Discovery 2x10 'The Red Angel' [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

pixelburp

I think Discovery's trying to have its cake and eat it;, it seems to know Burnham is unpopular and uses Spock to voice that obsession with making her the centre of the drama, but then ends up ... .... making her the centre anyway.

It's pure Main Character syndrome really. They can't kill her off - this ain't Game of Thrones and the cast isn't ensemble enough - she's the lead and presumably Martin-Green has too tight a contract to be jettisoned.

GSPfan

fritzelly wrote: »

And yet renewed a month ago for season 3 and a massive hit for CBS

Yeah i said get past season 3. You need to read more goodly!

GSPfan

pixelburp wrote: »

I think Discovery's trying to have its cake and eat it;, it seems to know Burnham is unpopular and uses Spock to voice that obsession with making her the centre of the drama, but then ends up ... .... making her the centre anyway.

It's pure Main Character syndrome really. They can't kill her off - this ain't Game of Thrones and the cast isn't ensemble enough - she's the lead and presumably Martin-Green has too tight a contract to be jettisoned.

I’d be grand with her if they made her captain and had her involved with the storyline from that perspective but to have her as a mutineer and now a science officer or whatever she is and to be the centre of both season story arcs is just weird.

expectationlost

if pike accepts that the red angel wants to help why would he agree to a plan to trap her and possibly disrupt her helping...

is_that_so

expectationlost wrote: »

if pike accepts that the red angels wants to help why would he agree to a plan to trap her and possibly disrupt her helping...

Wasn't the aim to actually prevent the AI following along behind her?

expectationlost

is_that_so wrote: »

Wasn't the aim to actually prevent the AI following along behind her?

ok so why don't they do that then?



Is the red angel unaware of the AI?

is_that_so

expectationlost wrote: »

ok so why don't they do that then?



Is the red angel unaware of the AI?

I don't think we know yet whether she does.

Spear

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think we know yet whether she does.

There's still a whole bunch of unconnected dots, such as whether the future AI is an evolved Control or something separate, as the injection into Leland implies. Or what's the use of the Terra Elysium rescue or the Chief Reno rescue. Or there's the implied larger scale temporal cold war. I'm assuming a lot of these will get answered in the next episode though.

OldMrBrennan83

Am I missing something about the bit where they figured out the RA only appeared when Burnham was there? What about when it saved the people during WW3, Burnham was hardly there was she?

Spear

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Am I missing something about the bit where they figured out the RA only appeared when Burnham was there? What about when it saved the people during WW3, Burnham was hardly there was she?

There was no signal for that.

It's the combination of signal and the Red Angel they were referring to, that's when she appears as Burnham was involved. But hence only a signal for the Hiawatha initially and Terra Elysium to get them there.

GSPfan

Apart from my objections to this show being everything Burnham.....

I really liked this episode.

I really liked the one on ones - Saru & Leland, Burnham & Georgiou, Doctor & Admiral, Burnham & Leland, Burnham & Ash, Burnham & Spock.

Actually even the one on ones are Burnham saturated.

But yeah i really liked this episode.

Re: Tilly

She had a great moment when she witnessed Georgiou troll the gay blokes and said “What just happened”, but her uninvited entry to a staff meeting and her lack of focus on her one job to signal the arrival of the Angel was horrible. At this rate she should be sacked from Starfleet. She could kill someone with her incompetence.

This show has so much going for it. I hope they find a way to write a story arc not revolving around the same character every season.

CastorTroy

Are they just ignoring the current ship's doctor or is it just they don't want her on missions?

I did like Spock's "jokes".

What's with the admiral's face? When Michael died, it showed everyone looking upset the she just looked as she always does.

After that funeral, I can't wait for Star Trek Discovery Season 3 - The Search for Airiam.

Anteayer

Bit of a lack of logic. If they assumed future Burnam was the angel wouldn't she have known she was going to set a trap for herself?

It was a good thing it was her mammy!

Goodshape

Hmmm, didn't enjoy that one much at all.

Too much focus on the main arc which I was never all that interested in (far prefer the stand-alone adventure stuff we got a taste of earlier in the season) and they seem to have taken the worst possible route with it – it's all Section 31 and Michael Burnham's [parents] fault.

The pacing and the drama all seemed a bit forced too.

Oh well.

Yester

Really enjoying the second season. I'm starting to feel sorry for Pike though. Control your bridge Captain! (Or at least tell Tilly to just get to the point)

Anteayer

Yester wrote: »

Really enjoying the second season. I'm starting to feel sorry for Pike though. Control your bridge Captain! (Or at least tell Tilly to just get to the point)

Picard would never have put up with all that waffling! Remember Barkley!?

CastorTroy

Of course I should've realised who the Red Angel was. I saw Kima wearing that exact rig in The Wire.

Yester

Anteayer wrote: »

Picard would never have put up with all that waffling! Remember Barkley!?

Damn right he wouldn't! Barkley was a great character. His holo deck fantasy life made him very interesting.

Anteayer

Anteayer wrote: »

Bit of a lack of logic. If they assumed future Burnam was the angel wouldn't she have known she was going to set a trap for herself?

It was a good thing it was her mammy!

I was thinking that but then i decided it was 50/50 she'd know - current red angel could be the first kicking off a change in timelines so current red angel wouldn't have had the burnham memories because she wouldn't have gone through all this yet.

strandroad

Anteayer wrote: »

Bit of a lack of logic. If they assumed future Burnam was the angel wouldn't she have known she was going to set a trap for herself?

It was a good thing it was her mammy!

I don't think it matters that she knew about the "safe" trap they initially planned.

When Spock barred them from entering the chamber he effectively let her die (did the angel actually revive her?); the angel had to intervene if she was indeed protecting Michael.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bit of a lack of logic. If they assumed future Burnam was the angel wouldn't she have known she was going to set a trap for herself?

It was a good thing it was her mammy!

Timey wimey wibbly wobbly.

corkie

Hanelle M. Culpepper, the director for this episode is also to be the director for the Pilot 'Picard' show + second episode (yet to be titled).

CBS All Access has found the captain for their Jean-Luc Picard series. Hanelle Culpepper, director of episodes of Star Trek: Discovery, along with Supergirl and Gotham, will direct the pilot and second episode. This makes Culpepper the first female filmmaker to direct a Star Trek pilot in the 53-year history of the franchise.

https://www.slashfilm.com/picard-series-director/

Anteayer

I'm liking the Emperor's character. You never know if she's on your side or not and she's corrupt, backstabbing but not necessarily morally bankrupt and she's quite entertaining, unlike Burnham who seems to be lacking any humor at all.

Gbear

That episode was poor. I like a bit of melodrama but this series has been dialling it up week by week and it's just mawkish and cringeworthy at this stage.

Time travel Trek has always been the series at its worst. It just doesn't make for good, coherent stories.

Also, what in the name of **** was that scene with Stamitz, the doctor, Philppa and Tilly?

By far the weakest of the season so far.

Following the exploitative effort last week to kill a character we barely knew and didn't care about, they continue this week with their funeral, which again, didn't matter, and was only notable for how much Saru's song wasn't as terrible as I feared it was going to be.

pixelburp

Yeah, what is with Trek and time travel anyway? Like, ostensibly it's not the shows prime motif or theme - ask 100 people about Trek and it won't involve time travel - yet continuous iterations LOVE going to that well (hell, Enterprise made 2 seasons out of that excerable Temporal Cold War). And in canon everyone's so apathetic or accepting about time travel, like it's just another basic scientific fact of life. Hell you got a whole department or the Federation dealing with time travel - however that's meant to work.

_Kaiser_

Just catching up on this now. The days are unfortunately gone that a new Trek episode would be top of my weekly viewing pile, but also gone is my frustration with what they're doing to the franchise. I just don't consider this Star Trek, and so will watch to see what else they do/rip off from week to week. It makes for more entertaining viewing. With that in mind, the below will be a more light-hearted take on this nonsense.

So, this week we open with an emotional tribute to a character we barely knew, given by other characters we barely know (or care about). This entire sudden character arc around Arium is a bit like the "Poochie" episode of the Simpsons.
Maybe if we'd spent a season getting to know the character and her friends/shipmates, as opposed to having us told all about it in <43 minutes last week, it might have had more impact, but Spock's death in TWOK this is not.

Anyway...

The Skynet plot continues. Admiral Incompetence obviously hasn't seen Terminator 3 as she asks the "how did this happen" question. Tilly continues to be annoying in every scene, and we get told Michael is the Red Angel . Pike and Spock get the best lines with their analysis of how it's totally Burnham that she'd decide to go on a time-travelling crusade off her own bat. It's as if someone on the writing staff gets the fan dislike for the character.

S31 arrive to take charge (because not only are they openly known by everyone in this series, they apparently outrank Starfleet Command) and with a plan to capture the Angel. How are they gonna do this? Well, this pre-TOS group has mastered time travel and created the Angel in the first place of course! That aside for a moment, one of the more ridiculous sub-points here is that this was a reaction to a Klingon project to develop it first. The Klingons! :rolleyes: The Romulans/Tal Shiar would have been the obvious and better choice of course, but then this show has firmly tied itself to screwing up the Klingons as well, so... Klingons it is!

Then we move to a very socially awkward scene with Emperor Georgiou, Stamets, Tilly and Culver - but hey, uncomfortable sexual innuendos are family viewing too right!

Burnham learns some home truths about her parents and Section 31 (Side note: Martin-Greene is an awful actress in this scene), and it seems we're going the route of another Temporal Cold War with the discussion between her and Spock about technological leaps in societies being influenced by factions from the future - sound familiar?? Will Daniels show up to fix everything again - we can only hope!

I thought I must have missed something though as I completely missed the point of the dramatic Bridge entrance of Lieutenant Nelson, but thanks to posters here I see now... makes no sense in-universe of course, but that's consistent too.

Finally, the big plan. More false drama as Burnham is readied to die (even though I really wouldn't miss her!). It's hard to feel any sense of tension when she's the main character of this series and we know she's not going to be killed off. But violent death scenes are all family viewing too. But wait.... after a lot of ridiculous-level tech shenanigans (pre-TOS remember!) ,it turns out the Red Angel ISN'T Burnham.. it's her mother! Didn't expect that to be fair, but again the universe revolves around Michael Burnham.


Ah this show... there are some good actors in there and there is some potential, but all the behind the scenes staff and direction changes have left the entire thing a confused mess!

Johnny Storm

CastorTroy wrote: »

Of course I should've realised who the Red Angel was. I saw Kima wearing that exact rig in The Wire.

Are you saying Kima is Burnham's Ma?!? Kewl.... :-)

expectationlost

dramatic Bridge entrance of Lieutenant Nelson was to do her replacing 'in universe' the dead character.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Most of the complaints by the detractors could be levelled at any Star Trek episode in history. Bad acting. Fake suspense as a lead character looks like he is going to die. A new character introduced to die in the same or later episode.

The rest is whining about uber nerd canon related stuff. Section 31 are too well known in this timeline? So what? They will probably go more underground because of their actions here. Inconsistencies in time related stuff? When has there ever not been such inconsistencies.

Try apply the same level of critique to TNG season 2. Any episode. It’s all bad then. Discovery is, at this stage of its run, much better than TNG.

The other option is to do what I did with Enterprise which was genuinely bad, don’t watch it.

alchemist33

expectationlost wrote: »

dramatic Bridge entrance of Lieutenant Nelson was to do her replacing 'in universe' the dead character.

But why the looks on the faces of the crew if "in universe" she's just anothe crew member? It was bit too knowing-winky-winky for me

Edit: I was also thinking while Burnham was dying that if she did die then there's no future Burnham, no red angel and no Skynet following her through time. Problem solved, let her die! But then if the angel is her ma this doesn't hold.

_Kaiser_

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most of the complaints by the detractors could be levelled at any Star Trek episode in history. Bad acting. Fake suspense as a lead character looks like he is going to die. A new character introduced to die in the same or later episode.

The rest is whining about uber nerd canon related stuff. Section 31 are too well known in this timeline? So what? They will probably go more underground because of their actions here. Inconsistencies in time related stuff? When has there ever not been such inconsistencies.

Try apply the same level of critique to TNG season 2. Any episode. It’s all bad then. Discovery is, at this stage of its run, much better than TNG.

The other option is to do what I did with Enterprise which was genuinely bad, don’t watch it.

Right, off topic for this thread, but it's something I've noticed on this whole subject for a while now here.

If all we want to do here is heap praise on this show because "some Trek is better than none" then fair enough. Let's be clear about that though.

If some can't accept that other fans who have also watched and grown up with the franchise, don't like the direction that they've gone with Discovery then that's fair enough too.

If some just want to post things here seeking validation, that's cool as well.

But outside of all of that, unless the Mods say otherwise, I was of the understanding that this is a discussion forum for different views and opinions, not an echo chamber?

You like the show and want to talk about it.. cool!
I don't, and give my reasons why and what they could/should do better IMO (which you are free to disagree with - although maybe try without the childish name-calling)

I for one am tired of the crusading that seems to go on from some around this show and it's alleged virtues and the attacks on those who don't agree with them.

Anteayer

Gbear wrote: »

again, didn't matter, and was only notable for how much Saru's song wasn't as terrible as I feared it was going to be.

Hopefully that doesn't become a recurring thing.

pixelburp

Hot take: this is the first Trek (bar DS9) with a near perfect cast list in terms of solid acting ability. Hotter take: most the cast of TNG were awful actors and that this is ignored was down to Patrick Stewart alone. Enterprise comes a close second. TOS was a mixed bag but our fondness for William shatner is in part precisely because of his bad acting.

Martin-Green can't be blamed here and I think when she's given the material does an admiral job, but her character is literally an emotionally stunted human - it's hard not to come across poorly.

And while I liked him at first, "angry Spock" aka Zachery Quinto is being shown up by Ethan Peck. His delivery is kinda perfect, and looking at his snark with Burnham, you can see how that evolved into the Bones / Spock frenemy relationship

Johnny Storm

I agree with most of what you said but I think Brent Spiner is a pretty good actor, plus many of the TNG cast were at least adequate. The Enterprise cast was the worst of the lot IMHO.
I fully agree about the new Spock, I never liked Quinto as Spock

Evade

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most of the complaints by the detractors could be levelled at any Star Trek episode in history. Bad acting. Fake suspense as a lead character looks like he is going to die. A new character introduced to die in the same or later episode.

It's not unreasonable to expect a better standard of acting on TV in 2019 than the early 2000s or 60s/80s/90s. If someone commented on the effects being bad would you dismiss it because they're better than what they used to use?


Most of the bringing a character in was because of the episodic nature of previous Trek. Airiam had been there for 20 episodes by the time she was killed off and only really got any focus in the episode she died. A bit like a less used Tasha Yar and I don't think you'd find many people that would say her funeral was good either.

Franz Von Peppercorn

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Right, off topic for this thread, but it's something I've noticed on this whole subject for a while now here.

If all we want to do here is heap praise on this show because "some Trek is better than none" then fair enough. Let's be clear about that though.

If some can't accept that other fans who have also watched and grown up with the franchise, don't like the direction that they've gone with Discovery then that's fair enough too.

If some just want to post things here seeking validation, that's cool as well.

But outside of all of that, unless the Mods say otherwise, I was of the understanding that this is a discussion forum for different views and opinions, not an echo chamber?

You like the show and want to talk about it.. cool!
I don't, and give my reasons why and what they could/should do better IMO (which you are free to disagree with - although maybe try without the childish name-calling)

I for one am tired of the crusading that seems to go on from some around this show and it's alleged virtues and the attacks on those who don't agree with them.

It’s not an echo chamber. You’re right. You give your criticism and I am discussing your criticism. Pointing out the inconsistencies in it. Which you didn’t answer.

The only person who is trying to stop debate is you, with your accusations that not taking your criticisms is “crusading”, or that if we respond it’s enforcing an “echo chamber”.

I’m not particularly in love with the show and I’d prefer more episodic Star Trek , but if you want to criticise it then please expect that we aren’t all going to just accept your criticisms as absolute fact, particularly since most could be levelled at any series of Star Trek.

FutureGuy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Right, off topic for this thread, but it's something I've noticed on this whole subject for a while now here.

If all we want to do here is heap praise on this show because "some Trek is better than none" then fair enough. Let's be clear about that though.

If some can't accept that other fans who have also watched and grown up with the franchise, don't like the direction that they've gone with Discovery then that's fair enough too.

If some just want to post things here seeking validation, that's cool as well.

But outside of all of that, unless the Mods say otherwise, I was of the understanding that this is a discussion forum for different views and opinions, not an echo chamber?

You like the show and want to talk about it.. cool!
I don't, and give my reasons why and what they could/should do better IMO (which you are free to disagree with - although maybe try without the childish name-calling)

I for one am tired of the crusading that seems to go on from some around this show and it's alleged virtues and the attacks on those who don't agree with them.

What I have learned is that people like yourself who dislike the show are in the (vast) minority. However, they are a very vocal minority, either on forums or on their own YouTube channels. A few reviewers are having a good old moan for the sake of it, perhaps to get those all important clicks. But as I said, it’s moatly positive reaction.

I honestly don’t know why you even bother posting and watching if you dislike it so much. 2 season and two dozen eps in, your still watching. Odd.

expectationlost

alchemist33 wrote: »

But why the looks on the faces of the crew if "in universe" she's just anothe crew member? It was bit too knowing-winky-winky for me

she was the dead characters replacement not just another crew member

opus

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

It does seem like a bit of a design flaw to have a huge spike in your retinal scanner.

I just watched it & was thinking exactly that

Goodshape

Fwiw, I didn't have a "who is this anyway and why should I care?" reaction to Airiam's story and death last episode. She hasn't had *much* screen time but then, neither have most of the bridge crew.

She was a familiar face and I was both happy for the backstory and sorry to see her go. That those both happened in the same 50 minutes wasn't perfect but didn't bother me much at all.

corkie

Anyone compare the Red Angels suit to this?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKj_Jogzc0M/maxresdefault.jpg

Savitar suit from the Flash season 3, especially when her mum fell out of the suit after emp, reminded me of Barry forcing his future self out of the suit.

The director of this episode, also work on the Flash.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

Fwiw, I didn't have a "who is this anyway and why should I care?" reaction to Airiam's story and death last episode. She hasn't had *much* screen time but then, neither have most of the bridge crew.

She was a familiar face and I was both happy for the backstory and sorry to see her go. That those both happened in the same 50 minutes wasn't perfect but didn't bother me much at all.

Aye, I had been bringing up Airium back in season, cos like a lot of folks I was dead curious what / who she was. It's a shame she didn't get just another episode or two, just enough to give her more runway to the pathos.

Though to be noted that once again, Detmer leads the charge of the also-rans from the Discovery bridge in terms of lines and screentime. It's like theres someone in the writing team trying to make her happen

GSPfan

The new lieutenant that replaced Airium got that reaction because of the situation not because it was the old actor. She was taking over the station of a dead friend who they just buried. Imagine your work colleague who you had a good friendship with just died and the next day someone is already in their seat. It was done well I thought.

Liamalone

Surely she starts her shift at the same time as the rest, so she was late, not a word said to her lol. I thought it was ham fisted myself but apparently you can't diss the show on this thread.

seamus

Anteayer wrote: »

Bit of a lack of logic. If they assumed future Burnam was the angel wouldn't she have known she was going to set a trap for herself?

It was a good thing it was her mammy!

I'm assuming here that this is all part of the plan. Future Burnham would have known this was the jump where her mother goes back and gets caught, and so let her go back and get caught.

Because with her knowledge of the future and the suit, her mother can now help her work on becoming future Burnham.

I did feel like they just completely ignored the predetermination paradox though. Yes, they should have completely locked Burnham out of all discussion in order to prevent the red angel from knowing what was about to happen, but at the same time whatever path they choose might be the path that causes the series of events to happen in the first place.
Even a nod to, "We just keep doing what we think is the right thing otherwise we'll be paralysed with uncertainty" would have sufficed.

Liamalone wrote: »

Surely she starts her shift at the same time as the rest, so she was late, not a word said to her lol. I thought it was ham fisted myself but apparently you can't diss the show on this thread.

They could stagger the shifts between teams (ops/security/command/science) so that all teams aren't changing shift at the same time?

Done for dramatic effect, no doubt. But one can always explain these little things away.

De Bhál

watch this every week but it leaves me cold. To me it's all style over substance.
I'll keep watching it but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

Time crystals for feck sake, that was the straw for me.

Spear

Spear wrote: »

Sara Mitich apparently had allergic reactions to the makeup, hence she was recast, but they still honoured her contract and gave her a new character.

I like this.
Just a pity that they actually gave us a potential great back story to Airiam, made her a VERY interesting character and then immediately killed her off.

Up to that point she was a glorified background character and was costing a bucket load in makeup time. Made sense to kill her off and save that money, while keeping original actor, in a new role.

OSI

OSI wrote: »

Tilly is just annoying to watch. Every episode she does something that would see her relegated to mopping floors in any real military environment, and yet not only is she one of the more important people on the bridge, she's in the leadership program

Star Fleet have never "seen" themselves as military (they obviously are)

seamus

De Bhál wrote: »

Time crystals for feck sake, that was the straw for me.

You know, "Time Crystals" is lame.

But surprisingly realistic. If scientists were experimenting with various compounds and discovered a crystalline substance that allowed some level of time manipulation, they would call them "Time crystals", informally. Of course they would have an actual "tri-oxy-cetaline-ribochromactic-fedenum" scientific name. But like so many things in the scientific sphere, they would get a nickname. And it would probably be "time crystals". Because they're crystals that allow time manipulations.

It's lame, but completely realistic.

Leland is clearly more of a military man than a scientific one. He leads teams, he accomplishes missions. He lets the scientists worry about the details. So he would call them "Time crystals". And if anyone asked him WTF that is, he'd say, "I'm not an egghead, how would I know?".

De Bhál

seamus wrote: »

You know, "Time Crystals" is lame.

But surprisingly realistic. If scientists were experimenting with various compounds and discovered a crystalline substance that allowed some level of time manipulation, they would call them "Time crystals", informally. Of course they would have an actual "tri-oxy-cetaline-ribochromactic-fedenum" scientific name. But like so many things in the scientific sphere, they would get a nickname. And it would probably be "time crystals". Because they're crystals that allow time manipulations.

It's lame, but completely realistic.

Leland is clearly more of a military man than a scientific one. He leads teams, he accomplishes missions. He lets the scientists worry about the details. So he would call them "Time crystals". And if anyone asked him WTF that is, he'd say, "I'm not an egghead, how would I know?".

ah yeah, I get they would have a handy nickname. As I said it was the straw that broke me really (although Saru singing during the funeral was pushing me also).
I wanted to love this show and have tried, and blame my own knowledge shortcomings of Trek canon for part of the problem. I really watch it as a stand alone show without worrying too much about whether storylines blend with the future correctly.
But the main issue is the clunky acting and stories that don't really interest me.

In saying all that, I will watch it all, as it's a visual treat and has some good moments.