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

degrassinoel

Goodshape wrote: »

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.

I'm not upset about it, it is what it is, i'm just pointing out that i didn't enjoy it because X Y and Z is not written (or possibly edited) well enough for me to be able to enjoy it as a trek show the same way i enjoy other Trek shows.

i'll just bullet point my issues for handy reference there..

• ST:Discovery is a badly presented (and possibly edited) 90 minute origin story for Burnham set in the star trek universe.

• It's not star trek yet and wont be star trek until it's on the titular ship.

• They should have given a stardate that made sense, not set it pre-Kirk - the tech issues and Klingon lore & aesthetics may have made more sense that way.

• Multiple issues with Burnham, being unrelatable, mutinous, aggressive, vulcan upbringing with Sarek,etc..

Just on Burnham, why should i care about this person? When i contrast her with any other trek lead - kirk archer, picard, sisko, janeway or even prominent ancillary characters like rand, mayweather, crusher, odo, kim, all likeable people, made that way by their actors, and i contrast those with Burnham and i have no idea of her motives, why she was brought up by Sarek on Vulcan, i had no sympathy for her at her court martial. This all points to bad storytelling, i dont like the actor that plays her, and that may be skewing how i see her as she plays her character but there's not enough of her character present on the screen or in dialogue to even do that. So i cant hate her, but i also cant love her either.

Ye know, for a double episode pilot which focused entirely on her, after 90 minutes i still have no clue what she's all about.

Did you feel that way about Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, after their first two episodes? ye did not. And if ye did, ye'd not be reading a star trek forum.

The writing is a shambles.

Goodshape

You are a harsh critic, degrassinoel.

This is a show about Micheal Burnham. We were kinda told that going in. It is a story set in the Star Trek universe, not a "traditional" ship-and-her-crew series. We were kinda told that going in too.


I'm really looking forward to knowing more about Micheal Burnham.

Technocentral

Characters and look of it great, plot and story line bloody awful, cliched, totally unoriginal and ultra predictable. They need proper professional writers, BSG standard ones. 2/5

H3llR4iser

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.

There was an even easier solution, which didn't involve destroying 50 years of established lore and would have let the authors/writers/whatever put any sort of shiny new gadgetry in it and far-fetched ideas in is as they wanted - just set it a century or two AFTER the Dominion War / Nemesis.

In that scenario, they could have done anything they wanted and more or less get away with it - Federation/Klingon alliance dissolved? Why not; Transwarp or more advanced travel? Sure; Starfleet ships being nitty, gritty darkened submarines? Sucks, but yeah, possible; Federation going more militaristic (the Captain being asked about her opinion "as a soldier", I'm surprised nobody noticed that) in the wake of post-war rebuild and tensions? Absolutely; Pursuing the TV trope of the "big bad ugly monstrous villains" and imagine the Klingons "augmenting" themselves and changing appeareance? Be my guest; All camera tripods having a shorter leg resulting in all shots being crooked? Well, one'd imagine they'd solve that by the 26th century, but yeah. The possibilities would have been limitless.

All of it would probably still have had the "just another dark, grave, dystopian claustrophobic Sci Fi series about some 'choosen one' unlikely hero" feel to it with a Star Trek badge slapped on, but would have had, as you perfectly say, creative space.

One doesn't have to be an author or writer to figure out that making a "prequel" of something set 250 years in the future, but that was originally written and shot half a century ago, would be an impossible thing to get right as your kids play with stuff that is more advanced than what looked futuristic in 1966.

Goodshape

degrassinoel wrote: »

contrast those with Burnham and i have no idea of her motives, why she was brought up by Sarek on Vulcan, i had no sympathy for her at her court martial. This all points to bad storytelling

I think that all points to there being another 15 episodes in this season tbh.

degrassinoel

Goodshape wrote: »

You are a harsh critic, degrassinoel.

This is a show about Micheal Burnham. We were kinda told that going in. It is a story set in the Star Trek universe, not a "traditional" ship-and-her-crew series. We were kinda told that going in too.


I'm really looking forward to knowing more about Micheal Burnham.

Well they should have named it "Burnham, Burnham all" then :P
probably be in conflict with GoT though..

anyway... i honest to god hope the dust settles properly on it and they do some actual trek sci-fi and go boldly to seek out new lifeforms and civilisations, not rehash old ones and melt them til they look cool.

Inviere

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There was an even easier solution...

Couldn't agree more. See here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104669072

The_Valeyard

I liked it.

Although seemed more BSG than Trek.

PhiloCypher

degrassinoel wrote: »

Just on Burnham, why should i care about this person? When i contrast her with any other trek lead - kirk archer, picard, sisko, janeway or even prominent ancillary characters like rand, mayweather, crusher, odo, kim, all likeable people, made that way by their actors, and i contrast those with Burnham and i have no idea of her motives, why she was brought up by Sarek on Vulcan, i had no sympathy for her at her court martial. This all points to bad storytelling, i dont like the actor that plays her, and that may be skewing how i see her as she plays her character but there's not enough of her character present on the screen or in dialogue to even do that. So i cant hate her, but i also cant love her either.

You don't have to love every character at the start(in any show not just trek) , heck you don't even have to like every character at the end, Whats important is the journey. So long as they give her a compellingly written and earned redemption arc over the course of this season or in fact the series , I personally could care less that she is less likeable then the beyond bland Mayweather, Crusher, Kim.

degrassinoel wrote: »

Ye know, for a double episode pilot which focused entirely on her, after 90 minutes i still have no clue what she's all about.

It didn't focus entirely on her it also focused on T'Kuvma "The apparently forgettable" too . You can argue the toss as to whether they used those 90 minutes wisely but guess what ? there's another 15 episodes left in the season to explore her motivations and backstory which obviously so informed her extreme actions in this first episode.

degrassinoel wrote: »

Did you feel that way about Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, after their first two episodes? ye did not. And if ye did, ye'd not be reading a star trek forum.

The writing is a shambles.

Archer : Thought his hatred of Vulcans was horribly forced. Also could never get past the feeling that it felt like Sam Beckett had leaped into a star ship captain. Kept waiting for hims to say oh boy every time they came across a new species. Gave up on it after season 3

Kirk : First saw TOS when I was a kid . One isn't that discerning at that age but I enjoyed Kirks swagger.

Picard : First saw TNG in my early teens, thought Picard was a bit of a bore compared to Kirk and the planetside sets were every bit as bad as the TOS but stuck with it , because its trek .

Sisko : Seen around original air date . Found Avery Brooks barky Stacatto line deliveries a bit bizarre at first but stuck with it because its Trek and just like TNG I figured it would grow on me.

Janeway : Thought Voyager, a few standalones and arcs aside, was a waste of a premise and Kate Mulgrews Janeway deserved better .

Bottom line, I love trek, and I'll always give Trek a fair shake whether I'm initially in love with its main character or not, as Enterprise aside, Trek shows have always improved as they've gone on.

degrassinoel

PhiloCypher wrote: »

You don't have to love every character at the start(in any show not just trek) , heck you don't even have to like every character at the end, Whats important is the journey. So long as they give her a compellingly written and earned redemption arc over the course of this season or in fact the series , I personally could care less that she is less likeable then the beyond bland Mayweather, Crusher, Kim.




It didn't focus entirely on her it also focused on T'Kuvma "The apparently forgettable" too . You can argue the toss as to whether they used those 90 minutes wisely but guess what ? there's another 15 episodes left in the season to explore her motivations and backstory which obviously so informed her extreme actions in this first episode.



Archer : Thought his hatred of Vulcans was horribly forced. Also could never get past the feeling that it felt like Sam Beckett had leaped into a star ship captain. Kept waiting for hims to say oh boy every time they came across a new species. Gave up on it after season 3

Kirk : First saw TOS when I was a kid . One isn't that discerning at that age but I enjoyed Kirks swagger.

Picard : First saw TNG in my early teens, thought Picard was a bit of a bore compared to Kirk and the planetside sets were every bit as bad as the TOS but stuck with it , because its trek .

Sisko : Seen around original air date . Found Avery Brooks barky Stacatto line deliveries a bit bizarre at first but stuck with it because its Trek and just like TNG I figured it would grow on me.

Janeway : Thought Voyager, a few standalones and arcs aside, was a waste of a premise and Kate Mulgrews Janeway deserved better .

Bottom line, I love trek, and I'll always give Trek a fair shake whether I'm initially in love with its main character or not, as Enterprise aside, Trek shows have always improved as they've gone on.

That was a rhetorical question.. lol.

Mr E

After flicking through this thread since the weekend, I was really expecting the worst.

But...

I bloody loved it. Very very impressed. From that space walk scene onwards, I was totally on board. I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

I've seen every star trek episode from every series and I couldn't care less about nerdy shit like canon, continuity, technology for the era, Klingon make up or anything like that.

I just loved it for what it was - a smart sci-fi show in the Trek universe with amazing special effects (apart from maybe the pew-pew lasers in the battle, but that's a minor quibble)

Roll on episode 3.

Wedwood

Just watched the two episodes, solid start, looks promising.

You can see Nicholas Meyer's influence and reminds me of the gear shift he done for Wrath of Khan after Star Trek The Motion Picture. A darker, more militaristic star fleet, sprinkled with traditional Trek discussions and moments.

The new version Klingons are great and are the scariest Trek villains I've seen since Khan. The decision to place the new series in the time where the Klingons are the baddies has been proven to be right.

The comment by Burnham that the Klingons need to be killed to deter a worse outcome was another idea previously used by Meyer in The Undiscovered Country.

The Science Officer is an instant classic, his cowardice at the first sign of trouble and wanting to run was entertaining. He whole demeanour reminded me of Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory and he's a great addition.

Two episodes in and I'm hooked and the USS Discovery hasn't even entered yet !!

Zaph

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I liked it.

Although seemed more BSG than Trek.

I agree, it didn't really have the look and feel of a Star Trek series to me. That said, it's early days so I'm not going to complain about it yet. Overall I enjoyed it, it was a decent introduction to the main protagonist of the series and it had some good special effects. Only two things I didn't like about it:

- Michael is not a woman's name. My father is called Michael. So is my brother-in-law. I've worked with several Michaels over the years and not one of them was a woman. It's a bloody stupid name for the character.

- I don't like the re-imagining of the Klingons. Simple as that, I just don't like what they've done with them and would rather they'd left them more like Worf.

silverharp

these guys prefer The Orville

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

PhiloCypher

degrassinoel wrote: »

That was a rhetorical question.. lol.

Answering your own question for us does not make it rhetorical . You made a false supposition on a forum made for discussion. One that says we must have all liked every main character at the start or we wouldn't have continued watching and be posting here. Which at least in my case. Is incorrect.

Zaph wrote: »

- Michael is not a woman's name. My father is called Michael. So is my brother-in-law. I've worked with several Michaels over the years and not one of them was a woman. It's a bloody stupid name for the character.

- I don't like the re-imagining of the Klingons. Simple as that, I just don't like what they've done with them and would rather they'd left them more like Worf.

I know. That more isn't being made of the bizarre choice to give the female lead a man name on forums or in articles baffles me. If the writers are trying to be progressive I'd have expected to see more being made of it in the media.

Likewise the new look Klingons, While I do think a shakeup was needed as they had become a parody of themselves(my god the Gowron memes). I would have preferred they kept the TNG look and changed their honor obsessed culture(You use cloaking devices to ambush ships for god sake. Never made sense). But again this doesn't seem the biggest bug bear with people. Its that people don't like the main character after one 90 min episode(split into two) and the fact they use Holograms. Baffling.

The_Valeyard

Zaph wrote: »

I agree, it didn't really have the look and feel of a Star Trek series to me. That said, it's early days so I'm not going to complain about it yet. Overall I enjoyed it, it was a decent introduction to the main protagonist of the series and it had some good special effects. Only two things I didn't like about it:

- Michael is not a woman's name. My father is called Michael. So is my brother-in-law. I've worked with several Michaels over the years and not one of them was a woman. It's a bloody stupid name for the character.

- I don't like the re-imagining of the Klingons. Simple as that, I just don't like what they've done with them and would rather they'd left them more like Worf.

Yeah, I really do not understand the whole Michael thing just seems odd.

As for the redesigned Klingons, I think its a Romulan and Reman type thing. I still the Humanised Klinks and TNG Klinks will appear down the line as other various Klingon factions or houses

Oh the holograms, liked it at the start, annoyed me towards the end. Especially when the DS9 ship holoviewer was a big deal for a while.

degrassinoel

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Answering your own question for us does not make it rhetorical . You made a false supposition on a forum made for discussion. One that says we must have all liked every main character at the start or we wouldn't have continued watching and be posting here. Which at least in my case. Is incorrect.



I know. That more isn't being made of the bizarre choice to give the female lead a man name on forums or in articles baffles me. If the writers are trying to be progressive I'd have expected to see more being made of it in the media.

Likewise the new look Klingons, While I do think a shakeup was needed as they had become a parody of themselves(my god the Gowron memes). I would have preferred they kept the TNG look and changed their honor obsessed culture(You use cloaking devices to ambush ships for god sake. Never made sense). But again this doesn't seem the biggest bug bear with people. Its that people don't like the main character after one 90 min episode(split into two) and the fact they use Holograms. Baffling.

cant let go can ye?

you've been at it all day long with me and it's just not even a discussion anymore now Philo.

In fact it hasnt been a discussion since you began to call me "a little shrill", "mate" asked me to stop posting til i'd seen more and replied to a rhetorical question which i'd answered myself.

You've picked up other people's points and copied and pasted their points and ran with those instead of having your own discussion with me, nope, you want to talk at me, call names and tell me to stop posting instead lol.

Touche, i guess especially on the DS9 hologram, which wasn't at all accurate but hey.. plagiarism, one of its pitfalls is that when the other person is wrong, so are you. And you've been wrong pretty much all day.

Anyway, you should probably pm the next person you disagree with like that coz i'm just not that interested in reading what you have to say anymore Philo :P

rhetorical
rɪˈtɒrɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or concerned with the art of rhetoric.
"repetition is a common rhetorical device"
synonyms: stylistic, oratorical, linguistic, verbal
"the skilful use of such rhetorical devices like metaphor"
2.
(of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
"the general intended his question to be purely rhetorical"

first time i've ever ignored a user on here. well done.

patmac

Is there any PC reason why she is called Michael? Is it a Vulcan thing? Is she gender fluid, or trans-gender? If not and she is a full on woman (which she looks) why dafuq did they call her Michael? To be PC, to be clever?
It's not helping me to empathise with her character by calling her Michael.
Michael FFS, call her Michelle or Michella or Mary.
Did I mention that I don't like her being called Michael? Will watch it again as it spoiled it for me that the main female character is called Michael.

AtomicHorror

patmac wrote: »

Is there any PC reason why she is called Michael? Is it a Vulcan thing? Is she gender fluid, or trans-gender? If not and she is a full on woman (which she looks) why dafuq did they call her Michael? To be PC, to be clever?
It's not helping me to empathise with her character by calling her Michael.
Michael FFS, call her Michelle or Michella or Mary.
Did I mention that I don't like her being called Michael? Will watch it again as it spoiled it for me that the main female character is called Michael.

No big agenda. It's something Bryan Fuller did in some of his previous shows, so it has become a sort of tradition.

If "PC" stuff is an issue for you though, Star Trek is really not for you.

silverharp

i dont know how i missed it, the shorthand for this show is STD , so far it has all the likable qualities of one

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

i dont know how i missed it, the shorthand for this show is STD , so far it has all the likable qualities of one

A standard? Yeah I guess it is the standard bearer

RopeDrink

RopeDrink wrote: »

That bugs you? In a show reputed for its diversity, that has brushed up on countless, endless, relevant 'human' topics with varying degrees of sensitivity for oh so many years, regardless of whether humans are the ones actually delving those topics?
I wonder how many people got offended by the eye-candy in The Goonies being called Andy, which is a bit less on-the-nose than Michael, but hey, we're going back in time here. I certainly didn't and my name is Andrew. There are ladies out there CALLED Andrew. I don't view them any differently than ladies called Andrea. If that bugs you, you're going to have fun later

EDIT: Above is a weak example and isn't really helpful, so let me put some meat on the table. The show has had a lot of instances where X or Y race don't really 'get' the other. A typical example would be Data, an android trying to be more human, who spends a lot of time failing at it in a bid to learn. Now, I can easily imagine a human being raised on Vulcan and not having the exact same upbringing as a human being raised by humans and/or on a human world, thus a strange name is nothing to me. I find "Worf" in general weirder than a girl called Michael, because Worf is blatantly an alien/Klingon name. Trek is always meant to be way ahead of the world we live in here in reality, so certain things like equality and whatnot, whilst very relevant here, don't typically apply to Earth in Trek as it's in a utopia "been there done that" state. Sometimes you're just going to have to accept that they do **** differently than they would in our reality and it's standard fare to them -- and that sometimes, the aliens will actually seem to be more human than the damn humans a lot of the time because of it.

Of course, this mostly refers to old Trek. It's not like anyone can predict how deep the wormhole will go in the new show until they pump out more episodes, so I'll just echo my first point - a girl called Michael is the least of your concerns.

Oh stop, it is jarring no matter what you throw out there. There are plenty of androgynous names and Michael is not one, there is feck all wrong with it but that does not mean that it is not a slight distraction

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

[...]

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.

I think what you're describing goes beyond Trek though; it's goes to the fundamental history of Science Fiction itself as a genre (or Science Romance as it was originally known). Sci-Fi has ALWAYS taken the current social issues of our time and our own technological zenith as launchpads for speculative fiction, yet Trek is this corner where that policy is frequently fought in the name of 'canon'.

In my mind there's no better example than the infamous 'Martian Canals'; 19th century (mis)understanding of the surface of Mars being covered with artificial canals, that in turn IMO influenced HG Wells to write 'War of the Worlds', kicking off the whole sub-genre of Martian civilisations. We now know this theory to be utter rubbish, yet it was an infectious idea that persisted, even after being disproven.

As you say, ToS based its perceptions on what constituted 'high tech' and futuristic based on 1960s models of technology and speculation - a time deep in the Space Race, when folks still believed in moon colonies, jetpacks and how interstellar travel was right around the corner. Of course subsequent iterations of Trek are going to look different, because all Sci-Fi comes from the time it's borne in, new eras when the complexities of interstellar travel became more problematic, or the constructs of modern society changed (how many of us are reading my opinions on a device no larger than Trek's communicator?). To desire, or demand that future (or past!) iterations of Trek should somehow ape that styling - despite all the subsequent contradictions and advances that ironically make ToS look old-fashioned - just strikes as the worse form of nostalgic wallowing & pandering. Sci-Fi is by its nature about looking forward, even when its set in 'the past'

Woden

Can we dial down the back and forward sniping please and remember some core boards tenets before we need to start issues infractions/warnings

1) Don't be a dick
2) Attack the post not the poster.

Regards,

Woden

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

As you say, ToS based its perceptions on what constituted 'high tech' and futuristic based on 1960s models of technology and speculation - of course, this was deep in the Space Race, when folks still believed in moon colonies, jetpacks and how interstellar travel was right around the corner. Of course subsequent iterations of Trek are going to look different, because all Sci-Fi comes from the time it's borne in, new eras when the complexities of interstellar travel became more problematic, or the constructs of modern society changed (how many of us are reading my opinions on a device no larger than Trek's communicator?). To desire, or demand that future (or past!) iterations of Trek should somehow ape that styling - despite all the subsequent contradictions and advances that ironically make ToS look old-fashioned - just strikes as the worse form of nostalgic wallowing & pandering. Sci-Fi is by its nature about looking forward, even when its set in 'the past'

nobody forced them to make a prequel , they could have set this after the last pre reboot movie then it would have been blue sky.

PhiloCypher

Woden wrote: »

Can we dial down the back and forward sniping please and remember some core boards tenets before we need to start issues infractions/warnings

1) Don't be a dick
2) Attack the post not the poster.

Regards,

Woden

Dont know if he'll see this but I'd like to apologise to Degrassinoel for saying he was being a bit shrill. It was a poor choice of words . I enjoy a spirited debate and I may have overstepped with that remark.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

nobody forced them to make a prequel , they could have set this after the last pre reboot movie then it would have been blue sky.

No it would not. The galaxy was tiny at that stage, very little room for any real growth, between Quantum Slipstream and Transwarp corridors alone.
FFS they had a warp ship cross the galaxy in 7 years

fixXxer

silverharp wrote: »

nobody forced them to make a prequel , they could have set this after the last pre reboot movie then it would have been blue sky.

They didn't have the rights to do that (afaik) so it wasn't an option. With the visual style being so similar I guess they hoped that the majority of casual viewers would just assume they were set in the same timeline.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

No it would not. The galaxy was tiny at that stage, very little room for any real growth, between Quantum Slipstream and Transwarp corridors alone.
FFS they had a warp ship cross the galaxy in 7 years

You could have the Borg destroy the corridors or find other ways of handicapping the tech. There are still a 100bn stars to explore, plenty of room.

They didn't have the rights to do that (afaik) so it wasn't an option. With the visual style being so similar I guess they hoped that the majority of casual viewers would just assume they were set in the same timeline.

I don't think the casual viewer is going to go to the trouble of taking out a new TV subscription though. I get the impression that CBS wont release their Sub numbers, all they said was that they got record new ones, but compared to what.

Greyjoy

Deleted User wrote: »

No it would not. The galaxy was tiny at that stage, very little room for any real growth, between Quantum Slipstream and Transwarp corridors alone.
FFS they had a warp ship cross the galaxy in 7 years

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We keep hearing that "Trek has always retconned stuff" in defense of Discovery yet when it comes to the idea of a post-Voyager series suddenly everything is set in stone and there's no room to create new ideas. Even if you accept the advances that Voyager made Starfleet aren't going to instantly roll out that tech to their entire fleet. Realistically Voyager would spend years in testing before Starfleet start upgrading their ships.

TomSweeney

I watched the 2 episodes there.
I am really glad I didn't read reviews beforehand.
I liked it - but just didn't feel like Star Trek - too dark.

And letting Identity Politics in Star Trek is a bad idea, it's supposed
to be true equality where skin colour, sex, etc is not even noticed
(Remember Captain Picard - people complaining that in the 24th century there is no
cure for baldness, and Rodenberry just said "In the 24th century people wont care")

But this is a complaint more about the media and their reviews - harping on about the
"First woman of colour" in a lead role in ST, jesus I didn't even notice she was black
I just enjoyed her strong character and good acting.

Also the albino Klingon ?? and saying he was inferior due to his skin colour ?
wtf was that about ? - and yeah the name "Michael" ... yes we get it ID obsessed America,
there is 56+ genders ...

Bacchus

TomSweeney wrote: »

Also the albino Klingon ?? and saying he was inferior due to his skin colour ?
wtf was that about ?

While your other complaints have merit I disagree on this one. They are very obviously making this isolationist, "Remain Klingon", don't dilute the species theme a mirror to real world events. That is very much in the spirit of Star Trek and possibly the most interesting aspect of this new series (despite not particularly enjoying the Klingon scenes)

Goodshape

TomSweeney wrote: »

And letting Identity Politics in Star Trek is a bad idea, it's supposed
to be true equality where skin colour, sex, etc is not even noticed
(Remember Captain Picard - people complaining that in the 24th century there is no
cure for baldness, and Rodenberry just said "In the 24th century people wont care")

But this is a complaint more about the media and their reviews - harping on about the
"First woman of colour"

Then take the higher ground and don't make an issue out of it. Media is media, don't let them bait you.


Having said that, if you think "Identity Politics in Star Trek is a bad idea", you might have been watching the wrong show this past 50 years.

Wikipedia wrote:

Identity politics, also called identitarian politics, refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations

^^ sounds like every other episode of TOS and TNG.

gloobag

Long time Trek fan here. I grew up in the 80's watching TOS reruns and then TNG and obviously all that followed. I have watched every series and all the movies multiple times. I have even dabbled in Star Trek Online Every series has it's terrible episodes and some of the movies aren't very good [COUGH]Into Darkness[/COUGH] All I can say is that the two episodes of Discovery I have seen felt very much like Star Trek to me.

It was visually stunning with good acting performances (which is more than can be said for a lot of Star Trek, to be honest). It wasn't perfect of course, but what is? The cold open in the desert was cringey (had Kurtzman's fingerprints all over it), and I wish they hadn't made it so obvious that Georgiou was a goner. My guess is we'll see more of her in flashbacks throughout the series.

I don't get the comparisons to JJ Trek at all. The tone is different and there's actually very little visually to tie them together. I can only think of the viewscreen/window (which I actually prefer to "traditional" viewscreen) and the pulse style phasers off the top of my head.

Things that don't bother me at all, but seem to bother others:

• Holo communication - DS9 abandoned this after a couple of episodes. So you could already consider it retconned before Discovery was even a thought in someone's mind. And it makes sense, as we're probably not that far off from tech like this right now.
• Visual Reboot - This had to happen. Star Trek doesn't just belong to us long time fans you know. There is a younger generation out there who will be introduced to Star Trek through Discovery, so visually it has to be at least on par with other movies/shows out there to try to appeal to them.
• The Name, Michael - It's just a name. The naming of children evolves drastically in a very short space of time. I imagine if you could travel even 100 years into the future you would hear some very strange names.
• The Klingons - Dudes with Mars bars melted to their heads just isn't going to cut it to pass for an alien these days I'm afraid. As much as I love the old TNG era Klingons, it's nice to see the design take a step towards something more alien.
• Dark and serialised doesn't suit Star Trek - Uh, DS9?
• It should be set post Voyager/Nemesis - And, what then? Who are the bad guys? Another new antagonistic race will need to be introduced, and they'll need to be almost godlike in their power to go up against the Federation at this stage. Anyway, who's to say they won't do something like that at some stage? With their own streaming platform, they could make as much Star Trek as they want as long as there's demand. How many Marvel Netflix shows are there now?
• It would be better with Bryan Fuller - It's still his story and characters and setting, so if you don't like any of that stuff, then you have him to blame. Bottom line, he wasn't able to deliver the series on time. My understanding is that it would have been pretty much the same writing staff even if he was there.

silverharp

Bacchus wrote: »

While your other complaints have merit I disagree on this one. They are very obviously making this isolationist, "Remain Klingon", don't dilute the species theme a mirror to real world events. That is very much in the spirit of Star Trek and possibly the most interesting aspect of this new series (despite not particularly enjoying the Klingon scenes)

I was expecting them to be wearing MAGA hats or would that be MQGA :pac: . Its laying on too thick though. There has always a theme with the Romulans etc being suspicious of the Federation. In the past did it not come down to whether the empires are expansionary or not? if they start invading outside their traditional borders that makes them "the bad guys" if on the other hand the Klingons want to have a "Qo'noS first" policy then the Federation has no particular moral reason to interfere.
They should have left the Klingons as they were the slightly mad but amusing Vikings of the galaxy and leave their anti Trump bit to a single episode on some newly discovered planet.

Greyjoy

Greyjoy wrote: »

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We keep hearing that "Trek has always retconned stuff" in defense of Discovery yet when it comes to the idea of a post-Voyager series suddenly everything is set in stone and there's no room to create new ideas. Even if you accept the advances that Voyager made Starfleet aren't going to instantly roll out that tech to their entire fleet. Realistically Voyager would spend years in testing before Starfleet start upgrading their ships.

What have they changed really in Discovery, the look of Klingons/Ships and a bit of modernisation of tech views.

The problem with the end of Voyager (and entire prime line)
-Delta Quadrant is massively Borg and Voyager heard not a hint of another power there.
-Gamma is Dominion and canon maps have them controlling most of it.
-Alpha and Beta are massively mapped, where are the next big race coming from? It was already ridiculous that the Federation did not even hear of the Ferengi prior to TNG, where are the others going to hide?

After the TNG/DS9/Voy timeline Star Trek was falling into the SG1 problem of needing to invent a heretofore unknown big bad to keep growing.
SG1 did it so much in their 10 years that they had to leave the Galaxy for Atlantis and SG1

Blackhorse Slim

gloobag wrote: »

[*]It should be set post Voyager/Nemesis - And, what then? Who are the bad guys? Another new antagonistic race will need to be introduced, and they'll need to be almost godlike in their power to go up against the Federation at this stage. Anyway, who's to say they won't do something like that at some stage? With their own streaming platform, they could make as much Star Trek as they want as long as there's demand. How many Marvel Netflix shows are there now?
[/LIST]

I was excited about this up until I heard it was going to be a prequel. Killed it completely for me. I don't get this stuff about godlike antagonists, the galaxy is too small etc. There are other galaxies!

Star Trek was originally about exploration, the unknown, wonder, new ideas. What could be better for a new series after all this time than a whole new galaxy to explore? New worlds, new civilizations. Just needs a bit of creativity, and brings a whole lot of freedom.

Remain Klingon, eh? We know how that turns out. By Kirk's time they're practically human.

RopeDrink

RopeDrink wrote: »

For some, not all. I don't think many people paid much attention to "Bill", an openly lesbian companion to the Doctor, much like I honestly don't care that a female is arsing about the galaxy with the name Michael. Would I name my own daughter Michael? No. But I'm also not in some fictional galaxy years ahead of our real time, either. The only reason I can see it being a 'distraction' is if a male name on a female character rings some kind of bells in the back of peoples minds about it meaning more than it does. I just see it as a human raised in different circumstances by people who probably don't 'get' that sort of thing, and even then, Starfleet or whoever lives in said fantasty won't give much of a damn either, much like above point about Picard's baldness.

Maybe that's just me - ultimately I find it to be the last thing that I'd criticise when it comes to enjoyment of a TV show, Trek fan or not, but AS a Trekkie, odd names, species and situations aren't exactly shocking.

Because it is social conditioning. Again I said there is nothing wrong about it but it is different and takes a moment to register, it'll be part of the scenery in an episode or two.
If a male character were called "Jasmine" there would be the same comments. It's unusual and causes a slight double take, and is worthy of comment.


*Edit* what does Bill's sexuality have to do with her name?
**Edit** Not having a pop at you of anything just reads strange.

Sparko

Deleted User wrote: »

What have they changed really in Discovery, the look of Klingons/Ships and a bit of modernisation of tech views.

The problem with the end of Voyager (and entire prime line)
-Delta Quadrant is massively Borg and Voyager heard not a hint of another power there.
-Gamma is Dominion and canon maps have them controlling most of it.
-Alpha and Beta are massively mapped, where are the next big race coming from? It was already ridiculous that the Federation did not even hear of the Ferengi prior to TNG, where are the others going to hide?

After the TNG/DS9/Voy timeline Star Trek was falling into the SG1 problem of needing to invent a heretofore unknown big bad to keep growing.
SG1 did it so much in their 10 years that they had to leave the Galaxy for Atlantis and SG1

Those dinosaur aliens in Voyager seemed to be fairly advanced - not sure how much storyline potential there could be but I'll leave that to the writers!

I think with decent writing the post Voyager/Nemesis universe still has untapped potential. The future tech could be confiscated by the temporal department or whatever it was called. In terms of an enemy - what about the other aliens often mentioned but not hugely explored? Tholians, Tzenkethi, Sheliak, Breen (in ds9 but still fairly undeveloped). Again it just comes down to the writing, I'm sure decent writers could mine plenty of story out of that timeline.

Sparko

Sparko wrote: »

Those dinosaur aliens in Voyager seemed to be fairly advanced - not sure how much storyline potential there could be but I'll leave that to the writers!

I think with decent writing the post Voyager/Nemesis universe still has untapped potential. The future tech could be confiscated by the temporal department or whatever it was called. In terms of an enemy - what about the other aliens often mentioned but not hugely explored? Tholians, Tzenkethi, Sheliak, Breen (in ds9 but still fairly undeveloped). Again it just comes down to the writing, I'm sure decent writers could mine plenty of story out of that timeline.

So after half the Federation seeing future tech, Jayneway allowed come back in time with it, equipping Voyager, crippling the Borg, and now you want temporal operatives to come and take it away.

Oh FFS

hal9550

Overall i really enjoyed both episodes - obviously a SERIOUS amount of issues with various things

Holographic communication: Canon wise its not on OBVIOUSLY! but to be honest id let it slide because i imagine humanity will have something similar soon enough. the way i see it, being PRE TOS is all well and good but its difficult to have something less advanced than the old 60s 1701 without it seeming far too retro for todays audience

Klingon Cloaking Device: Obviously more issues, as with the general design of their ships but again. Happy to Ignore - who knows where these guys acquired this cloak... romululan incolvement perhaps? as to the ship design its the same argument as above

Story line involving Burnham - WORST part in my opinion - very unrealistic for me - also life imprisonment for nerve pinching a superior? Because thats basically all she did! a wee bit harsh!!!

Generally im glad its back and its like this:

JJtrek One - VERY annoyed over design, plus canon issues, destruction of vulcan - silly story - terrible

JJTrek two - HORRIFIC - only seen it once, never again

JJTREK 3 - OMG shockingly bad

Discovery - Not bad! I WANT MORE!

Sparko

Deleted User wrote: »

So after half the Federation seeing future tech, Jayneway allowed come back in time with it, equipping Voyager, crippling the Borg, and now you want temporal operatives to come and take it away.

Oh FFS

Wow sorry I was just throwing out some ideas, I didn't mean to piss in your cornflakes.

Goodshape

hal9550 wrote: »

Story line involving Burnham - WORST part in my opinion - very unrealistic for me - also life imprisonment for nerve pinching a superior? Because thats basically all she did! a wee bit harsh!!!

Well she literally mutinied and attempted to assume control of an entire Federation starship to pre-emptively attack an alien vessel.

Not sure how much more series it could get for a Starfleet officer.


"Was it logic? Was it emotion? – I don't know" – I think that line from Burnham towards to end is key. She's not all right in the head.

James Brown

Has the TV Trek universe been altered along with the new movies? If so, did/will Voyager happen/ed at all?

Goodshape

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Has the TV Trek universe been altered along with the new movies? If so, did/will Voyager happen/ed at all?

The new movies are a separate thing, set in an adjacent / alternative timeline.

Discovery – we've been told, although it hasn't mattered or been really confirmed on-screen yet – is set in the "normal" Star Trek timeline which includes TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent.

They've updated some things again (as they did in the original first film, second film, third film, and TNG) which has annoyed some people again, but it is the same timeline.

silverharp

Goodshape wrote: »

"Was it logic? Was it emotion? – I don't know" – I think that line from Burnham towards to end is key. She's not all right in the head.

when they were on the desert, the captain asker how long it would take for the storm to get to them, she gave an answer down to the second, as there wasn't a knowing look of gettit, she appears to be quite mad

PhiloCypher

silverharp wrote: »

when they were on the desert, the captain asker how long it would take for the storm to get to them, she gave an answer down to the second, as there wasn't a knowing look of gettit, she appears to be quite mad

That whole desert prologue was kinda cringey tbh, if I wasn't such a big trek and Sci fi fan in general I would have tapped out . I get that they had some exposition to get through and character dynamics to establish but that was Attack of the clones Obi wan & Anakin forced banter in that elevator bad. Thankfully after that exposition dump the dialogue became more natural and I was able to enjoy the rest of the episode(s).

silverharp

PhiloCypher wrote: »

That whole desert prologue was kinda cringey tbh, if I wasn't such a big trek and Sci fi fan in general I would have tapped out . I get that they had some exposition to get through and character dynamics to establish but that was Attack of the clones Obi wan & Anakin forced banter in that elevator bad. Thankfully after that exposition dump the dialogue became more natural and I was able to enjoy the rest of the episode(s).

the whole scene didn't add adding to the episode it was a dead end, it looks like they had it so they could have a cool scene for the trailers.

Inviere

gloobag wrote: »

[*]It should be set post Voyager/Nemesis - And, what then? Who are the bad guys? Another new antagonistic race will need to be introduced, and they'll need to be almost godlike in their power to go up against the Federation at this stage.

I don't agree with this point. You could paint a hugely different Alpha Quadrant in the 25th, or 26th century, with some imagination. There's certainly more possibilities in the unwritten, than there are in the already written.

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

I don't agree with this point. You could paint a hugely different Alpha Quadrant in the 25th, or 26th century, with some imagination. There's certainly more possibilities in the unwritten, than there are in the already written.

What's been written about the Klingons in the pre-TOS / TOS era? Or about Starfleet for that matter? (discounting the 1960s look of the thing).

We have 3 years on the Enterprise, plus one additional episode set ~10 years earlier (The Cage). A little bit of exposition maybe from subsequent series. Isn't that kind of it? Or am I missing something?

Post-Voyager, everyone seems to have different ideas as to what should or could happen with the myriad of races, the politics, the technology. It's all pretty rigidly defined.