Control plot. Yes, there were little seeds planted earlier in the season, but there was so much glaring inconsistency with some of the early season setup and the payoff that it was jarring. Worse, it meant that from The Red Angel on so much of the air time was spent on exposition - trying to explain how the season arc actually worked - that they seemed to forget about what were IMHO the more important elements of the show that the first half was working on to a greater degree than the first season - character development and interaction. Whole characters - like Tilly and Stamets - all but vanished from the show for episodes at a time, which also gave it the feeling they decided midway through they just wanted to be a different show entirely.

 

[Lord Garth]

The truly great stuff though? The Mario? The Kubrick films? That's timeless, and usually holds up. Of course, someone who has seen every episode of TNG a hundred times already, can get jaded with it as well on his 101th watch. But a friend of mine watched TNG for the very firsst time recently - and while it was hokey, she really, really loved it, especially the little moments between Picard and Data. And I've observed that on myself as well: I don't get a kick out of a generic superhero movie anymore that would have absolutely blown my <10 year old mind. But every once in a while, something magical happens, and even stuff that I'm really not into anymore - superheroes - there comes one along that truly blows my mind and makes me happy again, say Nolan's movies, or Wonder Woman recently.

I will say, I like Kubrick's films. Though -- to this day -- I don't get people who love 2001 but call TMP boring.

With comic book movies, when I'm talking about them, I mainly mean the ones from this century. I saw, in the 2010s, The Dark Knight Rises (which tried to do way too much), X-Men: First Class (which I liked), Batman vs. Superman (which I thought was total shit), and Wonder Woman. The rest I haven't bothered with. Wonder Woman stands above and beyond. That's a good movie.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I like them but they feel waaaaay too self-important. And I'm not saying I think The Dark Knight is bad. I'm definitely NOT. But I do think it's extremely overrated. Heath Ledger was great, don't get me wrong, but you'd think -- if you went by some people -- he was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. And The Dark Knight Rises kind of retroactively ruins the whole trilogy for me. Whereas I still have fun watching Batman (1989) and Batman Returns.

With Disco, I just enjoy it more than most other Star Trek and I connect with it more. No need to go further into it, because I have a whole ton of posts where I go into it. But some key posts are here and here.

I do videos too. Like here. But, when I make them, I prefer to focus on the positive. Trashing stuff isn't my thing. I like to build something up rather than knock it down. If I don't like something, I'll make a video about something else.

That's all I've got for this post. I just think it's too easy to be negative. Anyone can be. Just imagine if I'd hated Discovery and I still posted here all the time anyway. Imagine me applying all that energy in the opposite direction. This forum would've been screwed if I'd have had the opposite opinion of the show that I do, and if I had the opposite philosophy that I have to leave well enough alone if I'm not a fan of it.

 

[fireproof78]

That's all I've got for this post. I just think it's too easy to be negative. Anyone can be. Just imagine if I'd hated Discovery and I posted here all the time. Imagine me applying all that energy into the opposite direction. This forum would've been screwed if I'd have had the opposite opinion of the show that I do, and I had the opposite philosophy that I have to leave well enough alone if I'm not a fan of it.

*applause*

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I mostly agree with Mike and Rich here. I'm probably even more cynical than they are.

The part where they were counting the number of producers cracked me up. I'm no expert but 21 seems like a lot.

It's not uncommon to have that many producers for such a large budget show these days, where there's multiple aspects that need to be overlooked by different people. The days of TOS only having three credited producers as the Enterprise flies by at the end of an episode is long gone.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

When I watched Elementary the other day I counted 15 producers

 

[Kpnuts]

They're right. There were a couple of great episodes at the beginning, then the brilliant Talos episode, then the season jumped off a cliff and it was back to season 1 nonsensical Discovery again.

The show certainly seems like it has 21 producers, all with their own ideas. Storylines by commitee, each episode on fast forward just to get to the next bit. And lots and lots of forced emotion hitting us with a crowbar, telling us to feel something for these characters we barely know.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

When I watched Elementary the other day I counted 15 producers

In the opening credits? I counted zero in the one I just watched. The RLM point wasn't that it's silly to have lots of producers, but that "celebrating" them like the main cast or creator is ego driven and frankly, quite strange. Many shows feature the main one or top three.

 

[Rahul]

When I watched Elementary the other day I counted 15 producers

"Elementary" is in, what, it's 7th season now? Because that's a fair amount of time to have quite a revolving personal behind the scenes over times. And the people originally starting it still deserve to be mentioned, as well as the ones currently doing it...

I think the problem with DIS' 21 producers (in the main title sequence!!) is that they ran through seven season worth' of producers in one traditional season's length (26 episodes). And that the show felt like it.

The problem is not the 21 producers in the title sequence. But the 21 producers in the title sequence is a symptom of the shows problems.

 

[EnderAKH]

So... the problem isn't the existence of the producers, which is in-line with other shows (I stopped counting at 19 for The Expanse), but the fact that they negotiated opening titles deals into their contracts? People pick the absolute strangest things to bitch about.

 

[fireproof78]

So... the problem isn't the existence of the producers, which is in-line with other shows (I stopped counting at 19 for The Expanse), but the fact that they negotiated opening titles deals into their contracts? People pick the absolute strangest things to bitch about.

Exactly. Who cares when the producers are credited where? They have rules to abide by when it comes to how they are credited. The horror...

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I'm gonna set some shit straight up for you all, because it seems there's some here who are not informed when it comes to crediting and title sequences.

The show certainly seems like it has 21 producers, all with their own ideas. Storylines by commitee, each episode on fast forward just to get to the next bit. And lots and lots of forced emotion hitting us with a crowbar, telling us to feel something for these characters we barely know.

That's not how it works. Many producers serve very different roles in television production, they don't all have a say on storylines. For instance Peter Lauritson was a producer during the Berman era, but he mostly served as a manager of certain key productions like the art department, editing, and sound.

In the opening credits? I counted zero in the one I just watched. The RLM point wasn't that it's silly to have lots of producers, but that "celebrating" them like the main cast or creator is ego driven and frankly, quite strange. Many shows feature the main one or top three.

The reason producers are credited in the title sequence is so that their credits don't play out during a scene. This is very common with streaming and cable television productions like GAME OF THRONES or the Marvel TV shows because they don't have to worry about using up time for advertisements. Broadcast television networks however can't afford to have elaborate title sequences like in the past, which is why they mostly list the cast and production during a scene that plays out. Take the title sequence of LOST, which is about probably a good 15 seconds and it's just the title, as opposed to a minute and thirty seconds listing its whole cast and creators. By doing this, they're able to save time for scenes. Most filmmakers actually hate having the credits listing during scenes because it's potentially distracting for the viewer, but it's become a necessity for broadcast television due to how advertisement timing has gone up.

Notice how back in TOS when an episode starts they'll list the writer and director after the episode's title, but rarely would the characters actually speak out loud during those credits. Right after the director's name that's when the dialogue would kick in. This changed with TNG through ENT where they would list credits for guest stars, producers, writers and a director during the opening minutes of Act One when characters are speaking dialogue, as it had become the common thing in television by the 80s. It's actually nice that DISCO doesn't have to deal with that, as they just throw it all into the title sequence.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I'm gonna set some shit straight up for you all, because it seems there's some here who are not informed when it comes to crediting and title sequences.



That's not how it works. Many producers serve very different roles in television production, they don't all have a say on storylines. For instance Peter Lauritson was a producer during the Berman era, but he mostly served as a manager of certain key productions like the art department, editing, and sound.



The reason producers are credited in the title sequence is so that their credits don't play out during a scene. This is very common with streaming and cable television productions like GAME OF THRONES or the Marvel TV shows because they don't have to worry about using up time for advertisements. Broadcast television networks however can't afford to have elaborate title sequences like in the past, which is why they mostly list the cast and production during a scene that plays out. Take the title sequence of LOST, which is about probably a good 15 seconds and it's just the title, as opposed to a minute and thirty seconds listing its whole cast and creators. By doing this, they're able to save time for scenes. Most filmmakers actually hate having the credits listing during scenes because it's potentially distracting for the viewer, but it's become a necessity for broadcast television due to how advertisement timing has gone up.

Notice how back in TOS when an episode starts they'll list the writer and director after the episode's title, but rarely would the characters actually speak out loud during those credits. Right after the director's name that's when the dialogue would kick in. This changed with TNG through ENT where they would list credits for guest stars, producers, writers and a director during the opening minutes of Act One when characters are speaking dialogue, as it had become the common thing in television by the 80s. It's actually nice that DISCO doesn't have to deal with that, as they just throw it all into the title sequence.

While this is all factual, it really is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[ScottJ85]

Rich Evans is a national treasure and I forgive him for being wrong about Star Trek.