This week’s episode of Star Trek: Discovery titled “Stormy Weather” features the USS Discovery venturing into a subspace rift left behind by the DMA. Now there is a new clip to see what happens inside that rift.
“We Need Answers”
Today Paramount+ released another clip from “Stormy Weather” (via ScreenRant) with the crew discussing the fate of a DOT-7 robot as they explore that subspace rift.
The new episode titled “Stormy Weather” is directed by Star Trek: The Next Generation vet Jonathan Frakes and it debuts on Paramount+ on Thursday, December 23. Check out our earlier preview for more videos and photos.
ICYMI: Another Clip
The latest episode of The Ready Room also included a clip with Gray talking to Zora (at 23:38) .
New episodes of Star Trek: Discovery premiere on Thursdays on Paramount+ in the U.S. and on CTV Sci-Fi Channel in Canada, where it’s also available to stream on Crave. Discovery will debut on Paramount+ in 45 countries around the world in 2022.
Keep up with the Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com.
Poor Blonde Girl. She finally gets to say something and it’s only a half a line of dialogue that Adria gets the rest of. And Blonde Girl doesn’t even get to look competent when delivering her half.
She has a name.
I mean, the heck if I know what it is, but she has one, gosh darn it.
I like the bait and switch of giving us a Detmer thumbnail but in the scene, as usual, all she does is look worried and say, “Aye captain.”
We really know nothing about these peons, including Detmer. I’m not opposed to a Trek show focusing most of its energy on people other than the bridge crew, but we do spend an awful lot of time on Disco’s bridge and not knowing anything about these characters who appear every week is not working in the show’s favor. I seriously took weeks to figure out their names and who was Rhys and who was Brice (and lately they’ve just swapped Brice out with Other Black Guy, which is eyebrow raising, to say the least).
Everyone says it’s not working in the shows favor, or it’s bad because oft his or that reason, yada yada yada.
We’re on season 4 folks. Season 4. And Paramount just spent money to buy out the international rights from Netflix.
That’s the official story that Paramount bought it back. Netflix did not want it anymore. And can you blame them. I have seen worse shows reach season 4. The problem is, you just don’t buy those characters as starfleet officers. Just watched some episodes of the doku Smarter Every Day, which focused on life on a nuclear sub, and when the submarine crew were interviewed, two things became clear: firstly, they are professionals and they would never act like babies and constantly look worried like the disco crew. Secondly, just by those interview clips which in some cases did not last longer than a few minutes you got a sense of their character. Much more than we know about some of the Disco characters after 4 seasons.
But where have you heard Netflix didn’t want the show anymore? Is that just your belief? I also heard that on a site that starts with ‘midnight’ and end with ‘edge’ but other than them claiming that’s the case what other source is there?
Because when it comes to that site, a lot of their claims usually start with ‘bull’ and end in ‘shit’.
I will say this though and I don’t think Netflix cared one way or another about losing Discovery, especially when they probably have so many other shows they own directly and probably get a lot more viewings. But that doesn’t mean they they didn’t want it anymore either.
There ist difference between its selling and its working. Obviously its selling.
But its selling doesnt mean its a good show.
Look at the flash…. Its in its 8. Or 9. Season. Is it succesfull… Hell yes. Do people Like IT? Absolutely!!!
Is it a good show, does it have good logical dramaturgical Story development and consistent character arcs. Does it have good Special effects? Or thought provoking ideas?
No…. No… no… no… The flash ist Just a terrible, dull, repetetive show. And people still Like it. Thats fine.
So … Does discovery need to be a good show to sell?
If it was my belief I would not say “I have heard.” , would I.
warning for rumor mongering.
Yeah, one problem I have is that the show seems to forget that these people are trained military professionals. Yes, I know, it’s Starfleet, and so on. But they’re not in uniforms, with ranks, for nothing. You can read what Gene Roddenberry wrote. (He actually thought the whole crew would be officers, which is weird for a crew of 400 and was never actually done, but he was probably thinking of the space program of his time, in which the astronauts were indeed all officers.) The amount of time spent crying and hugging in the middle of crises, as literal clocks tick down to disaster, can be a bit much.
Spot on! The fact they don’t act like Trained military is what takes me out of the show every time I watch it, the hugging, the crying, and constantly telling each other how much they love them was the reason this show went down hill so fast in season 3!
Timo Lang, are you an industry insider or just someone who watches too many fandom menace YouTube videos? Discovery was a top 10 or top 5 show for Netflix every single week and that is one of the actual facts we have.
I also don’t know why people are so obsessed with finding out more about the bridge crew who are pretty much just glorified extras. I like them fine, but I don’t think they seem interesting enough to carry entire episodes and storylines in a show with a very finite number of episodes per season. I think some people just look for things to complain about and are grasping at straws. I don’t remember anyone ever demanding that we got more focus on people like Ensign Gates, Ensign Ragar or Chief Hubble during TNG’s days. It’s just a weird complaint to me.
“was” there you have it
There is only one story. CBS bought It back from Netflix. It is also true Netflix didn’t want Discovery anymore. But not because the show was not performing. On the contrary, it had a great audience and figured in Netflix’s Top 10 in major markets (UK, Germany) when new episodes were coming in. The situation are closer to Daredevil and the Defenders, in which Netflix cancelled the shows not because they weren’t working, but because they would eventually end up in Disney+. Concerning Discovery, Netflix was ranked as coproducer, had multiple seasons agreed upon from the start, and didn’t have the power to outright cancel it. But they decided not to promote it. And then CBS bought it back, probably paying back the cost for Season 4, plus an extra por the first 3 seasons. These corporate decisions had nothing to do with the quality or the audience of the show.
Is the blonde’s name Nielsen?
To be fair, TOS and TNG were full of characters- with names!- that we never learned a single thing about. (Some of TOS’ appeared even more than some of the “major” characters.) It’s just a little more obvious in Discovery, for whatever reason. Maybe because Discovery focuses on people, like Stamets, who aren’t on the bridge, or maybe because Discovery puts these people out more.
DS9 gave us in-depth backstories even to third- and fourth- level characters, but hey, that was DS9.
Looks great! I love SMG as Capitan Burnham.
I’m so old that I was trying to figure out when Sarah Michelle Gellar got cast in Discovery
Hello. LOL, great joke. Though, Luke was referring to Sonequa Martin-Green.
The glorified extras are back. Why not develop the actual bridge crew characters more instead of introducing more utterly pointless ones like Gray
Gray the worst Trek character ever!
I’ll give him a chance this week because it’s the first time we see him interacting with anyone in his new body. But I find Alexander’s acting to be largely one-note and am sorely tempted to start doing something else while they are onscreen.
Can’t wait to see how Burnham screws this mission up by thinking she can do everything better than anyone else. My god, she had to “google” requests for asylum. These writers should all be fired, rehired, and fired again.
“My god, she had to “google” requests for asylum”
First of all, she didnt do a ‘google’, she did a “Space Google” and second, catapulted hundreds of years into the future, she had to Space Google any nuanced Star Trek regulations because they had surely changed significantly during that time frame and especially, post burn
Above thread is closed but wanted to reply that in the Star Trek writers guide Gene Roddenbery (back when he was ex-cop ex-military Wagon Train to the Stars producer versus prophet) he had this, I think they need to bring back this concept:
“NOW, TRY AGAIN. SAME BASIC STORY SITUATION, BUT AGAINST ANOTHER
The time is today. We’re in Viet Nam waters
aboard the navy cruiser U.S.S. Detroit.
Suddenly an enemy gunboat heads for us, our
guns are unable to stop it, and we realize
it’s a suicide attack with an atomic warhead.
Total destruction of our vessel and of all
aboard appears probable. Would Captain E.
L. Henderson, presently commanding the U.S.S.
Detroit, turn and hug a comely female WAVE
who happened to be on the ship’s bridge.
As simple as that. This is our standard test that has
led to STAR TREK believability. (It also suggests much
of what has been wrong in filmed sf of the past.) No,
Captain Henderson wouldn’t! Not if he’s the kind of
Captain we hope is commanding any naval vessel of ours.
Nor would our Captain Kirk hug a female crewman in a
moment of danger, not if he’s to remain believable.
(Some might prefer Henderson were somewhere making
love rather than shelling Asiatic ports, but that’s
a whole different story for a whole different network.
AND SO, IN EVERY SCENE OF OUR STAR TREK STORY…
… translate it into a real life situation. Or,
sometimes as useful, try it in your mind as a scene
in GUNSMOKE, NAKED CITY, or some similar show.
Would you believe the people and the scene if it
IF YOU’RE ONE OF THOSE WHO ANSWERS: “THE CHARACTER ACTS THAT WAY
BECAUSE IT’S SCIENCE FICTION”, DON’T CALL US, WE’LL CALL YOU”
Yes, that whole section from the TOS writer’s bible needs to be read and re-read by a lot of people working on shows today, not just Trek, but of course also, and perhaps especially, new Trek writers/showrunners.
Could not agree more!
Wish I could enjoy this show. Happy for those of you who are. I gave this season 3 episodes to see if my biggest issues with the show had been resolved, they hadn’t. I didn’t watch the last two episodes and quite honestly I didn’t give it a second thought. Saddens me that there is no longer a Star Trek airing that I can’t wait to see from week to week but oh well…I had a good run. :) Enjoy friends.
I feel exactly the same way, New Horizon, I dropped out at the end of season 2. Sad, but I moved on to much better shows on different channels. PIC S1 was ok, and I will tune in for SNW, but not terribly hopeful for either. DSC is a lost cause to me. Luckily we have hundreds of episodes and many films to look back to –
Picard was another show I watched just to see if it could dig itself out but ultimately, I came out of it feeling completely put off. The stories of these shows could be great if better handled by more capable writers. I just don’t understand how a Science Fiction show like Star Trek can be so poorly written…where the writers don’t seem to know the difference between science fiction and science fantasy…or write believable characters.
I cannot believe the number of you who, week after week, feel the need to announce to everyone within earshot how you’re not watching this show. Way to “virtue signal.”
What does bug me is the idea that it’s not “real” Star Trek, because it’s been covered with icky girl germs, what with all this hugging, emotion, and empathy.
Well you know what? The world is in the situation it’s in because of a lack of empathy.
We, particularly men, are so out of touch with our own feelings we prefer to reflexively hate strangers than extend a hand of support, because we presume they would hate us in return. What does that say about our national self-esteem?
I’ll take more hugging, emotions, self-care, and compassionate, positive role models over one more minute of men being told showing feelings is a weakness, and then society having to deal with the fallout.
The people on this site who say they are not watching the show anymore are Star Trek fans who have become disillusioned with the awful writing, acting and direction of Discovery and have the right to show their annoyance at what this show is doing to the franchise, this is a star trek site after all.
The more worrying points should be why are some lifelong trek fans not watching Discovery?
If Discovery is not made for trek fans who is the audience?
I understand what you are saying about mental health (which is a big problem amongst young men especially and needs to be addressed) but do you honestly believe this is how people would behave on a military vessel? Hugging each other, crying, and telling fellow officer’s “I love you”? it’s ridiculous and not consistent with any other trek show.
Still isn’t a reason to trot out the “this show sucks” Post EVERY WEEK. You know how often I post on stories of shows I didn’t or don’t like? I don’t. I didn’t line Enterprise at all. But I don’t mention that every time theres a post about Enterprise.
Trelane, while I grant you have every right to personally dislike the show, it isn’t really constructive to take one’s personal opinion and assume it represents some sort of broad consensus.
It is a bit more honest to say “I, a lifelong fan, am not watching Discovery,” but it’s easier to say “This show sucks! Lifelong fans hate it!” as if your own opinion stands in for all fans. Also, there’s no ranking order here. Just because someone started watching the show in reruns in 1979 doesn’t make anyone a better fan than someone who only recently got into it through the Kelvin movies.
Further, our biases lead us to seek out voices that affirm our own opinions so we can feel more confident in them. That’s human nature, but it’s not being truthful. It means you’re just in a bubble of people who agree with you. You’re not seeking out the voices of people who feel differently.
“Why are some lifelong fans not watching Discovery?” is not really a useful question.
1) It implies a logically flawed argument; that in order for any iteration of Star Trek to be good, all fans must love it.
2) It is easily neutralized by its opposite question, “Why are many lifelong fans watching Discovery?”
3) Nobody outside Paramount or Netflix has any hard data on audience demographics. And even so, it doesn’t prove anything.
Now, let’s use reason and science. What can we infer from the facts?
If the show were a flop, it would have been cancelled after one season. It’s run for four and is likely about to be renewed for season 5. So, we can infer that it is in fact not a flop, and in fact is actually a popular show.
We know that it’s not a cheap show to produce, either, with a budget of about $8.5M per episode, plus series-wide investments in technology / graphics pipelines / costumes, prosthetics, etc. So at about $90 million+ per season, at four seasons that’s $360 million dollars spent. If it were losing money for CBS / Paramount, they would have pulled the plug ages ago. They haven’t, so we can presume it’s actually making money for them.
Further, CBS would not be buying out the global streaming rights from Netflix to make it the star attraction in its global rollout of Paramount Plus, if they didn’t think that this (including Picard, SNW, and LD) was the key franchise that gets people to subscribe, much like the MCU is for Disney+.
Now, all of this may not change your opinion of the show, and that’s fine. But what it does show is that a significantly large number of people like Discovery, enough to pay for the streaming service, and enough specifically for Paramount to make Trek one of the key franchises driving their growth strategy.
There is no way to make a logical argument that Paramount would be spending over a billion dollars on multiple Trek shows (presuming Picard, SNW and Discovery’s per-episode budgets are similar) over the next few years if people didn’t like those shows.
One last point: In 1966, Star Trek wasn’t for everyone. But it found its audience. In 2021, Star Trek still isn’t for everyone. Audiences change. Our societal experience changes. Our demographics change. Our sense of empathy, hopefully, expands. We react, overreact, correct, learn. The more we learn, the more we grow.
The idea of Starfleet in the 32nd century being exactly like a military of today seems kind of quaint. It seems a bit devoid of imagination.
By today’s standards everyone on a Federation starship has the equivalent of three different university graduate degrees. And yet nobody is smug, everyone knows that there’s more to learn.
What we know about organizations and leadership is always changing, but what we do know is that while you may need a chain of command, purely autocratic leadership isn’t respected, and ignoring the emotional dynamics of your team is a recipe for disaster. We’re even seeing changes like that in the military today (just acknowledging their own problems and not freaking out about it is progress).
By the 32nd century, I would hope organizations encourage people to express emotions, bond, hug it out… it isn’t seen as “unprofessional,” it’s seen as healthy and strengthens the group.
But I guess some people want to see everyone precision-drill marching in the shuttle bay and shouting SIR YES SIR and asking permission to die from their CO first, like it’s some sort of WWII movie.
Sorry, I forgot this point:
There are a lot of people who are turned off by Star Trek because of its, unfortunately earned reputation as being a show loved a little too strongly by “hardcore fans” who gatekeep the fandom.
And every time the producers try something new, a small, vocal minority of these fans complain. But as we have seen via the numbers, this small, vocal minority quite obviously does not speak for all fans.
I think maybe the hardest thing to let go of, for this group, is the idea that a particular iteration of Trek might not be for them.
Part of this is the over-identification of the self with the fandom. “But I’m the bestest fan ever why don’t they make the show I imagine in my head instead of this other show that doesn’t center ME?”
Just as having Nichelle Nichols and George Takei on the bridge sent a strong message that the future would be egalitarian, having a black woman captain is an *enormously* big message. Having a stable, supportive gay couple is a HUGE message. Having non-binary characters is… you get the idea.
But it’s not 1966. It’s not enough for them to merely be there, the whole point is to show those characters as full, three-dimensional people, and not subsume who they are into what they do. That is the stuff that is relatable on a human level, in between pursuing the Anomaly of the Week. We see the effects of what happens on them, it’s not magically forgotten by the next episode.
Side note: For every accusation that Michael Burnham is a hyper-competent Mary Sue, I would actually say she makes massive mistakes, all the time; she’s still overcoming her own savior complex. (And, uh, she started a war that killed a lot of people. I guess jumping 1000 years into the future is an easy way to avoid uncomfortable conversations at the Starfleet Legion Bar)
But you know, to be allowed to screw up and learn from things, and not have to worry that Starfleet will never hire a black woman captain again because “you remember what happened the last time we did that?” – compared to today, that is pure science fiction. (Yes, color exists. Prejudice exists. Privilege exists. Still. Sorry, we’re not in a post-racial utopia by any means.)
One could say they analogized the history of race relations by shifting her story to that of a Human living among Vulcans, not all of whom appreciated her presence in an ‘integrated’ learning center, and bombed her school. Where have we heard that story before?
Maybe she has no deep cultural connection to Earth or the African diaspora, but she still had to re-learn how to be human, and embrace her emotions and compassion after years of trying to be 200% more logical than a Mediocre Average Vulcan, just to be taken seriously.
This kind of stuff is exactly what Star Trek is supposed to make us think about, and when people miss it because they don’t know the experiences of other groups, they assume the show is shallow or meaningless, when it’s full of resonance for other groups.
At no point did I try and speak for all Star Trek fans in fact it was yourself who criticised the people on here for voicing their dislike for the show! everybody is entitled to their opinion which was all I was saying.
In my opinion Discovery is an awful show with dreadful acting, dreadful writing and awful characters, if it was on network television it would be cancelled (check out the IMDb ratings their embarrassing) but it is protected by the firewall of a streaming service and I believe the only reason it’s still ongoing is because cancelling this show will be admitting it’s failure.
I really don’t know why your bringing up race or sexuality I never mentioned them as being a reason I dislike the show!
My problem with the cast is they portray dreadful unlikeable characters.
Actually what Star Trek is supposed to do is entertain the audience with good science fiction stories first and foremost if it can’t do that then any underlining messages are completely pointless.
O and like I said officers on board military vessels would not constantly cry, hug and tell each I love you, ridiculous
Trelane, sorry, but maybe I misread what you wrote. My apologies for projecting what others have said onto you.
It’s just that most of the people here who dish on the show don’t bother to preface their remarks with “in my opinion,” they just say it’s terrible as if it were a fact.
That really bothers me, because it feels like a self-appointed group is trying to gatekeep Star Trek and make sure it never grows, changes, takes risks, or centers any other audience’s viewpoint but their own.
What anyone individually thinks Star Trek is about is subjective, and different people with different experiences will get different things out of it.
And it seems like a lot of people get something out of Discovery.
It might be worth thinking about the possibility that there just might be more new fans being created by Discovery, because it shows an optimistic future led by different kinds of people than the Treks of the past, and that it goes out of its way to show that there is a place for everyone, too.
A serialized show that just focuses on plot would be boring. We spend time with these characters because we’re invested in how they grow, change, and are affected by the events they’re involved in. There’s no reset button where everything goes back to normal next week.
Classic Trek’s characters were consistent, but they were also rigid, because of the limitations of syndicated episodic television. Discovery‘s characters may have seemed inconsistent at the beginning, but that’s because we were watching them make mistakes and learn who they really were.
That’s actually much more relatable than characters that are morally tested but always end up making the correct (if hard) choices but then we forget about it by next week. This process doesn’t stop in real life, so why would it stop for them?
To your other point, I would question if Starfleet is a military in the sense that we know them today.
Obviously it has many aspects of a military and it has to guard against aggressive moves from neighboring nations, but it’s also much more like an Ivy League university, NASA / ESA, the Coast Guard, the UN peacekeepers, UNICEF, the Works Progress Administration, any number of other UN agencies you care to name, CERN, etc.
Post-WWIII, I don’t think the leaders of United Earth were very keen to go back to the kind of militarism that led to the near-destruction of the human race. And by the 24th century, Starfleet already seems much more like a volunteer organization, that attracts misfit overachievers with a wide range of interests and talents, who see Starfleet as a vehicle for pursuing their own self-improvement or research projects, vs. “I’m in this to pay for college,” or “I signed up because there’s a war on.”
People can go through the Academy and become an officer, or just sign up as enlisted crew, but unlike the present-day military, we don’t see their personalities being broken down and turned into killing machines with gruelling drills and combat exercises. We don’t see a general reverence for Starfleet in the civilian population where they mechanically recite “thank you for your service” because the Federation isn’t an empire that glorifies war.
Why stay in an organization that just values you as dumb cannon fodder when you have three degrees and offers from the Daystrom Institute or the Vulcan Science Academy or the Olympic Committee or whoever? Why stay anywhere that doesn’t appreciate you for who you are or lets you express your feelings honestly?
Organizations change and culture changes. Over 900 years later, Starfleet is still a pretty elite organization even as it rebuilds, but I would say if the Federation lives up to its ideals, it’s not about tamping down emotions but allowing their full expression and acknowledgement of the human condition (within the limits of duty, of course).
You make some interesting points (a lot I agree with) and I enjoyed debating with you, Merry Christmas 🎄
“Aye Mr Saru” in unison. What is this?
The emotional ship AI that has taken over the ship’s computer’s standard sensor and analytical functions; and now it’s overwhelmed by emotion.
Sonequa risked her life and didn’t beam into the pattern buffer, just for the sake of creating tension.
Book on his own personal mission.
The bridge extra crew who are just there for reaction shots.
Oh – they name dropped an Enterprise and Voyager. So cool! :/