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

I'm not entirely sure why they did that, but it seems to have become a thing now. If you watch Fear the Walking Dead, they've started to do the same thing by releasing two episodes back-to-back instead of a single extended feature-length episode -- at least for the season and mid-season opening episodes. I would wonder whether advertising would come into play with that.

degrassinoel

Deleted User wrote: »

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

maybe we will be using it in a few years, but the point was that it's lagfree across a massive distance and uses a massive amount of data to send/receive (live datastream with no lag across millions/billions of miles)

Why has nobody ever used it before the dominion war in DS9?

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

heh, maybe in the final episode it'll all just be a dream.

You do realise you're complaining about holograms in a show where people have gone so fast that they've turned into lizards -- because, SCIENCE!, where omnipotent beings exist that can make anything happen with the flick of their fingers, and where people have sex with ghosts.

So... yeah ... maybe you're taking it a little too seriously if you're getting bogged down like that.

degrassinoel

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise you're complaining about holograms in a show where people have gone so fast that they've turned into lizards -- because, SCIENCE!, where omnipotent beings exist that can make anything happen with the flick of their fingers, and where people have sex with ghosts.

So... yeah ... maybe you're taking it a little too seriously if you're getting bogged down like that.

you don't have to read or respond to my posts if you think i'm complaining. I'm discussing my thoughts on the episodes i've watched. Just because they're contrary to your opinions doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

pixelburp

degrassinoel wrote: »

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

But the lore has been sh*t on all the time in previous show, we've just chosen in the past to either forget it (the Ferengi as aggressive warmongers in Season 1 TNG; Worf's sudden, then utterly forgotten step-brother; Enterprise's entire premise never been mentioned before IIRC; the pretty jarring tech. leap between ToS & TNG highlighted in 'Relics'; the technological step back from Enterprise's 'navals' vessels to ToS!; the Klingons - ho boy, the ever changing Klingons), or else retconned into something frankly laughable (The Klingons)

And that's probably the tip of the iceberg; I'm fairly sure TNG nearly constantly contradicted its own technical details on a regular basis, particularly with Data's own limitations & capabilities.

I do get why some people find Discovery a bit jarring, cos ... well, it is! But when you step back from the franchise as a whole, as much as Star Trek likes to think of itself as this tonally, technically consistent tome of perfect continuity - it never has been, yet this myth persists.

Mickeroo

Skype and tablets wouldn't look futuristic anymore. It's not a mess up it's moving with the times and making a new show for a new audience. Technology in the old shows was a product of its time and completely incidental.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

I think were it a feature-length, single episode it might have been a bit more understandable;

At the official show premiere it was shown as a single feature-length episode, and in any case the second episode started exactly where the first left off.

The only reason this is episode 1 and 2, and not an extended first episode like TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent's pilot episodes, is so CBS could force viewers onto their streaming service for the concluding part.

degrassinoel

pixelburp wrote: »

But the lore has been sh*t on all the time in previous show, we've just chosen in the past to either forget it (the Ferengi as aggressive warmongers in Season 1 TNG; Worf's sudden, then utterly forgotten step-brother; Enterprise's entire premise never been mentioned before IIRC; the pretty jarring tech. leap between ToS & TNG highlighted in 'Relics'; the technological step back from Enterprise's 'navals' vessels to ToS!; the Klingons - ho boy, the ever changing Klingons), or else retconned into something frankly laughable (The Klingons)

And that's probably the tip of the iceberg; I'm fairly sure TNG nearly constantly contradicted its own technical details on a regular basis, particularly with Data's own limitations & capabilities.

I do get why some people find Discovery a bit jarring, cos ... well, it is! But when you step back from the franchise as a whole, as much as Star Trek likes to think of itself as this tonally, technically consistent tome of perfect continuity - it never has been, yet this myth persists.

This is what i'm talking about though, technobabble flaws aside, there has always been fundamental and cardinal rules that the lore never pushed too hard on.

each incarnation of the show would explain or leave enough for one to guess at why this or that happened - and that's reasonable enough, not my major issue with it. My issue with it is when they double back on something like, for instance, the hologram comms. It just shouldn't exist in a show set prior to it being invented lol

And even that's forgivable provided the writing explains why this happens, but that's not been explained, not yet at least.

Honestly, if they can mess up that badly with just this one minor thing in the writing of the pilot episodes, i'm not holding out much hope for the rest of the series. And the thing is, it's not just one little thing that wrong about it, it's quite a lot of little things.

Johnny Storm

I enjoyed the way the Admirals holo-image jerked around when his ship was attacked. It worked for me.
I also liked:-
- the bridge of the Shenzou being on the underside of its saucer section
- "their greatest lie: "we come in peace""

PhiloCypher

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.

Yep . The two episodes are all about getting us in Burnhams heads pace for the series proper . DS9 did something similar with Siskos Orb visions of Jennifer and Wof 359 , they just did it more concisely rather then showing Sisko being assigned to the Saratoga engaging the Borg and losing a loved one(Jennifer/captain Georgiu) before moving onto a new assignment in episode 3 (DS9/Discovery) with some emotional issues to deal with. I'd argue DS9'S was the better solution in that it gave it's main character emotional context while still setting up the world they were going to inhabit , but so long as discovery does this in episodes 3&4 it's much of a muchness to me.

Zillah

The only lore continuity thing that I care about was that they declared hull breaches on Deck 1, but the bridge was fine at that point.

Deck 1 is always the bridge! That's why it's so exciting when the security officer is all "Sensors have detected intruders on decks, 12, 5, and....1"
startled looks from everyone present

degrassinoel

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Yep . The two episodes are all about getting us in Burnhams heads pace for the series proper . DS9 did something similar with Siskos Orb visions of Jennifer and Wof 359 , they just did it more concisely rather then showing Sisko being assigned to the Saratoga engaging the Borg and losing a loved one(Jennifer/captain Georgiu) before moving onto a new assignment in episode 3 (DS9/Discovery) with some emotional issues to deal with. I'd argue DS9'S was the better solution in that it gave it's main character emotional context while still setting up the world they were going to inhabit , but so long as discovery does this in episodes 3&4 it's much of a muchness to me.

that's a pretty big gamble to have after 90 minutes of origin story, i hope you're right though

Goodshape

degrassinoel wrote: »

there has always been fundamental and cardinal rules that the lore never pushed too hard on.

Such as what exactly?

Because it's not technology. Or the appearance of alien races. Or the capabilities of alien races. Or the appearance or capabilities of starships. Or the function of Starfleet.

Is it the bright top-down lights? The coloured jumpers?

I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

And I think that's just the first 20 minutes. What an awful dreadful film. A pox on the good name of consistent never-changing Star Trek.

Or, maybe those things don't really matter and it's actually the best Trek film in the series.



The holo-communications were a little jarring in that it's definitely something we haven't seen before (in this era of Trek anyway) but I appreciated that they were drawing that line in the sand with regards to updating technology. We have TuPac and Elvis performing concerts in 2017. I think holo-coms in 200 years isn't a huge stretch.

Although I do hope we get to see the other side of those experiences. What is the admiral seeing when he's talking to Georgiou and Burnham? Is he in a holodeck kind of thing, or have their images "projected" into his eyes? Hope they have a good explanation for it.

Greyjoy

degrassinoel wrote: »

each incarnation of the show would explain or leave enough for one to guess at why this or that happened - and that's reasonable enough, not my major issue with it. My issue with it is when they double back on something like, for instance, the hologram comms. It just shouldn't exist in a show set prior to it being invented lol

And even that's forgivable provided the writing explains why this happens, but that's not been explained, not yet at least.

Honestly, if they can mess up that badly with just this one minor thing in the writing of the pilot episodes, i'm not holding out much hope for the rest of the series. And the thing is, it's not just one little thing that wrong about it, it's quite a lot of little things.

Completely agree. On the face of it the issue with the holograms is really trivial. But it's a very obvious indicator of how little continuity means to the writers. Sure stuff has been retconned before in earlier series but it usually happens as the timeline advances.This is another problem arising from setting Discovery as a prequel. What did the holograms accomplish that a viewscreen couldn't? It felt like the writers thought it would look cool but gave zero thought to how this tech actually fits or rather doesn't fit in the timeline.

degrassinoel

Goodshape wrote: »

Such as what exactly?

Because it's not technology. Or the appearance of alien races. Or the capabilities of alien races. Or the appearance or capabilities of starships. Or the function of Starfleet.

Is it the bright top-down lights? The coloured jumpers?

I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

And I think that's just the first 20 minutes. What an awful dreadful film. A pox on the good name of consistent never-changing Star Trek.

Or, maybe those things don't really matter and it's actually the best Trek film in the series.



The holo-communications were a little jarring in that it's definitely something we haven't seen before (in this era of Trek anyway) but I appreciated that they were drawing that line in the sand with regards to updating technology. We have TuPac and Elvis performing concerts in 2017. I think holo-coms in 200 years isn't a huge stretch.

Although I do hope we get to see the other side of those experiences. What is the admiral seeing when he's talking to Georgiou and Burnham? Is he in a holodeck kind of thing, or have their images "projected" into his eyes? Hope they have a good explanation for it.

lol but yeah

Like i said, the theme doesn't change and that's good. That's trek to everyone. Nobody cares about minor aesthetic changes, (unless there's a billion of them...) it's the major ones that trip everyone up, and without explanation they're even worse.
It's like an actual FcukYou to every other ST show, "hey we're doing it this way now because it's more popular and fcuk the timeline too, and while i'm at it, fcuk the lore and the races and how they look and you too, especially you, for liking trek!"

Thanks JJ Abrams.

Do you not think that if done within the not-so constraining parameters of the old shows that this (being set prior to kirk's command of the enterprise) would have worked just as well?

PhiloCypher

degrassinoel wrote: »

maybe we will be using it in a few years, but the point was that it's lagfree across a massive distance and uses a massive amount of data to send/receive (live datastream with no lag across millions/billions of miles)

Maybe, idk, the subspace relays of the 23rd century are better then our 21st century networks and don't suffer as much from lag, even over huge distances ?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Why has nobody ever used it before the dominion war in DS9?

Did you expend as much thought on why they never used it again after that ONE episode ? Did that inconsistency ruin the show for you ?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

heh, maybe in the final episode it'll all just be a dream.

"A part of a larger problem with the show " we're 2 episodes in mate , you'd swear we were a season in and you had anything like a big enough sample size to make these assumptions. As things stand, 2 episodes in, you're coming across a tiny bit shrill. Let's just see how the season pans out .

_Kaiser_

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.

This.. Spot on IMO. This (like the JJ movies) is supposed to appeal to the "casual" fan, who's more interested in fancy effects, "edgy" characters, and 'splosions than actual content.

.. and there's nothing with that either - except that it's supposedly in the same timeline as the 4 series and TOS/TNG movies when it just clearly (visually and tonally) doesn't fit.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So far at least, it's a generic but yes very well-made/lots of money spent Sci-Fi show "based on" Trek for names/general outline.. but that's where the similarity ends.

Of course, I seem to remember reading/watching a video somewhere which suggested that later episodes were being reworked/reshot so maybe these issues will be fixed as they go on.

The bigger issue here though is the reliance on CBS All Access as a distribution method. What happens if enough Americans won't cough up for a season's worth? Can Netflix's rest of world distribution (and the money they paid) sustain this show long term? Will they want to?

_Kaiser_

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

[...]
I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

I think it ultimately comes down to: is the show any good? Yes? Then it's canon. If not, let's pretend it never happened and maintain that illusion that Star Trek has no flaws in its continuity.

No sir.

So despite the reality that the Motion Picture was technically a purer vision of Rodenberry's vision for Trek - eventually manifest in the equally dramatically inert first seasons of TNG - the fact the actual film was a bloated exercise in tedium made it easier to simply pretend all those bizarre onsies never happened.

Wrath of Khan was a submarine thriller in space, and as you say took a lot of liberties with the mythology, yet the small point that it was a demonstrably good film helped sooth the wrinkled brows of canon junkies. Even the suddenly different uniforms were accepted because, well, they looked good.

Hell, by 1980s standards, Wrath of Khan was an explosive action-adventure film that placed set-pieces & excitement over tedious naval gazing. Hey what does that sound like?

pixelburp

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

That ball bounces both ways, 'cos offence is easy to come by when there are snide insinuations of sanctimony or smugness over people that enjoyed the more overtly visceral moments.

degrassinoel

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Did you expend as much thought on why they never used it again after that ONE episode ? Did that inconsistency ruin the show for you ?



"A part of a larger problem with the show " we're 2 episodes in mate , you'd swear we were a season in and you had anything like a big enough sample size to make these assumptions. As things stand, 2 episodes in, you're coming across a tiny bit shrill. Let's just see how the season pans out .

it was used in more than one episode of DS9 - i've seen you make this same comment to someone else too, and it's false. There were a good few occasions were it was used in DS9.

I'm not not your buddy, guy, i'm not your friend, buddy, i'm not your guy, friend.

Yeah, well, ye know.. discussion forums bro.

Goodshape

degrassinoel wrote: »

Do you not think that if done within the not-so constraining parameters of the old shows that this (being set prior to kirk's command of the enterprise) would have worked just as well?

Well, I'd have a watched it – but then I watch and love the Star Trek Continues fan series, a few podcasts, lots of good fan-service stuff. I wouldn't expect a wide audience to be interested though, and I'm at least realistic in my expectations when it comes to big studios throwing really big wads of cash at the thing.

And ultimately I just think you're missing the woods for the trees on this one. None of what you're seemingly so upset about stands in the way of a telling a good story in the Star Trek universe – and for me, this was very much a Star Trek universe. It felt like Trek. It looked like Trek. It sounded like Trek.

It was just as unmistakably Star Trek as The Motion Picture, or Wrath of Khan, or TNG's Encounter at Farpoint – despite this and those each looking considerably different to each other on a surface level.


And people talking about how close Discovery looked to Star Trek '09... go watch Wrath of Khan again. I think they took just as many queues from that as they did from JJ.

PhiloCypher

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

Ah that old chestnut. That somehow if you disagree and decide to debate a point on a forum designed for such discussions, that you are somehow a sensitive snowflake . But the person triggered by what amounts to very little ie. Holograms and are making sweeping statements off the back of it are not, by any means, being precious about their Star Trek .

Zillah

pixelburp wrote: »

Hell, by 1980s standards, Wrath of Khan was an explosive action-adventure film that placed set-pieces & excitement over tedious naval gazing. Hey what does that sound like?

But...Wrath of Khan was well written and had fantastic pacing to guide its action along. Discovery has none of that. Discovery also has plenty of navel-gazing, with the cliched flashbacks to the Vulcan academy and all the pointless scenes with Sarek.

It's like we watched different shows. Make your show all about space battles if you want, make it all about the characters' backstories, make it about exploration - whatever, but for the love of God make it make sense. Make people behave like they're real people rather than characters who exist purely to create exciting scenes with little connecting them.

I just remembered another horrible moment: when they were taking damage the Captain suddenly looked dramatically upset when she heard the brig level had taken damage. I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

_Kaiser_

pixelburp wrote: »

That ball bounces both ways, 'cos offence is easy to come by when there are snide insinuations of sanctimony or smugness over people that enjoyed the more overtly visceral moments.

Hey I like fancy effects and 'splosions too.. but on their own they're not enough for me. I've long since passed the point of being impressed by expensive CGI.

Agree or not, I personally view this series (what we've seen of it so far - and I include the "coming this season" trailer in that), as being more concerned with style over substance, and "flawed" people and conflicts because it's "realistic"

That's all good and I liked BSG too.. but Trek to me is supposed to be optimistic, positive and make you think as well as entertain. So far - in my view anyway - DSC does none of this.. it's setup lots of conflict (with the Klingons, between the crew) and sure it looks very impressive.. but I don't see the "heart of Trek", and if I want BSG, I'll watch BSG.

In my view, as I've said. DSC is JJ Trek the series - it might be based on Trek, but that's as far as it goes.

Compare it to SGU - it too was a radical departure from what came before in SG1 and SGA. Many fans hated it as it was a completely different tone to those earlier shows. Now personally I thought it was getting very good by the end.. but the similarity to SG1/SGA was really only in terms of names/events for the most part.

But hey, maybe when they bed in a bit more it'll get better in those other respects. Despite everything I've said, it would be great if that happened .

Bacchus

Watched the second episode last night. Didn't enjoy it as much... mostly due to the Klingon scenes. Whether it's the stunted way in which they talk, or the whole idea of uniting 24 houses against a common enemy. I do kinda like the (not so subtle) parallels to various anti-islam, anti-liberalism movements around the world. That right there is Star Trek... taking on big societal topics of the time and putting it in the context of aliens in space. This episode just didn't click much with me. The bit of space action was fun but there were no real stakes. What exactly was the plan to capture the head Klingon guy? They achieved nothing beaming over to his ship... killed a few randoms, only stunned yer man, captain died... ? ... profit?

Whatever about people's opinions, I do hope it won't keep going this confrontational for the rest of the series. It'll put pretty much anyone else off engaging.

Perhaps we should do something similar to GoT and have two threads - people who want to discuss the lore/who are trekkies, and people who just want to discuss the show?

Goodshape

Zillah wrote: »

I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

She's had an almost maternal relationship with the character, also her first officer, for the past seven years.

Maybe we did watch different shows.

_Kaiser_

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Ah that old chestnut. That somehow if you disagree and decide to debate a point on a forum designed for such discussions, that you are somehow a sensitive snowflake . But the person triggered by what amounts to very little ie. Holograms and are making sweeping statements off the back of it are not, by any means, being precious about their Star Trek .

It's ironic that you're talking about snowflakes and triggered and other such nonsense when you're accusing posters of being shrill and such because they don't agree with you.

You enjoyed what you saw.. great! Others are perhaps not decided or not impressed so far... that's OK too.

Ultimately, it's JUST a TV show

Bacchus

Zillah wrote: »

I just remembered another horrible moment: when they were taking damage the Captain suddenly looked dramatically upset when she heard the brig level had taken damage. I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

In fairness, it wasn't just any crewmember in the brig. It was her friend and protegee. Not only that, but she was right about the Klingon threat all along so there might have been a moment of "I should have listened to her".

That said, the mini-mutiny was ridiculous and Michael deserved the brig (and subsequent lifetime imprisonment... which I feel will be somehow undone by the end of the next episode).

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about people's opinions, I do hope it won't keep going this confrontational for the rest of the series. It'll put pretty much anyone else off engaging.

Perhaps we should do something similar to GoT and have two threads - people who want to discuss the lore/who are trekkies, and people who just want to discuss the show?

I don't know if that's a good option as it'll only split the community more, no?

But is the fact that such a thing might need to be considered in the first place, not a sign that maybe this isn't the Trek we were hoping for?

I'd be happier if we can just comment and accept that others may not agree without the attacks that are coming with some of that.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't know if that's a good option as it'll only split the community more, no?

But is the fact that such a thing might need to be considered in the first place, not a sign that maybe this isn't the Trek we were hoping for?

I'd be happier if we can just comment and accept that others may not agree without the attacks that are coming with some of that.

But then it'll just become people commenting in shows that they hate, which has largely been something that has been frowned down upon in the TV forum since.. pretty much the beginning. I remember many warnings being issues to different members.

Having the split seems to have worked really well for GoT, between those invested in the books and those invested in the show. Something similar with those approaching it from the lore side and those approaching it from the sheer enjoyment of the show.

pixelburp

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Hey I like fancy effects and 'splosions too.. but on their own they're not enough for me. I've long since passed the point of being impressed by expensive CGI.

And that's fine, but you made a plea that we all just get along & respect those who aren't immediately on-board with the show - but equally there's no place for snide remarks or sneering towards those who do enjoy it, or aren't as bothered about the trivialities of a simple set-piece as others. The door swings both ways in this case.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

But then it'll just become people commenting in shows that they hate, which has largely been something that has been frowned down upon in the TV forum since.. pretty much the beginning. I remember many warnings being issues to different members.

Having the split seems to have worked really well for GoT, between those invested in the books and those invested in the show. Something similar with those approaching it from the lore side and those approaching it from the sheer enjoyment of the show.

The reason for the split in GOT is for spoilers and nothing really to do with lore. Book readers knew about shít that was way ahead of the TV show and couldn't discuss it without ruining things for people who hadn't read the books. That isn't really the case with Discovery.

PhiloCypher

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's ironic that you're talking about snowflakes and triggered and other such nonsense when you're accusing posters of being shrill and such because they don't agree with you.

You enjoyed what you saw.. great! Others are perhaps not decided or not impressed so far... that's OK too.

Ultimately, it's JUST a TV show

I didn't call anyone shrill because they didn't agree with me , I said making sweeping statements over how the show was gonna pan out after only two episodes was being a little shrill.

Yes I liked the pilot overall but I've made no sweeping statements as to the future quality of the series . I've awknowleged the possibility in previous posts that ,as feared by you Zillah and Degrassinoel , it could end up being more style over substance . So unlike some , I think I've been pretty fair and balanced where Discovery is concerned .

I agree . Maybe we should all apply those wise words to this show and not get so hung up on canon munitiae and see how it all pans out ?

pixelburp

On another note, for those who haven't seen it, there was a season trailer released after those first 2 episode, giving a taster on what's to come. It's about as spoiler-heavy as you might expect it to be, but at the same time nothing too revelatory. Seems to lean a lot on action & Burnham's inner / outer conflict. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the direction - she's neither likeable nor particularly engaging at the moment, so hopefully amid all the drama the scripts remember to make her a little palatable in the first place.

Oh and anyone fretting about the holograms I suspect will

go nuts over the implication that the Discovery uses some new form of engine. That's my read on things but I'm guessing it's going to be some form of experimental trans-warp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niHg1Y_GRpE

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The reason for the split in GOT is for spoilers and nothing really to do with lore. Book readers knew about shít that was way ahead of the TV show and couldn't discuss it without ruining things for people who hadn't read the books. That isn't really the case with Discovery.

Oh I totally get that, but the point I was making is that there would likely be a lot of casual observers who wouldn't necessarily want to engage with the lore and want to discuss the show itself. They might be put off commenting if they see threads going on like they are here.

The alternative would be perhaps having a second thread over in the Television forum and have one here - it's what usually happens with the movies.

Just trying to think of making something welcoming for all, since this is the first Trek series we've had in 12 years.

Goodshape

Bacchus wrote: »

That said, the mini-mutiny was ridiculous and Michael deserved the brig

She did deserve the brig. Textbook mutiny.

But.. I don't think her actions were ridiculous. Michael's been shown throughout the episode to have a fraught relationship with her emotions. There's an internal battle going on there between her Vulcan upbringing and her human nature. She's trying to do the logical thing but it's not coming out quite right.

The logic behind it, I think, was not too dissimilar to Spock's sacrifice in Wrath of Khan. She knew how to save the ship (whether right or wrong, she believed it) and logic dictated that sacrificing her carrier, and her friendships, to ultimately serve the needs of the many and save the ship and crew, was the only correct course of action.

But, at the end of the day, she is not Vulcan. Those emotions do exist and they did bubble up with raised voices and ultimately things not working out as planned.

My own thinking at the moment is that Burnham rediscovering and reconnecting with her human emotions will be a running theme in the series and I'm looking forward to that. I think it's a really interesting character tbh.


(and this, not "holograms have ruined everything!!1" is what I'd like to be discussing in these threads!)


(also, I haven't watched that season preview thing. I hate those things :P)

Chrussell2

I loved it - I always wonder what would happened if forums like this were around when Encounter at Farpoint was released... men in skirts - the echo on the bridge - the ship splitting in two - the grumpy old bald guy?!

I'm delighted to see Trek back on the TV, I like the adaptations that make it much more cinematic and move away from simple style that we've been used to with Star Trek. I think some of the CGI wasn't superb and maybe they tried too hard. I would agree that it's entirely different TV than what we're used to in terms of arcing episodes and a more dynamic shooting style - but it's adapting to the way TV is now adays. I think the Orville is a good example of how Star Trek of old just wouldn't cut it on TV now - I'd be surprised if we saw a season 2.

In terms of the tone - I've always been fascinated with the war parts of Star Trek - DS9 and Voyager really peaked for me during the Dominion war and the battles with Species 8472 and the Borg respectably. One of my favourite episodes of TNG was Yesterday's Enterprise and I really wanted to see more of that in Star Trek. So I'm very excited for this.

Seen some comments around Burnham / Sonequa Martin-Green that I disagree with - I really think she's a bit of a gem - and I expect her to grow across the series. She's a different sort of Star Trek protagonist we're used to - She's not the captain, she's a disgrace, and she's quite young. I'm excited to see where her character grows.

I'm not sure on the holograph thing either - it won't ruin the show for me. I did like the part when the Admiral's ship was being destroyed and he was jarring around. Like others - I'd like to know what they see on the other side. To be honest - One thing that I always wondered on regular Star Trek view screens was how did the view screen know where to focus on the right person? I'm confident on different incarnations of Trek the person on the bridge who was talking could be in various different places or even moving around and the screen would focus on them - but I never understood how. I thought there was a slight little dig to that on the Orville when Seth McFarlane asked the bad guy to move to his left as there was a lot of dead space haha!

Anyway for me 8.5 out of 10 - was it perfect? No - but when has Trek ever been perfect?

Rawr

Saw it myself now and all in all I was pretty entertained. It was certainly a better introduction than ENT

A couple of things:

The holo-communicator:
I'm inclined to let this one slide. Mostly because even when holo-communicators appeared in DS9, they were dropped a year later. Also it looks like TNG-era viewscreens might have been built on holo-emitters. Damage on Voyager's viewscreen in a couple of episodes show bits of holodeck frames sticking out from the corners. The TOS viewscreen might have also been built in the same way. Keeping everything in a screen may have just been a preference of Star Fleet to keep things simple on the bridge, with occasional trials of holo-communicators from time to time.

Klingons:

Although I like the idea of Klingons speaking Klingon to eachother, I don't like the redesign. It's the writing & dialogue that will tell us if they are the villains or not. They don't need to be redrawn as Middle-Earth Uruk-Hai to make that point. I don't mind that they're not just TOS actors in heavy makeup, but really movie-era/TNG Klingons were fine, stop messing with that.

Special Guest Actor: Michelle Yeoh (Spoiler alert?)

You guys do know that we can read, right? A pity too, because I kind of like this captain. "I think you are ready to be Captain" she says....come on...at least try to surprise us!!

A Klingon / Federation war?

Ohhh please please please please PLEASE don't go down the ENT route and tease us with this idea. If this show is actually the ST:Axinar clone I think it is, then this might be a fun show to follow.

The potentially bad:

The JJ-Verse

Only yhe JJVerse Star Fleet used the "Enterprise-Star" as fleet insignia pre-TOS. (In the Prime Universe, only TOS Enterprise had that symbol until Star Fleet adopted it for everyone else.) I'm a little afraid that this is in the JJ-verse. I hope not.

Commander Micheal

Hmm, they need to work on her a bit I think. The whole Klingon revenge angle works...but I bought Kirk's desire for revenge against them a lot more, and Shatner isn't the level you want to be below

I still care more about our "Special Guest Actor" Captain than the headliner actor, which is a little worrying.

c_man

So the Romulans Klingons have been in seclusion for a century to the point that humans aren't even sure what they look like. In that time, they preformed a raid on an outlining colony leaving the survivor (a child adopted and raised by Humans Vulcans). They rise through the ranks of Starfleet despite mixed feelings on their background versus upbringing, and present at the tense point at which the Romulans Klingons re-appear from their isolation with a new intent.

.....

I didn't like it. I would have forgiven the above except for the shoe-horning in of a link to other Trek (vis a vis Sarak), the awful acting and dialog, the numerous little things which were just so forced ("number one," egh gimme a break) and the prospect of the whole series being about war.

I feel like that Ensign who ended up wrongly in the brig, can't we have some exploring please? Some new planets and new civilisations?

PhiloCypher

c_man wrote: »

So the Romulans Klingons have been in seclusion for a century to the point that humans aren't even sure what they look like. In that time, they preformed a raid on an outlining colony leaving the survivor (a child adopted and raised by Humans Vulcans). They rise through the ranks of Starfleet despite mixed feelings on their background versus upbringing, and present at the tense point at which the Romulans Klingons re-appear from their isolation with a new intent.

.....

I didn't like it. I would have forgiven the above except for the shoe-horning in of a link to other Trek (vis a vis Sarak), the awful acting and dialog, the numerous little things which were just so forced ("number one," egh gimme a break) and the prospect of the whole series being about war.

I feel like that Ensign who ended up wrongly in the brig, can't we have some exploring please? Some new planets and new civilisations?

Sometimes it feels like the entire season has dropped netflix style and everyone has binged it but me. We're two table setting episodes into a 17 episode first season, there's 15 more episodes that, fingers crossed, might just do exactly that, give it time.

c_man

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Sometimes it feels like the entire season has dropped netflix style and everyone has binged it but me. We're two table setting episodes into a 17 episode first season, there's 15 more episodes that, fingers crossed, might just do exactly that, give it time.

The preview doesn't give me hope, nor do I think they'll wrap up a Klingon war in a few episodes.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about people's opinions, I do hope it won't keep going this confrontational for the rest of the series. It'll put pretty much anyone else off engaging.

Perhaps we should do something similar to GoT and have two threads - people who want to discuss the lore/who are trekkies, and people who just want to discuss the show?

Two episode threads is too much IMO. While it's probably necessary with GOT, I don't think it works particularly well. How about a "timeline and continuity issues" thread? It would be a megathread and place for diehard fans to discuss ongoing issues with the show.

PhiloCypher

c_man wrote: »

The preview doesn't give me hope, nor do I think they'll wrap up a Klingon war in a few episodes.

That preview like most trailers is the byproduct of some producers idea of what he thinks will sell the show best. It may or may not be representative of the final product. Its lazy but its often easier to sell an action beat in these things then to showcase more star trekian ideas.

I don't think they will wrap it up in a few episodes either, and if this season was the 8-10 eps I thought we were getting initially I'd be worried, but its not, its 17. What I'm hoping is that either Discovery wont necessarily always be on the front lines or that a stalemate is established fairly quickly after heavy losses on both sides. Look If DS9 could find time to do standalones during the ramping up of tension with the Klingon in season 5 and the dominion war of season 6 & 7 I see no reason Discovery can't do the same.

Sleeper12

Picture quality is amazing for a TV show, in HDR no less. Episode one finished and straight back to episode two.

Loving it so far

Inviere

Deleted User wrote: »

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...

I agree actually, which for me makes setting this series in the Prime universe is a complete joke. It's so obvious, to anyone watching, that the show isn't relatable to Kirk's era, or universe. It makes total sense to call it a reboot, which forgives virtually all of the necessary inconsistencies, and gives the show creative space to breathe. Making a point of announcing this show as being Prime, is, in every way I can imagine as a Trek fan, a mistake.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Two episode threads is too much IMO. While it's probably necessary with GOT, I don't think it works particularly well. How about a "timeline and continuity issues" thread? It would be a megathread and place for diehard fans to discuss ongoing issues with the show.

Something like that would be much better!

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

I agree actually, which for me makes setting this series in the Prime universe is a complete joke. It's so obvious, to anyone watching, that the show isn't relatable to Kirk's era, or universe. It makes total sense to call it a reboot, which forgives virtually all of the necessary inconsistencies, and gives the show creative space to breathe. Making a point of announcing this show as being Prime, is, in every way I can imagine as a Trek fan, a mistake.

Yes but then you would have the same bloody arguments which preceded the JJ verse films (content or no)

Goodshape

Could ye not look at this as a sort of reverse-historical series?

I mean as opposed to a documentary covering contemporary events – where those events are filmed as they happen with no interpretation necessary.

Instead we're seeing something 200 years in the future, and using our best technology to depict it.

50 years ago, when TOS was made, we had no concept of holo-communications and we just did the best we could with the SFX available.

30 years ago, when TNG was made, we'd improved. Better able to depict those events, and the advanced technology, and the alien races.

Now, with Discovery, we're better at it again. We "understand" the technology better, and can afford more than a cardboard cutout set.


It's like comparing Paths of Glory (1957) with Dunkirk (2017) or Saving Private Ryan. Or old sword-and-sandal epics with Russel Crowe in Gladiator. Sure they look different – they're films made decades and decades apart – but that's down to our film-making techniques and our better understanding of those historical events. They are the same events/eras.

I'm happy to look at Discovery in the same way. Really cool to see what TOS era looks like now that we have the technology (in 2017) to do it justice.

Still love TOS! And Paths of Glory, and the old Charlton Heston epics. But jaysus they were of their time.