Discovery 1x15 - "Will You Take My Hand" [** SPOILERS **]

FunLover18

jmcc wrote: »

It was like the writers spent more time pushing their political agendas than paying attention to what makes Star Trek such a generally strong franchise. Hopefully there will be a reboot for S2 without all the Snowflake crap and a concentration on strong characters and plots.

What political agendas? Which characters didn't work for you and why?

Evade

I don't think the series itself tried to push anything but here were definitely some "look how progressive we are" interviews and panels form the production team.

FunLover18

Evade wrote: »

I don't think the series itself tried to push anything but here were definitely some "look how progressive we are" interviews and panels form the production team.

That's fair, ideally writers and production teams shouldn't be patting themselves on the back for being progressive. But I was happy that they never made a big deal of it in the show itself or treated it as anything other than the norm.

pixelburp

Yeah, I'm confused about what 'political' agendas were in the final episode; the only thing overt was the speechifying about the Federation should always put unity, peace and inclusion to the forefront n' all, but, uhm, that's KINDA THE POINT of Star Trek's vision of the future. And the only offensive thing about that was how clumsily written it was, what with Burnham suddenly becoming the Federation's moral compass.

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, I'm confused about what 'political' agendas were in the final episode; the only thing overt was the speechifying about the Federation should always put unity, peace and inclusion to the forefront n' all, but, uhm, that's KINDA THE POINT of Star Trek's vision of the future. And the only offensive thing about that was how clumsily written it was, what with Burnham suddenly becoming the Federation's moral compass.

I feel that Michael Burnham was Discovery's weakest point, and at the same time it's most wasted opportunity.

From the design of the credits, to the general structure of things at the beginning, this was clearly supposed to be "The Micheal Burnham Show: Featuring Star Fleet! (With Special Guests...The Klingons!!)"

She was the main character, which despite Star Trek being traditionally an ensemble show, could have worked. Alas Micheal was completely unlikable, and despite their best efforts to make us care about her (tragic childhood, and having to be brought up by the Father of the Year himself: Sarek), I just couldn't care less.

Attempts to also create "whimsy" in character fell flat into a bucket of cringe. She spent the climactic scene in an early episode quoting Alice in Wonderland, no doubt in an attempt to make us feel engaged with her. It failed...hard.

The rest of the time, she just appeared to be along for the ride, while more interesting characters drove the story forward.

The "War am bad" speech at the end was a mess, and should not have been delivered by a Micheal who had appeared to have learned nothing much during her time at war. It felt like something that should have come from Saru, or any of the other characters who appeared to have grown during the series.

I get that main point of them doing that, was that Micheal was afterall the "main character". I live in hope that they learn from that mistake in S2, and go back to ensemble-style story telling, since they clearly can't do a good enough job with Micheal.

pixelburp

The show clearly suffers from 'Main Character Syndrome', and isn't the only show to do so. From the get-go there has been a pre-calculated 'main character' - Michael Burnham - whose sole purpose is to be the instigator or pointman to the plot, at the total expense of any personality or charisma that nearly EVERY other character on the show possesses.

Nominally she's the entry point into the series, and the structure of the narrative demands that she's the most serious person in the room, but it has been clear as day she's not the most interesting character on the show. Of course, it'd be a hugely bold & brave move to sideline her - or even kill her off! - in favour of Saru, Tilly, Stamets, or anyone else on the Discovery with a broader defined persona, but that'd never happen. She's less a human being, more a conveyor-belt for the plot to use.

Saru or Tilly discovering what it takes to become a captain? Now THAT'D be a fascinating, and original, take on a Star Trek property.

Michael Burnham making terrible dramatic decisions while brooding about banging a klingon, is not particularly enjoyable.

Evade

I think one of Burnham's biggest issues is she has too much going on. Some of the individual parts of her background would be enough to focus a character around. I like to think this is how the finalised Michael Burnham came about.

Writer One: I've got an idea for a character coming to terms with the loss of their family at the hands of the Klingons.

Writer Two: I thought about having a human character who was raised by aliens coming to terms with their humanity, maybe Tellarite or Andorian adoptive parents.

Writer Three: I thought about one of the main characters being the one that instigated the war with the klingons and dealing with being a traitor to Starfleet and causing the death of their mentor and closest friend.

TV Executive: Great ideas, I love it. Now make them all the same character and also Spock's sister.

corkie

Star Trek Discovery Season 1 Review

goose2005

pixelburp wrote: »

The show clearly suffers from 'Main Character Syndrome', and isn't the old show to do so. From the get-go there has been a pre-calculated 'main character' - Michael Burnham - whose sole purpose is to be the instigator or pointman to the plot, at the total expense of any personality or charisma that nearly EVERY other character on the show possesses.

Nominally she's the entry point into the series, and the structure of the narrative demands that she's the most serious person in the room, but it has been clear as day she's not the most interesting character on the show. Of course, it'd be a hugely bold & brave move to sideline her - or even kill her off! - in favour of Saru, Tilly, Stamets, or anyone else on the Discovery with a broader defined persona, but that'd never happen. She's less a human being, more a conveyor-belt for the plot to use.

Saru or Tilly discovering what it takes to become a captain? Now THAT'D be a fascinating, and original, take on a Star Trek property.

Michael Burnham making terrible dramatic decisions while brooding about banging a klingon, is not particularly enjoyable.

"One, Michael needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine. Two, whenever Michael's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking "Where's Michael"?"

Gbear

Rawr wrote: »

The "War am bad" speech at the end was a mess, and should not have been delivered by a Micheal who had appeared to have learned nothing much during her time at war. It felt like something that should have come from Saru, or any of the other characters who appeared to have grown during the series.

Leaving the execution of the scene aside, it's quite clear from her decision what she learned.

She goes from treating Klingons like rabid dogs and starting a war with them, committing mutiny and murdering their prophet, and so on, to be willing to allow her entire species to die because of her adherence to Starfleet's ideals and refusing to cause an extinction-level event on Qo'nos.

I can't really remember off hand what journey she went on to teach her that exactly, but the end point is clearly far away from the start.

I'd like to consider myself a principled person, but I'm not sure if I could stomach letting all human life be destroyed and allowing space-Mongolians, without any of the redeeming features of the Mongolian empire, to rule the galaxy to stay true to those principles.

Evade

Gbear wrote: »

I'd like to consider myself a principled person, but I'm not sure if I could stomach letting all human life be destroyed and allowing space-Mongolians, without any of the redeeming features of the Mongolian empire, to rule the galaxy to stay true to those principles.

Federation principles basically boil down to the pursuit of peace and for Federation citizens to be free but a lot of the time the pursuit of peace seems to over ride the freedom aspect. Some characters are written in a peace at any cost way that seems like they'd be ok without the freedom part as long as there's peace.

jmcc

PhiloCypher wrote: »

The faults with the show have very little to do with "snowflake crap" .

They spent more time exploring their feelings than exploring Space.

At least TNG, Voyager and DS9 were more Star Trek than STD. There was even a quote from someone connected with the show about how the Klingons were like the Trump supporters with their Klingon purity thing being like the MAGA thing. The choice of a primary character was not a good one because past series were based on characters (plural) rather than focusing on a single character.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

FunLover18 wrote: »

Which characters didn't work for you and why?

Michael Burnham: Not unlikeable but completely boring.
MU Georgiou: Main character killed off but resurrected as cartoon evil character. Might have been better kept as an admiral but needed to be killed off to create some emotional backstory for Burnham.
Klingon Nazis: Too convenient and too cliched. Their society was too like the Mirror Universe Terran society.

Characters that did work:

Tilly: Completely believable newbie.
Harry Mudd: Funny and sociopathic. (Possibly Q.)
Saru: Started out cardboardish but evolved into a strong character.
Lorca: Warrior rather than explorer. (The Captain Picard replacement with the battle captain in TNG would be a TNG rationale for this character.)

Stuff that was plundered and didn't really work:

Mirror Universe: Great in ST:TOS and ENTERPRISE. Overdone in STD.
Spore Drive: Dune was great but the spice didn't flow in this one.
The Voq/Tyler captive/captor thing: Seems to be inspired by other ST series and also the Manchurian Candidate.

Regards...jmcc

PhiloCypher

jmcc wrote: »

They spent more time exploring their feelings than exploring Space.

At least TNG, Voyager and DS9 were more Star Trek than STD. There was even a quote from someone connected with the show about how the Klingons were like the Trump supporters with their Klingon purity thing being like the MAGA thing. The choice of a primary character was not a good one because past series were based on characters (plural) rather than focusing on a single character.

Regards...jmcc

Based on this and your subsequent post your problem seems to be more with the character centric and serialised nature of the show rather then "snowflake crap".

As to any parallels drawn with Trumpism etc I'm fairly sure those paralells were drawn by the fanbase rather then openly expressed by the show's writers/producers. Besides, the franchise has always been topical whether it was drawing paralells with racial segregation or cold war analogies between the American federation and the Soviet Klingons. If you were ok with it doing it then, why would you have a problem with it taking pot shots at Trumpism. Or is it just hitting too close to home for you ?

There's plenty to pick fault with in the show, I agree with a lot of what you said in your subsequent post, but if a few pot shots at Trumpism is winding you up the point you just had to post about it and throw around terms like snowflake, then a certain slogan oft seen at Trump rallies and aimed at "snowflakes" comes to mind which amounts to 'Suck it up' but in far more colorful language.

jmcc

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Based on this and your subsequent post your problem seems to be more with the character centric and serialised nature of the show rather then "snowflake crap".

This is the original TOS narration:

"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

It is about exploring Space. That was the attraction of the original series and many other of the series. STD is missing that essential element.

As to any parallels drawn with Trumpism etc I'm fairly sure those paralells were drawn by the fanbase rather then openly expressed by the show's writers/producers.

You are wrong.

"The Trump phenomenon was "front and center in our minds," Harberts admits when talking about the post-Fuller production process. "We felt like it would be interesting to really look at what's going on in the United States." He mentions that among the show's antagonists are an ultra-religious and violent Klingon faction whose rallying cry – "Remain Klingon" – is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again." "
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/inside-star-trek-discovery-the-franchises-answer-to-the-trump-era-w504563

Regards...jmcc

PhiloCypher

jmcc wrote: »

You are wrong.

"The Trump phenomenon was "front and center in our minds," Harberts admits when talking about the post-Fuller production process. "We felt like it would be interesting to really look at what's going on in the United States." He mentions that among the show's antagonists are an ultra-religious and violent Klingon faction whose rallying cry – "Remain Klingon" – is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again." "
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/inside-star-trek-discovery-the-franchises-answer-to-the-trump-era-w504563

Regards...jmcc

Fair enough, I stand by what I said tho. Yes star trek on a purely surface level is about exploring strange new world's etc (and Discovery certainly stands accused of not doing enough of that in its first season) but what it's known for is using that story engine to explore topical issues of the day. And not just in ToS, all the trek series did it to one extent or another. Trek hasn't just suddenly swung to the left trying to be cool . It was born there and is just reflecting the politics of the day. So if that bothers you , this is probably the wrong franchise for you.

Whatever it's or your political leanings I think we can both agree they need to get back to more episodic planet/morality tale of the week type stories in season 2.

AMKC

jmcc wrote: »

Michael Burnham: Not unlikeable but completely boring.
MU Georgiou: Main character killed off but resurrected as cartoon evil character. Might have been better kept as an admiral but needed to be killed off to create some emotional backstory for Burnham.
Klingon Nazis: Too convenient and too cliched. Their society was too like the Mirror Universe Terran society.

Characters that did work:

Tilly: Completely believable newbie.
Harry Mudd: Funny and sociopathic. (Possibly Q.)
Saru: Started out cardboardish but evolved into a strong character.
Lorca: Warrior rather than explorer. (The Captain Picard replacement with the battle captain in TNG would be a TNG rationale for this character.)

Stuff that was plundered and didn't really work:

Mirror Universe: Great in ST:TOS and ENTERPRISE. Overdone in STD.
Spore Drive: Dune was great but the spice didn't flow in this one.
The Voq/Tyler captive/captor thing: Seems to be inspired by other ST series and also the Manchurian Candidate.

Regards...jmcc

The Voq/Tyler captive/captor thing:

To me it's like they went. You know that show Battlestar Galactica where there is Cylons that look like humans and are able to infiltrate the remaining humans so they can spy on them. Let's do that here but make it a klingon thats turned into a human. Terrible here. Great in Battlestar Galactica but terrible in ST Discovery and just did not work.

_Kaiser_

AMKC wrote: »

The Voq/Tyler captive/captor thing:

To me it's like they went. You know that show Battlestar Galactica where there is Cylons that look like humans and are able to infiltrate the remaining humans so they can spy on them. Let's do that here but make it a klingon thats turned into a human. Terrible here. Great in Battlestar Galactica but terrible in ST Discovery and just did not work.

Not the only thing "inspired" by Galactica either.. remember reading a comment on a YouTube video recently that drew similarities in other areas too..

- The Spore drive/Stamets = Hybrids/Anderson
- Burnham assaults a superior officer in the pilot and is thrown in the brig = Starbuck assaults Tigh and is thrown in the brig
- (as above) Voq/Tyler infiltrator who comes good = Cylon infiltators who think they're human (Sharon)
- Mirror Universe with dark versions of themselves/their ideals = Pegasus under Cain
- Torture of prisoners in said Universe = Cain's torture of the captured Gina/Six

There were others too, but those are off the top of my head

Goodshape

Hybrids/Anderson = the traveler from TNG

Starbuck assaults Tigh and is thrown in the brig = Spock assaults loads of people and is put on trial in The Menagerie

Cylon infiltators who think they're human = changeling infilltrators

Pegasus under Cain = Mirror Universe with dark versions of themselves/their ideals (TOS/DS9)

Cain's torture of the captured Gina/Six = torture of prisoners in said Universe (TOS/DS9)

Silly examples but so were yours ;-p. Works both ways and there's countless other SciFi shows and films which share the same tropes.


The Voq'/Tyler thing wasn't the best at all though. Fully agree there. A bad idea half baked.

But I would say that a huge part of the lasting appeal of TOS was the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the relationship between them.

jmcc

AMKC wrote: »

The Voq/Tyler captive/captor thing:

To me it's like they went. You know that show Battlestar Galactica where there is Cylons that look like humans and are able to infiltrate the remaining humans so they can spy on them. Let's do that here but make it a klingon thats turned into a human. Terrible here. Great in Battlestar Galactica but terrible in ST Discovery and just did not work.

Yep. It is like that they read a book on creative writing and decided just to reuse creative work from other series because it seemed too difficult. In the other series, the infiltrator story lines generally got wrapped up in an episode or two.

Regards...jmcc

_Kaiser_

Goodshape wrote: »

But I would say that a huge part of the lasting appeal of TOS was the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the relationship between them.

Exactly... probably THE reason why Trek has endured as long as it has, and why the reboot movies tried (successfully with Pine and Urban anyway) to recreate it.

But you can't say the same dynamics exist in Discovery - Burnham continues to be uninteresting and only a bridge to the other characters, most of whom remain little more than extras.

They killed off the most interesting character they had, Tilly (with the brief exception of her portrayal of Killy) is generally annoying to watch, Stamets has moments but generally have no investment there either... about the only character that's grown on me over the entire season (with the exception of Lorca) is Saru, but he too looks to be sidelined again next season with a new Captain and (presumably) first office Burnham taking the stage.

But then, season 2 looks to be a reboot of the reboot/reimagining so who knows really!

Long Straddle

Haven't managed to finish episodè 14, at the moment I've given up on this, it's absolute trash with awful characters and even worse acting.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Rawr

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This does remind of how my feelings to the show evolved over time.

First few episodes: It's all about Micheal, and I don't like Michael...bleh! (I don't bother following weekly and let a buffer build up)

Mid-Season / Cliffhanger: Well now, some interesting character arcs, not just Micheal, a little bit of war stuff...not bad, worth a watch.... (by now I start to follow weekly)

Mirror Episodes: Well now, this is starting to get pretty good, and in Season 1 no less. Got a good feeling here (Following weekly, and watching for updates)....also why the hell did they have to mess with the continuity of the Terran Empire logo? Just take away that silly upside down Starfleet symbol!

Lorca is revealed to be a Cartoon Villian, muh-ha-ha! Oh FFS, he was one of the the best characters, and he made sense in a war. That was a stupid "twist" you morons (Still following weekly, but not pleased)

Cliffhanger: The Federation has lost the war: Woah! Hopefully just losing the war so that this is still Prime canon. Dramatic! Maybe we'll get some good war drama & action here! (Following weekly, and watching for updates)

Never mind the war, turns out it was not that bad: Wait what? No war updates? Nothing? (Don't bother following weekly and let a buffer build up)

We'll threaten to blow up Qo'nos with an iPad!! War over! Wait...the f**k?! The thing I really wanted to see through 5 years of ENT, and the whole damned reason I was watching this show is resolved under pain of iPad? The damned Klingons were laughing at her too, and rightly so!

Micheal's "War am bad" speech + Pike's Enterprise Hmm....I will not be counting the days until Season 2. An OK Star Trek show but unlike other Trek shows...I will not be re-watching any of it.

Spear

So a filmed but unshown epilogue scene was shown at a convention.

Still in spoiler tags since it covers future stuff.

The black badges were section 31.
Section 31 recruit Mirror Georgiou after the events of the episode
It can be seen here:

https://www.inverse.com/article/42789-star-trek-discovery-season-2-section-31-scene?utm_campaign=organic&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=twitter

The_Valeyard

Spear wrote: »

So a filmed but unshown epilogue scene was shown at a convention.

Still in spoiler tags since it covers future stuff.

The black badges were section 31.
Section 31 recruit Mirror Georgiou after the events of the episode
It can be seen here:

https://www.inverse.com/article/42789-star-trek-discovery-season-2-section-31-scene?utm_campaign=organic&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=twitter

Cool clip actually

Spear

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind pulling it. They appear to have done so late, as this is finished footage with CGI added, not merely the raw stuff. And it would have helped spike interest in season 2, something valuable given the finale was a bit of a damp squib. But at this point they'd have confirmed nearly every single fan theory, making it a little redundant.

Goodshape

So is this a deleted scene or a bonus scene? I kinda hope it's the former, and that they put it in a locked box, bury it in the desert somewhere, and lose the key.

I've never much liked Section 31. Similar to the mirror universe it just seems like badly thought out excuse to do very un-Star Trek stuff in a Star Trek world. A mysterious shadow group who's only MO is to be mysterious and shadowy – now with cool badges!

Less of this type of thing in Season 2, please.

TheValeyard

Goodshape wrote: »

the mirror universe it just seems like badly thought out excuse to do very un-Star Trek stuff in a Star Trek world.

Those episodes were the best of the season!!

TheValeyard

Spear wrote: »

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind pulling it. They appear to have done so late, as this is finished footage with CGI added, not merely the raw stuff. And it would have helped spike interest in season 2, something valuable given the finale was a bit of a damp squib. But at this point they'd have confirmed nearly every single fan theory, making it a little redundant.

They might (and rightly guessed) that ending with the USS Enterprise would gather more attention and support than a S31 teaser.


That ship looked awesome.

pixelburp

I think the Mirror Universe somewhat outstayed its welcome by the end; the concept was always a 'letting your hair down' diversion, an excuse for the actors to vamp it up a little, and the story to just go pantomime-evil for a spell. Enterprise jumped further into the rabbit hole, but in many respects Discovery has totally legitimised the universe now, through its extended stay. By the end I was pretty keen to return to 'our' universe, feeling a little bit done with all the rampant evilness.

The appearance of the Enterprise was probably the most blatant attempt at fan-pandering by a show in years, but I can't deny I wasn't almost immediately curious to jump onboard to visit Pike, Spock & co.

My own running theory is that the Enterprise will be part of the first couple of episodes (Spock being conveniently off-ship too, just to avoid too many canon complications); the ship will likely form the impetus for Discovery's next mission, both vessels parting ways - though maybe with Enterprise showing up in the finale, to make full use of those cameos. Doubtless the promos too will emphasise the Ent's cameo too.

Goodshape

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Those episodes were the best of the season!!

In isolation they were a lot of fun but the concept of the mirror universe makes zero sense and derails any ongoing character or story arcs. I know Star Trek isn't exactly hard sci-fi, but the MU is pure evil-moustache-twirling fantasy.

TheValeyard

Goodshape wrote: »

In isolation they were a lot of fun but the concept of the mirror universe makes zero sense and derails any ongoing character or story arcs. I know Star Trek isn't exactly hard sci-fi, but the MU is pure evil-moustache-twirling fantasy.

Id watch an entire series based on the Terran universe. I think it makes plenty sense, a universe where the Roman Empire never collapsed, and Imperial Wars and civil wars continued throughout the centuries.