Discovery 1x01 & 1x02 – 2-part premiere [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Kiith

I liked it...i think. It definitely feels more like JJ trek than Prime trek, but has potential.

I wasn't a fan of some of the dialogue. It felt over the top and forced at times, and really didn't like the 'My species feels death coming' or whatever he was on about. I actually liked the Klingons, even though i wasn't a fan of the way they spoke. Was surprised they killed off...whatever his name was. Was there a universal translator type thing when they hailed the Federation ships, or did he actually speak English better than his own language?

I thought Burnham was decent. I'm also annoyed that her name annoys me. I know it shouldn't, but it does. The mind meld was stupid. It would have been better if it was some sort residual memories or something, leftover from when Sarek melded with her as a child.

Finally, I really hope it's not going to be a season of flashbacks. Sick to death of that in shows.

ItHurtsWhenIP

Before watching I had a paraphrase ready to use ... "It's Trek Jim, but not as we know it." :rolleyes: ... I'm going to reserve using it for a few episodes. I was looking forward to it, having watched Trek since the 70's.

• The title sequence looked like an explainer video to me, with a little bit of Monty Python thrown in (before the hands come together).
• I felt it drag on really badly throughout.
• The Klingons seemed to be speaking, almost, formally rather than fluidly. This did not help with the dragging-ness of the show.
• When Burnham debated with the computer, I was hoping she'd do a TOS Kirk on it and make it's head explode with some logic trick. Alas, twas not to be.
• After seeing the spoiler for Ep3, I hope there is more to happen in it than what was shown. Note to self - don't watch the spoiler in future episodes.

It probably would have fitted better post-Voyager, but I don't mind the changing tech or the look of the Klingons so much, but the pace needs to improve.

I watched the first episode of The Orville afterwards and liked that a lot more than I did this.

Agent Coulson

8.2 million viewers for episode 1 on CBS with a 1.6 demo.


I'd guess CBS All Access like all streaming platforms including Netflix it's partner for this at the moment won't release how many viewers they get for episode 2 and all following episodes following to come.

Wonder how Netflix numbers will stack.

Goodshape

Kinda sucks that this has to go through CBS. I think they're even showing ads on their subscription service?

Watching on Netflix you could still feel those hard breaks for adverts, and that second episode wasn't even 40 minutes long with the ads stripped out.

Afraid I've just gotten used to not having to put up with that.

silverharp

Agent Coulson wrote: »

8.2 million viewers for episode 1 on CBS with a 1.6 demo.


I'd guess CBS All Access like all streaming platforms including Netflix it's partner for this at the moment won't release how many viewers they get for episode 2 and all following episodes following to come.

do these companies release their subs numbers every qtr? from what I gather its $6 a month for the sub so either a rake of people will buy the sub for a few months and cancel or possibly keep it but if their subs numbers don't jump bigly then its a flop.

_Kaiser_

silverharp wrote: »

do these companies release their subs numbers every qtr? from what I gather its $6 a month for the sub so either a rake of people will buy the sub for a few months and cancel or possibly keep it but if their subs numbers don't jump bigly then its a flop.

As I understand it, it's $6 for a sub with "limited ads" or $10 for no ads.

Seems to be a lot of griping about that... I read complaints about the quality and buffering as well and the fact that unless you keep paying or buy the DVD/Blu-rays, you won't own them .. but then the same argument could be levelled at Netflix in that regard and it seems to do well enough.

Agent Coulson

I have CBS All Aceess and find it great value for money at $5.99 a month.


Limited ads are grand.

Goodshape

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I have CBS All Aceess and find it great value for money at $5.99 a month.


Limited ads are grand.

I really can't stand ads.

But.. anyone remember when we use to buy magazines? There were at least a couple of film magazines I'd buy every month for around €6 or €7. And occasionally I'd get something weekly. Didn't even think about the cost.

It's amazing how averse we've become to paying anything at all for the content we consume.

silverharp

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I have CBS All Aceess and find it great value for money at $5.99 a month.


Limited ads are grand.

is that instead of Netflix then ? are they hoping people drop Netflix and use their service? from what I have heard its not a common subscription to have.

_Kaiser_

silverharp wrote: »

is that instead of Netflix then ? are they hoping people drop Netflix and use their service? from what I have heard its not a common subscription to have.

In the US it's available on CBS All Access only... Netflix have the rights for the rest of the world.

silverharp

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

In the US it's available on CBS All Access only... Netflix have the rights for the rest of the world.

a lot of the potential audience in the US will have a netflix sub, what are CBS hoping they do? drop netflix for theirs? buy both? I assume all access isnt a good as netflix

Inviere

Enjoyed both eps a lot actually. I think Michael, especially considering we're at Encounter at Farpoint stage of development, is very good, with a lot of potential. I was engaged in the opening ep within about ten mins, and the second one took me in straight away. I really enjoyed the Klingons I have to say. They're very different, but also quite warrior-like in a theistic/cultural way, not just angry Klingon bad guys we've seen done to death. I did think the other house leaders were very quick to acquiesce to T'Kumva though.

Pro's:
Almost everything. It's what Enterprise could, and should, have been. Yes, there's some minor inconsistencies, but they can be overlooked if the quality and rationale is good enough.

Cons:
The holo-comms thing, big no no for me. I instantly thought of the big deal made of those on the Defiant circa 150 years later! Very jarring, and a definite break in continuity. I also think the ship to ship phasers look awful! Also, the opening scene is cringey bad (walking in the shape of the starfleet emblem)

As said already, it's pretty jarring to consider this is set a decade before Kirk took command of the Enterprise, the tone, the tech, everything is radically different. I maintain the show would have been ever better had it been set 100 years after Voyager. The story didn't need to change at all, 100 years without contact with Klingons, sorted.

For an opener however though, it blows Enterprise away.

stronglikebull

Inviere wrote: »

Pro's:
Almost everything. It's what Enterprise could, and should, have been. Yes, there's some minor inconsistencies, but they can be overlooked if the quality and rationale is good enough.

Yeah. When Enterprise first started, I thought it was going to be something along these lines. It really should have been though. What a wasted opportunity that was. Anyway, we have it now.

Very good opening episode, but I thought the 2nd one wasn't as good. Not sure why, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. I thought that Michael's turn on the captain and trying to attack the Klingons was very unexpected. Also, why did she kill T'Kumva, when it was her idea to go over there and capture him? I had to rewind that scene and watch it again as I wasn't sure that it had just happened.

Anyway, pretty good opening double. Certainly very engaging, and makes it worth wanting to see more. Still hate the design and look of the Discovery, and I don't think it'll ever grow on me. I think that the Shenzhou is a far better looking ship.

PhiloCypher

Just finished watching the 2nd episode there. As two opening two parters go it was better then TNG's Encounter at Farpoints, Voyagers Caretaker , Enterprise's Broken Bow and about on par with DS9's Emissary.

As to the issues people have with it thus far on here and otherplaces, here are my thoughts

The theme music/credits: Not as catchy or as long as I'd like, but I found the more it was reprised during the episodes the more I liked it. The credit sequence was very Marvel Netflix/Bondian so zero credits for originality but bonus credits for not being a Faith of the Heart abomination.

The tech looking too advanced: Everybody has their tolerance for these things but Star treks future has to look more advanced then our present so if that means floaty touchscreens and holograms I can live it so long as I'm enjoying the show overall. Like all things I'll overlook a multitude of sins so long as I'm enjoying a show/film, if I'm not, I'm as nitpicky as the next guy.

The Klingons new look : While the changes to their look (and possibly their culture) did give them a refreshing sense of otherness compared to how familiar they had become over the course of so many seasons of TNG & DS9(and lets face it they had almost become a parody of themselves) , the same effect could have been achieved by setting Discovery in a post Nemesis era and having them being an entirely new race. But we have what we have, they are apparently Klingons, so what the show(or its showrunners) has to do before this season is out is make it clear whether this is a complete ret-con like the one made between the TOS and TMP or are these Klingons merely a subset of a greater, more genetically diverse Klingon culture, one that gets marginalised and driven to extinction by the more numourous TNG Klingons by the late 23/24th century(Think what the Romulans did to the Remans). Personally I'm leaning towards it being a complete retcon and TOS or TNG style klingons will never be referenced. The Beacon called what was meant to be every Klingon house and they all looked pretty similar when they showed up. One thing I do hope is that they continue to work on the prosthetics/dentures as they seemed to inhibit some actors performances more then others.

The Acting: I feel like some people are confusing difficulty in delivering clunky dialogue with bad acting. Other then the exposition dump that was the desert prologue like this "I can't believe you've been under my command for 7 years Michael, you should be commanding your own ship by now" I can't think of any other examples of bad acting.

The Bloody lense flare : They need to **** right off with this. Surely its possible to establish everything is shiny, new and futuristic without endless lense flare.

Inviere

PhiloCypher wrote: »

The tech looking too advanced: Everybody has their tolerance for these things but Star treks future has to look more advanced then our present so if that means floaty touchscreens and holograms I can live it so long as I'm enjoying the show overall.

Agreed, however, technically this isn't Star Trek's future, it's Star Trek's past. It's very clearly more aligned with the JJ-verse, than the Prime universe. Not to say I didn't enjoy it, quite the opposite, but it's hugely out of place being set where its set.

Goodshape

I actually didn't really notice the lens flair. Not to any excessive or annoying amount anyway.

I did notice the constantly crooked and kinetic camera work though. I wouldn't mind at all if they cut down on that. I really want to see these sets and characters and enjoy the world they've built. Difficult when you're constantly zipping around between close ups and different angles every cut.

AtomicHorror

stronglikebull wrote: »

Also, why did she kill T'Kumva, when it was her idea to go over there and capture him?

Because he stabbed Georgiou to death in front of her. Her reaction to this was pretty raw and likely very bound up in her own guilt. She killed him in rage.

Zillah

The idiotic writing ruined this for me.

- Michael didn't notice that the Captain was walking them in the shape of a Star Fleet insignia including sharp corners? The ship can't detect them through a storm but it will be able to see a symbol drawn in footsteps?
- Assaulting your commanding officer over a hunch and trying to commandeer the ship wtf.
- Everyone arguing over who gets to go on the entirely unnecessary suicide mission.
- Bombs on corpse is literally a war crime.
- Her entire plan was to capture him and then she just executes him in the back? What are we supposed to believe in going on with this character development? "Argh I just hate Klingons so much" is not an interesting trait. We saw enough of that explored with O'Brien and the Cardassians, and it was done a hell of a lot better then.
- Sarek able to do a mind meld across the galaxy, and does so just say hi go get 'em tiger?
- The Klingons were a mess. The high council goes from "lol fck off" to "hail our new emperor" in seconds, for almost no reason.
- HEY I KNOW let's send the Captain and the first officer on an assault onto an enemy ship. Two women with no back will go into melee with Klingon warriors. Great fckin plan. Will we bring a security team? Naaaaah. Remember in the other Star Treks where there were actual security personnel and officers commanding them? And then the Captain gets killed and I practically shouted at the screen "OH IT'S ALMOST LIKE SENDING HER IN THERE WAS DANGEROUS".

I should have kept a list but I lost track of all the times the writing was just stupid. The writers are stupid people. They're focussed on artificial drama and aping other shows and movies without bothering to create a coherent world of their own.

I couldn't care less about the theme tune or the Klingons' new look in the face of all that. It's a dumb show and I'm angry at how bad it is, because they obviously spent so much money on it and it could have been so much better.

TerrorFirmer

As someone who's generally not a strong ST fan but enjoyed all of the movies and sporadically watched the TV series, I found this fantastic so far. Yes, the plot's incredibly convenient and largely brainless but I'm willing to accept that personally.

Someone is against sending senior crew on dangerous missions??
Can I interest you in 27 seasons of Trek and a dozen films

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

The idiotic writing ruined this for me.

- Michael didn't notice that the Captain was walking them in the shape of a Star Fleet insignia including sharp corners? The ship can't detect them through a storm but it will be able to see a symbol drawn in footsteps?

When Burnham said "you walked us in a circle", I don't think she was assuming they'd literally walked in geometrically perfect circle. She meant "you've brought us back to where we were" and was using hyperbole.

Zillah wrote: »

- Assaulting your commanding officer over a hunch and trying to commandeer the ship wtf.

This was the least Star Trek bit- I loved it. The betrayal underpins a lot of what happens later, and I've a feeling Burnham's guilt over this will be important as we move out of the prologue and into the main sequence episodes.

Zillah wrote: »

- Everyone arguing over who gets to go on the entirely unnecessary suicide mission.

This was very Star Trek.

Zillah wrote: »

- Bombs on corpse is literally a war crime.

That's true and hard to excuse.

Zillah wrote: »

- Her entire plan was to capture him and then she just executes him in the back? What are we supposed to believe in going on with this character development? "Argh I just hate Klingons so much" is not an interesting trait. We saw enough of that explored with O'Brien and the Cardassians, and it was done a hell of a lot better then.

She just witness him rather brutally kill her mentor who she already had a pretty significant guilt complex over. Along from the PTSD thing, her response seems very plausible to me.

I don't think the intention is for Burnham's xenophobia to be a driving trait of the character, but rather just the tragic flaw which precipitated the Shenzhou incident and her court martial in disgrace. It's an interesting place to start her story.

Zillah wrote: »

- Sarek able to do a mind meld across the galaxy, and does so just say hi go get 'em tiger?

Katra transfer... that already has precedent for connecting people psychically across lightyears. Writers know the canon.

Zillah wrote: »

- The Klingons were a mess. The high council goes from "lol fck off" to "hail our new emperor" in seconds, for almost no reason.

24 leaders, about... 8 (? I should count em again) actually opened comms, only 7 said yeah ok. Kol of House Kor does not buy into T'Kuvma's BS and it's implied he's not alone in that.

Zillah wrote: »

- HEY I KNOW let's send the Captain and the first officer on an assault onto an enemy ship. Two women with no back will go into melee with Klingon warriors. Great fckin plan. Will we bring a security team? Naaaaah. Remember in the other Star Treks where there were actual security personnel and officers commanding them? And then the Captain gets killed and I practically shouted at the screen "OH IT'S ALMOST LIKE SENDING HER IN THERE WAS DANGEROUS".

Yeah, that was the most Star Trek bit of the whole 2 episodes though.

Zillah

AtomicHorror wrote: »

When Burnham said "you walked us in a circle", I don't think she was assuming they'd literally walked in geometrically perfect circle. She meant "you've brought us back to where we were" and was using hyperbole.

She sounded surprised. You'd think she'd have realised something weird was up they turned 300 degrees to back almost exactly the way they came. Like, I know, they wanted the whole zoom-out to show the symbol in the sand moment, which is exactly my problem with this show so far: it's a cheesy "whoah" moment at the cost of a world that makes sense.

This was the least Star Trek bit- I loved it. The betrayal underpins a lot of what happens later, and I've a feeling Burnham's guilt over this will be important as we move out of the prologue and into the main sequence episodes.

Who knows what they're going to do with it. So far I thought it was completely absurd.

Katra transfer... that already has precedent for connecting people psychically across lightyears. Writers know the canon.

Alright, I didn't know that; my main complaint was the pointlessness of it though. He was just giving her a pep talk or what?

Yeah, that was the most Star Trek bit of the whole 2 episodes though.

It's not, though. Maybe TOS series did this more, but the kitschy silly bits of TOS are the ones that were left behind. Other series, like TNG or Voyager made an effort to point out that the captain isn't allowed go on missions like that. If they had an important mission a security detail, often commanded by the first officer would be sent. They made an effort to explain extenuating circumstances when the captain ended up having to (or it was a simple diplomatic mission, etc).

In this they just threw the two ranking officers into a suicide mission for no reason.

It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

Wait.. one of your issues is that they didn't know what shape was being made... while in a sandstorm?

Also... there's so many f*cking times they sent senior staff on suicide missions for no reason. It's a Trek staple, I'm afraid.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

It's not, though. Maybe TOS series did this more, but the kitschy silly bits of TOS are the ones that were left behind. Other series, like TNG or Voyager made an effort to point out that the captain isn't allowed go on missions like that. If they had an important mission a security detail, often commanded by the first officer would be sent. They made an effort to explain extenuating circumstances when the captain ended up having to (or it was a simple diplomatic mission, etc).

In this they just threw the two ranking officers into a suicide mission for no reason.

It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

It is TOS time line

expectationlost

its one thing to set up a story where the rogue person commits a war crime but to have the honourable captain have that idea.

i presuming that they are doing a post 9/11 america has gone to the dark side and burham will lead a 'breaking the rules' ship, but would it not have been better to have the klingons also be something we don't expect, have them be less war like not more, ,they might show that later or in the second season.

Surely Trek have done similar stuff before.

Zillah

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait.. one of your issues is that they didn't know what shape was being made... while in a sandstorm?

No, my issue is that Michael seemed shocked that they came across their own tracks and seemed to think they were just heading out into the desert while they had been blatantly drawing a symbol in the sand that involves really sharp corners. It's also bloody stupid that the ship couldn't detect them through a storm but would some how see footprints.

The plot didn't revolve around that scene or anything; it's just emblematic of what I find so dumb about the writing: superficial "whoah" moments with no thought behind them.

Also... there's so many f*cking times they sent senior staff on suicide missions for no reason. It's a Trek staple, I'm afraid.

In dire times, and they would bring a team that made sense for the mission. Why did they only send two people?

Nonsensical suicides are not a Star Trek staple; they always made an effort to make it make sense. I really wish people would stop saying that.

PhiloCypher

Zillah wrote: »

It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

Bloody hell !! Its two episodes in mate. If they had gone all cerebral or touchy feely and and it tanked in the ratings everybody would have been moaning they should have started with a bang to draw viewers in. You can't win with some people. How about you wait until you see what the ratio of action to intelligent sci fi is before you lose your ****. Maybe you're right and it will be Action trek rather then Star Trek, maybe you'll be wrong, but at least you'll be informed.

Sad Professor

Goodshape wrote: »

Kinda sucks that this has to go through CBS. I think they're even showing ads on their subscription service?

Watching on Netflix you could still feel those hard breaks for adverts, and that second episode wasn't even 40 minutes long with the ads stripped out.

Afraid I've just gotten used to not having to put up with that.

This is the only thing that really annoyed me.

Tbh I don't care about the sand stuff, because seeing the ship come through the clouds was so cool.

pixelburp

Zillah wrote: »

Nonsensical suicides are not a Star Trek staple; they always made an effort to make it make sense. I really wish people would stop saying that.

They really didn't make an effort most of the time, I don't know why you're insisting Trek avoided sending the crew down. By TNG they dispensed with the 'red shirts' and most away trips no matter how dire the circumstances tended to have a mixture of the bridge crew. Picard rarely left the ship true, but that's why Riker was written as the man of action. I mean, of course they left the bridge, wouldn't do to have the big climax solved by some extras from Security. There has to be some deference to the narrative.

By DS9 it was twice as bad IMO, the scripts often at pains to get the crew off the station and in mortal / pointless peril. Every second episode featured Sisko / Kira / Bashir fighting for their lives... can't speak too accurately about Voyager, but Enterprise loved showing the crew as dimwits endangering themselves.

Discovery may have amped up the thrills and action, but just cos they have a better stunt crew budget didn't make the away trip any less ... normal as Trek's trips go.

degrassinoel

Zillah wrote: »

It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

Have to agree so far, it looks like trek, and sadly it seems like a really shallow veneer because of the writing being so awful in the opening 2 shows. It's like it's just based on Roddenberry's trek, rather than expanding on it.

I can rationalise the klingons appearance, the timetravelling technology which shouldn't be there if it's any cannon universe we've seen before, the senior bridge crew fcuking up basic orientation, Humans being able to do the vulcan nerve pinch, (yeah okay TOS) striking a superior officer, yadda yadda and all the other piddly crap, but there's so much of it!

It's actually difficult to watch the show without asking oneself, what the fcuk have they done that for? Why is that happening, why is the Klingon nobody ever fcuking heard have the title of "The unforgettable"?

Anyway,

Really, TNG was fine, DS9 was fine, Voyager(not my favorite) but it's got 7 seasons, fine, even Enterprise did well with 4 seasons, did fine.
Please.. for the love of Q, don't let trek die like this.

I honestly hope it's just the pilot episodes that are this level of shyte and out of sync with Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.

No offense to BSG ( loved it btw) but i want to see them actually go and do a 5 year exploration mission, not 5 seasons of coldwar bollox with the Klingons.

Seek out new civilizations, boldy go, and all that.

Zillah

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Bloody hell !! Its two episodes in mate. If they had gone all cerebral or touchy feely and and it tanked in the ratings everybody would have been moaning they should have started with a bang to draw viewers in. You can't win with some people. How about you wait until you see what the ratio of action to intelligent sci fi is before you lose your ****. Maybe you're right and it will be Action trek rather then Star Trek, maybe you'll be wrong, but at least you'll be informed.

I have no problem with action - I never said I did. I like action that makes sense.

You are confusing cerebral with coherent. I am not asking for cerebral (the captain goes on an archaeology dig and has to solve a math puzzle), I am asking for coherent (cause and effect are applied to the story; characters make decisions based on their circumstances not because they exist in a tv show).

They might have a whole roster of cerebral storylines lined up, that doesn't make the story or character behaviour coherent.

pixelburp wrote: »

Every second episode featured Sisko / Kira / Bashir fighting for their lives...

Putting your main cast in peril is needed to drive the excitement, I'm not complaining about that. But the main cast should be forced into dangerous situations by the circumstances, not their own suicidal inclination motivated by schlocky writers aping their betters.

Zillah

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I don't care about the sand stuff, because seeing the ship come through the clouds was so cool.

You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.

PhiloCypher

Gotta laugh at how bent out of shape people are getting over the tech. Beverly Crusher employed multiphasic shields to hide in a Stars corona from the Borg. Never heard of again. Didn't ruin TNG or subsequent series for anyone, it was forgotten about. Plot device weapons of mass destruction created by Geordi/O'Brien were a dime a dozen in trek, never used again, is anyone bothered ? no . But holograms. Which showed up in all of 1 episode of DS9,are the ruination of Discovery for some.

pixelburp

Zillah wrote: »

You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.

Ah come on, you talk like a neat, throwaway visual setpiece is some inherent & total artistic betrayal. Like Burnham and her captain were rescued in a monster truck, or that Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave; it was totally showy and a bit over thought, but what set piece ultimately isn't when it builds to a payoff or crescendo? It's there for a visceral thrill, maybe underscore some quick lateral thinking from the captain. Onwards goes the plot.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.

Well goddamn, aren't you condescending? It's f*cking Star Trek, man. Stop getting so uppity.

Zillah

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah come on, you talk like a neat, throwaway visual setpiece is some inherent & total artistic betrayal. Like Burnham and her captain were rescued in a monster truck, or that Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave; it was totally showy and a bit over thought, but what set piece ultimately isn't when it builds to a payoff or crescendo? It's there for a visceral thrill, maybe underscore some quick lateral thinking from the captain. Onwards goes the plot.

Like I said earlier, the moment itself isn't a big problem, it's just a good example of the same superficial/cheesy storytelling we see throughout both episodes.

PhiloCypher

Just read there that there are gonna be 17 episodes in the first season . Delighted with that. Was sure with the production values in those first two episodes that we would be getting an 8-10 ep season max. In which case given how badly things have started with the Klingons one would have imagined there wouldn't have been much room for side adventures. As things stand tho, with 15 episodes to go, and with the understanding that budget restrictions will necessitate a few bottle episodes , there's plenty of scope for more cerebral trek.

AtomicHorror

degrassinoel wrote: »

It's actually difficult to watch the show without asking oneself, what the fcuk have they done that for? Why is that happening, why is the Klingon nobody ever fcuking heard have the title of "The unforgettable"?

Because they're hailing him as a successor to Kahless.

That doesn't mean he wasn't forgotten anyway. Perhaps the House of Kor ensured that bit of Klingon history was re-written. Whatever way the upcoming conflicts shake out, by the time of TOS, they seem to have prevailed and not T'kuvma's followers.

Inviere

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Gotta laugh at how bent out of shape people are getting over the tech. Beverly Crusher employed multiphasic shields to hide in a Stars corona from the Borg. Never heard of again. Didn't ruin TNG or subsequent series for anyone, it was forgotten about. Plot device weapons of mass destruction created by Geordi/O'Brien were a dime a dozen in trek, never used again, is anyone bothered ? no . But holograms. Which showed up in all of 1 episode of DS9,are the ruination of Discovery for some.

The holographic communication tech shows up in Discovery 150 years before its actually supposed to be invented and rolled out. It's pretty damn noticeable and jarring. It's a bit like Kirk giving the order to fire quantum torpedoes at a Species 8472 ship.

degrassinoel

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because they're hailing him as a successor to Kahless.

That doesn't mean he wasn't forgotten anyway. Perhaps the House of Kor ensured that bit of Klingon history was re-written. Whatever way the upcoming conflicts shake out, by the time of TOS, they seem to have prevailed and not T'kuvma's followers.

I know it's a lot of nitpicking, but that's the point i was making - there's so much to nitpick about it so far, there are so many little things that are just out of place and even time in the show so far that it's hard to accept the minor faults for the storyline which hasnt really been explained so far, insofar as it being Michael's court martial and the events leading up to it.

We haven't even seen the discovery yet, something else that's bugging me is that after 90 minutes, it's pretty much just an origin story for the first officer(and not a very good one) which broke/ignored a lot of trek's great writing and imo, some of Roddenberry's vision from previous shows.

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

The holographic communication tech shows up in Discovery 150 years before its actually supposed to be invented and rolled out. It's pretty damn noticeable and jarring. It's a bit like Kirk giving the order to fire quantum torpedoes at a Species 8472 ship.

FFS we have holo-projection now. Break a CD case correctly and you can even do faux holograms from your phone.

It would be stupid to not have it in a new show (and JUST as stupid to continue down a timeline based on 1960/80/90's view of future tech)
It's a TV show getting a soft reboot in terms of the tech tree, deal with it...

degrassinoel

Deleted User wrote: »

FFS we have holo-projection now. Break a CD case correctly and you can even do faux holograms from your phone.

It would be stupid to not have it in a new show (and JUST as stupid to continue down a timeline based on 1960/80/90's view of future tech)
It's a TV show getting a soft reboot in terms of the tech tree, deal with it...

The holograms were not as much an issue as it was those holograms being recorded/broadcasted live and broadcast/transmit large amounts of data without degradation or delay specifically for communication from vast distances wirelessly.

It's not just oooh holograms, cool!

Like i said last night, you could reasonably say - well there was signal degradation, and the hologram was being piped through the shenzhou to the klingon ship, so there probably wasnt much in the way of lagtime - but really, why bother with an overthetop method of communication when a flat 2D video image livestream would have sufficed?
Quicker, more secure and less prone to degrading - hell, if that fails you just go to voice communications.
"Audio only"
meh, it was needless and it broke the lore.

degrassinoel

degrassinoel wrote: »

The holograms were not as much an issue as it was those holograms being recorded/broadcasted live and broadcast/transmit large amounts of data without degradation or delay specifically for communication from vast distances wirelessly.

It's not just oooh holograms, cool!

Like i said last night, you could reasonably say - well there was signal degradation, and the hologram was being piped through the shenzhou to the klingon ship, so there probably wasnt much in the way of lagtime - but really, why bother with an overthetop method of communication when a flat 2D video image livestream would have sufficed?
Quicker, more secure and less prone to degrading - hell, if that fails you just go to voice communications.
"Audio only"
meh, it was needless and it broke the lore.

Except we'll be using it in a few years ourselves. People thought that video calling would be a fad and now it is what keeps families from feeling quite so apart, due to emigration.

I would love to be able to use holo calls as if my distant family were in the room with me.

They have to move with the times; using the viewscreen always seemed insane to me, as that is what they use to look out the bloody window

Thinking about it -- when the Klingons were beamed in with the holographic stuff, I really wanted them to start singing Bohemian Raphsody.

pixelburp

Caught the second episode last night & on reflection, I definitely agree with the other posters who said that it felt like an extended introduction to just one character. It took a long time to get to what amounts to Burnham's starting position. Any issues of dialogue now become a little more understandable when seen through the prism that both episodes were basically the show's pilot.

As for the hologram 'controversy', it's not like Trek didn't frequently invent new technologies only to then quickly forget all about them soon after; it's entirely possible this may happen here, if the production figure it's too much of a blip in continuity & quietly shelve it. I'm on the fence myself, though it doesn't seem to work half the time, given all the lag & glitching that kept happening; doesn't seem like the best diplomatic tool if your first contact conversation gets interrupted by constant buffering

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Caught the second episode last night & on reflection, I definitely agree with the other posters who said that it felt like an extended introduction to just one character. It took a long time to get to what amounts to Burnham's starting position. Any issues of dialogue now become a little more understandable when seen through the prism that both episodes were basically the show's pilot.

Surely any show where the two first episodes are released on the same night should be treated as an extended pilot?

Heck, Battlestar Galactica had an entire mini series that acted as a pilot for the eventual long running series.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely any show where the two first episodes are released on the same night should be treated as an extended pilot?

Heck, Battlestar Galactica had an entire mini series that acted as a pilot for the eventual long running series.

I think were it a feature-length, single episode it might have been a bit more understandable; but the second ep. didn't even try to lay any groundwork for what's presumably going to be the status quo on the titular Discovery.It's a bit weird that this shiny new series released the first 2 episodes & we haven't even got to the ship the show's named for. That's really what surprised me most, as I honestly thought we'd have left the Klingon standoff by at the midpoint.

Not a massive criticism, just made the pacing and narrative feel a little clumsy is all.