Discovery 2x14 'Such Sweet Sorrow Part 2' [Spoilers Within]

seamus

Boards is so negative, it's crazy.

The same stuff going on in the Game of Thrones forum.


Boards: This is quite poor. Sub-par. The writing is weak, there are plot holes everywhere, I'm really not enjoying this.

The entire rest of the Internet: This is fvcking great.


I thought they did a great job on this last episode. Bundled things up very nicely, introduced some new elements that seem really obvious in hindsight - why wouldn't starships use their shuttles and other small craft in a battle. This is a major plot hole in TNG. The Battle at Wolf 359 should have involved literally thousands of ships of varying sizes. (Answer: They didn't have the budget to show anything but the aftermath)

It does seem like they originally wrote this season expecting it to be the last, and now they have a new direction for the next season. I've given up trying to pre-suppose plot holes, like Disco being a Viking longboat in comparison to the technology 930 years in the future. The writers have proven themselves perfectly capable of dealing with anachronistic issues and canon tripping points. So they'll deal with that too.

Inviere

seamus wrote: »

Boards is so negative, it's crazy.

If forums had everyone just agreeing with each other, it'd be a tad dull no?

The entire rest of the Internet: This is fvcking great.

Hmmm.....

pixelburp

seamus wrote: »

Boards is so negative, it's crazy.

On the other hand, I daresay the number of "Grr, too many women!" rants is much greater across the broader interwebs; peppered with the resting apoplexy over the main character being a black woman, or searching for some secret 'SJW' agenda (we've had a bit of that too mind you)

And further peppered with the "Not my Trek" Ultras, who just can't conceive of a Trek that doesn't conform to their specific preferences and biases.

I think Boards has been pretty balanced really - dare I say, mature.

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all, certainly not when it comes to the discussions we have here. Some of the male characters are absolute tripe too

Some of the male characters are poor too but they tend to be treated in isolation. Ash isn't a great actor. Leland was a bit one dimensional. Pike is a hero.

When it's Tilly or Michael Burnham, there's a tendency to complain that "PC culture" has put "too many woman" in the show.

noodler

Goodshape wrote: »

Some of the male characters are poor too but they tend to be treated in isolation. Ash isn't a great actor. Leland was a bit one dimensional. Pike is a hero.

When it's Tilly or Michael Burnham, there's a tendency to complain that "PC culture" has put "too many woman" in the show.

Ash is another terrible one actually.

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

Some of the male characters are poor too but they tend to be treated in isolation. Ash isn't a great actor. Leland was a bit one dimensional. Pike is a hero.

When it's Tilly or Michael Burnham, there's a tendency to complain that "PC culture" has put "too many woman" in the show.

Of course, there's idiots out there that go on like that, I don't see much of it here though. That's why it's a bit eye rolling when you see valid criticism posted here (of a female character), for people to start throwing out the gender card right away. I think this forum is probably the most balanced in terms of Trek discussion that I peruse, and legitimate criticism of characters, female or otherwise, shouldn't automatically be met with unwarranted accusations.

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

Of course, there's idiots out there that go on like that, I don't see much of it here though.

Yeah, but it does happen:

Blazer wrote: »

Seriously what is the male/female ratio in Star..must be 90 to 10 in favour of female and all are them my god are overpowered.

And I hate to go on about it too because it is just silly and I don't want to add fuel to the silly-fire, buuutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_Discovery_characters

Of the 8 "Main Characters" listed there, only 2 are female. Michael and Tilly.

Of the 8 "Recurring Characters", 4 are female.


And again, it's just that thing – sometimes – of "that male character isn't good. I don't like him" vs. "that female character isn't good. It's SJW nonsense. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY WIMMIN IN MY SCIFI!!??".

It's stoopid.

corkie

seamus wrote: »

Boards is so negative, it's crazy.



The entire rest of the Internet: This is fvcking great.

Or you just reading/looking at sites owned by (or shills for) CBS?

There is two vocal youtubers on either side of the argument.

'Nerdrotic' strongly against and goes as far as saying "People who like Disco, must hate Star Trek."

And

'Ketwolski' seems to give fairly positive reviews.

seamus wrote: »

The writers have proven themselves perfectly capable of dealing with anachronistic issues and canon tripping points. So they'll deal with that too.

LOL, you must be joking here? Discovery has so many plot holes it is insane. And making Micheal and the events of both seasons on discovery classified, is just a very lazy way of dealing with Canon Issues.

I enjoyed watching Discovery, but my critical mind can still see the blaring pot holes.


And for people yet to watch this short?

Hope they release a new short, showing the Red Angel trips (Mum) and how they redirected the sphere and transported a church (+plus people) across space.

IAmTheReign

corkie wrote: »

Hope they release a new short, showing the Red Angel trips (Mum) and how they redirected the sphere and transported a church (+plus people) across space.

The whole church thing really annoyed me tbh. She traveled back to earth during WW3 for no particular reason, and teleported a church and all the people in it across space somehow using the suit? How? And how can a time travel suit travel instantly across space and stay at the same time? It didn't make any sense. Really gave me the impression that either they didn't know how the story would end when they started writing or they had ideas for one off episodes that they shoehorned into the story arc whether they made sense or not.

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

When it's Tilly or Michael Burnham, there's a tendency to complain that "PC culture" has put "too many woman" in the show.

"Woke" marketing has it's fair share of the blame for that too.

uncleoswald

"Kurtzman talked about how the decision to jump the show into the 33rd century frees them up:

We love playing within canon. It’s a delight and a privilege. It’s fun to explore nooks and crannies of the universe that people haven’t fully explored yet. That being said, we felt strongly that we wanted to give ourselves an entirely new energy for season three with a whole new set of problems. We’re farther than any Trek show has ever gone. I also had experience working on the [J.J. Abrams] films where we were stuck with canonical problems. We knew how Kirk had died, and we wondered how we could put him in jeopardy to make it feel real. That’s what led us to go with an alternate timeline; suddenly we could tell the story in a very unpredictable way. That’s the same thought process that went into jumping 950 years into the future. We’re now completely free of canon, and we have a whole new universe to explore."

Christ what a bullsh*t merchant. Any canonical issues where entirely of their own making, they painted themselves into all sorts of corners just to have "look you know this character!" moments. And of the J.J. movies, yeah we really had a sense that Kirk was going to die :rolleyes:

While it's great that they won't be pointlessly latching on to or sullying what came before and in theory it'll be interesting that we will now see what future Trekverse will be like, however I have no faith that the writer of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will create an interesting or satisfying version of the Trek future. I can already imagine how grimdark it's going to be and we'll see just how bullsh*t the above quote is when he shoehorns every trek reference in he possibly can. Let's not forget this is the guy who couldn't help write "Kaaaahhhhhhhnnnnn" in In To Darkness. Kurtzman's Trek reminds of the Snyderverse, there is someone in charge who's every instinct is wrong for the property.

pixelburp

I'd be the last person to give Kurtzman praise, man's a hack even if he was part responsible for Fringe, but a late retrofit is better than none; plenty of shows have needed a shakeup in their key premise yet, for whatever reason (be it actors contracts, studio nervousness, etc), it never happens. Some in the CW superhero stable need it for example, yet they grind along in their rut. It's a bold, brave decision that's rare enough in TV.

uncleoswald

I agree about that, it's great to see a show potentially wiping the slate clean narratively, more should do it. And maybe I should give Discovery the benefit of the doubt and just wait and see what they do next but I think my biggest problems on the show remain, namely the showrunner and main character. Also there is the issue of Captain Georgiou still presumably having to go back so the show may not be finish with the 23rd century just yet.

TaurenDruid

My prediction is that they will be back in the 23rd century by the mid-point of the next series, at the latest.

Blazer

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, but it does happen:



And I hate to go on about it too because it is just silly and I don't want to add fuel to the silly-fire, buuutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_Discovery_characters

Of the 8 "Main Characters" listed there, only 2 are female. Michael and Tilly.

Of the 8 "Recurring Characters", 4 are female.


And again, it's just that thing – sometimes – of "that male character isn't good. I don't like him" vs. "that female character isn't good. It's SJW nonsense. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY WIMMIN IN MY SCIFI!!??".

It's stoopid.

ok I phrased it badly. What I should have wrote is why are they so many badly written women in this show.
You can say its SJW or whatever but Star Wars has gone down the same route and has suffered a huge backlash against it so much that planned movies were cancelled.
Battlefield V ( a game for those of you not familiar with it) also tried to shoehorn women into the WW2 scene and EA's attitude to people not liking it was basically don't buy our game. The result? 80% of people didn't having a huge impact on EA and DICE's long term plans etc and resulted in people losing their jobs.

I have absolutely no issue with women in shows/movies etc. As long as they are believable and well written characters.
As I've said before Battlestar Galactica is one of the greatest sci-fi shows ever made or remade and has a high proportion of female leads....every one of them were excellently written.
Discovery on the other hand has some of the worst ever and this is a result of recent trends to empower women etc. No issues with that but christ..empower well written female characters.
Star Wars is the same..female leads requiring zero training to defeat trained sith killers, women making so called smart decisions while keeping men out of the loop leading to a mutiny etc.
I'm not sure if the writers are all crap or whether they're secretly trying to sabotage the latest trend by writing some of the worst female characters I've ever seen.

Johnny Storm

They should make the entire ship out of magic blast door material ....

pixelburp

Blazer wrote: »

ok I phrased it badly. What I should have wrote is why are they so many badly written women in this show.
You can say its SJW or whatever but Star Trek has gone down the same route and has suffered a huge backlash against it so much that planned movies were cancelled.

What movies? Star Trek: Beyond underperformed, so naturally a 4th film became a bit of a question mark. You then had competing scripts - including Tarantino's - and looks like too much air had left the balloon. They couldn't agree on a director, or a writer and the bullet that seemed to have properly killed it was how talks with Chris Pine (and Chris Hemsworth, who was to return) broke down.

Any backlash against the films was because of the films' mutation of Trek into loud, superficial Star Wars knock-offs. The films died because Captain Kirk doesn't want to come back.

Discovery on the other hand has some of the worst ever and this is a result of recent trends to empower women etc. No issues with that but christ..empower well written female characters.

And here we come back to what Goodshape was nodding at: you're taking the bad female characters as PROOF of agenda, ignoring the fact that Discovery's character writing was poor across the board. The bad male characters were just bad, but the bad female characters were because of agendas and politics.

Lordy, it's like stand-ups: a bad, unfunny male standup is just a bad standup. A bad, unfunny female standup is proof women are unfunny :rolleyes:

Blazer

Meant to say Star Wars not Star Trek.
And you can't deny the SJW agenda for the recent Star Wars films..

Also Jason Isaac's character was excellent, Saru's character is pretty good as well and Pike's is very good also.
Stammet's character started off great and rapidly degenerated to allow Tilly who's an ensign to become a better engineer than the guy who designed and worked on the spore drive.
I honestly can't name one good female character who's well written in Discovery. But I could name 4 male leads who were.
This isn't about not wanting female leads. I just want well written ones. But maybe I'm overlooking a lot. Discovery's writing has been brutal so maybe I'm focussing too much on the female side....its just its so cringeworthy when any of them speak etc.
Hell No1 stating her name was No1 in the interview ffs...what writer thought that was good ffs.

pixelburp

Blazer wrote: »

Meant to say Star Wars not Star Trek.
And you can't deny the SJW agenda for the recent Star Wars films..

Solo flopped because they reshot almost the entire film, and the final budget is rumoured to have been twice what was advertised. And surprise surprise, people aren't that interested in a Han Solo prequel. Hence Disney put the brakes on their spin offs because they overestimated support.

The Last Jedi took a worldwide gross of $1.3 billion, by any sensible metrics a success. Admittedly less than Episode 7, so who know where the bean counters draw the line.

And yes, I deny a "SJW agenda", because the term in of itself is patently absurd and borderline paranoid; internet cranks ranting about black stormtroopers, or over analysing the flakey characterisation of Rey as some proof of agenda. If I live to 100 and never see the phrase "Mary Sue", I'll die a happy man.

Frankly, it's a pathetic waste of mental energies over a film series of Space Wizards, but again - another case where bad characters were weighted by their gender. Seeing what people wanted to see, instead of just enjoying an adventure movie that - how dare it! - tries to keep itself open or inclusive to other demographics.

Discovery's writing has been brutal so maybe I'm focussing too much on the female side....its just its so cringeworthy when any of them speak etc.

Yes, you absolutely are.

Blazer

pixelburp wrote: »

And yes, I deny a "SJW agenda", because the term in of itself is patently absurd and borderline paranoid; internet cranks ranting about black stormtroopers, or over analysing the flakey characterisation of Rey as some proof of agenda. If I live to 100 and never see the phrase "Mary Sue", I'll die a happy man.

Frankly, it's a pathetic waste of mental energies over a film series of Space Wizards, but again - another case where bad characters were weighted by their gender. Seeing what people wanted to see, instead of just enjoying an adventure movie that - how dare it! - tries to keep itself open or inclusive to other demographics.



Yes, you absolutely are.

Sorry no..to deny that Star Wars and Discovery don't have an SJW or more accurately a female biased agenda is blatantly wrong.
Actually there is an agenda. That males alone aren't just the heroes. And its a good agenda. Except its been hijacked by the extremists to push their biased agenda.
This is Discovery's core vision according to Fuller
"franchise's message of open-mindedness and diversity, and a future with more gender fluidity."
A noble vision but it has resulted in the worst female roles being written.
Every single female character in both those movies/shows are without a doubt the worst written female characters ever.

Show me one good female lead in the recent Star Wars / Discovery with the exception of Rogue One???

pixelburp

Blazer wrote: »

Sorry no..to deny that Star Wars and Discovery don't have an SJW or more accurately a female biased agenda is blatantly wrong.
Actually there is an agenda. That males alone aren't just the heroes. And its a good agenda. Except its been hijacked by the extremists to push their biased agenda.
This is Discovery's core vision according to Fuller
"franchise's message of open-mindedness and diversity, and a future with more gender fluidity."
A noble vision but it has resulted in the worst female roles being written.
Every single female character in both those movies/shows are without a doubt the worst written female characters ever.

Show me one good female lead in the recent Star Wars / Discovery with the exception of Rogue One???

I thought Rey was a fascinating, complex character with some rough edges, the likes of which we hadn't seen in Star Wars; ditto Kylo Ren. But you're obviously convinced Rey's some totem to a suspicious agenda, so we're not going to find common ground here.

But you're right about one thing: Discovery does have an inclusive, liberal, SJW whatever outlook - like the series always has. Deciding now is the time you're going to be up in arms, because there are too many women for your taste, is just bad faith. LIke I said, a badly written female character is not indicative of a trend, no matter how much whataboutery you might trot out.

Stark

pixelburp wrote: »

But you're right about one thing: Discovery does have an inclusive, liberal, SJW whatever outlook - like the series always has. Deciding now is the time you're going to be up in arms, because there are too many women for your taste, is just bad faith. LIke I said, a badly written female character is not indicative of a trend, no matter how much whataboutery you might trot out.

I loved Star Trek up until the point it introduced an Asian, a Russian, a black woman and an alien into its bridge crew. Was great up to then

Blazer

pixelburp wrote: »

I thought Rey was a fascinating, complex character with some rough edges, the likes of which we hadn't seen in Star Wars; ditto Kylo Ren. But you're obviously convinced Rey's some totem to a suspicious agenda, so we're not going to find common ground here.

ah now lol you're just taking the piss.
Rey was one of the most blandest characters and worst written.
I know its Star Wars and the force doen't really exists but lets keep it grounded.
You don't just pick up a light saber for the first time in your life and defeat a sith lord or jedi master.
You don't learn to train yourself to fight without having a knowledge of the basics.
If you had read any clue about Star Wars you'd understand this,,,you'd also know why sabers exist and the different forms of saber fighting.
What those writers did was spit in decades of star wars canon.
Hell Luke lost a hand to his father even after being trained by Yoda.
For Rey to simply defeat Kylo Ren because she took a few swings with a saber is mind bogglingly stupid.
I actually hoped Kylo would defeat her. I think the movie would be a lot stronger if he had and it focussed on him etc.

Most of the people complaining are not against female characters at all.
I couldn't care less whether they female or male etc but I do care that regardless they are written well. There are far too many badly written female characters written in both of these.
And none of the Star Wars or female cast members on Discovery has been written well.
But it suits you to dismiss these people as nutjobs etc because they don't suit your opinion.

Look at BSG recasting.
Starbuck became a girl
Boomer went from a black guy to an asian female.
And no one cared....why? Because they were all exceptionally written characters.

Stark

Blazer wrote: »

Look at BSG recasting.
Starbuck became a girl
Boomer went from a black guy to an asian female.
And no one cared....why? Because they were all exceptionally written characters.

dafuq. I remember there was uproar over Starbuck.

Blazer

Stark wrote: »

dafuq. I remember there was uproar over Starbuck.

meh..a small bit alright I remember but most people were willing to give it a chance.
I'd shudder to think how the remake would be rewritten today.
I just want well written characters that's all. I don't want to be watching a show where 2 mins into it I'm rolling my eyes and saying ffs what moron wrote this nonsense. That's it.

pixelburp

Blazer wrote: »

ah now lol you're just taking the piss.
Rey was one of the most blandest characters and worst written.
I know its Star Wars and the force doen't really exists but lets keep it grounded.
You don't just pick up a light saber for the first time in your life and defeat a sith lord or jedi master.
You don't learn to train yourself to fight without having a knowledge of the basics.
If you had read any clue about Star Wars you'd understand this,,,you'd also know why sabers exist and the different forms of saber fighting.
What those writers did was spit in decades of star wars canon.
Hell Luke lost a hand to his father even after being trained by Yoda.
For Rey to simply defeat Kylo Ren because she took a few swings with a saber is mind bogglingly stupid.
I actually hoped Kylo would defeat her. I think the movie would be a lot stronger if he had and it focussed on him etc.

I like the character, sue me. But I don't attach any great significance to her beyond what I took from the film. The difference between you and me right now is that you appear to be doing just that.

All your criticisms are fine & dandy, fair enough. But none of it has nothing to do with her gender - except that you're insisting that it does. You think she - or the Discovery characters - are badly written because there's some insidious agenda behind it. Can you not see where there's a big leap of logic on your part between just not liking a character and insinuating that their presence or flimsy characterisation is because ... agendas? And agendas towards what?

As always with these things, I don't see what the big endgame is here: make female characters great and ... uh... cucks?

Look at BSG recasting.
Starbuck became a girl
Boomer went from a black guy to an asian female.
And no one cared....why? Because they were all exceptionally written characters.

There was 100% an uproar when they gender flipped Starbuck, you're just making things up. I remember the outrage well.

Blazer

pixelburp wrote: »

I like the character, sue me. But I don't attach any great significance to her beyond what I took from the film. The difference between you and me right now is that you appear to be doing just that.

All your criticisms are fine & dandy, fair enough. But none of it has nothing to do with her gender - except that you're insisting that it does. You think she - or the Discovery characters - are badly written because there's some insidious agenda behind it. Can you not see where there's a big leap of logic on your part between just not liking a character and insinuating that their presence or flimsy characterisation is because ... agendas? And agendas towards what?

Look..there's been a big push lately on women's behalf for equal pay, equality etc. All of which I completely agree with.
However some studios are taking this to an extreme as in showing women can compete with men and excel etc. Except they're forgetting to write credible storylines for these characters etc.
That's my main complaint. It's not what they're pushing...but at the piss poor job they're doing pushing it and tv shows are suffering for it.
I don't care if its an all female cast...just as long as they're good characters.
There isn't a single female character in discovery written well yet there's 4 male leads that are.

Sonics2k

Blazer wrote: »

ah now lol you're just taking the piss.
Rey was one of the most blandest characters and worst written.
I know its Star Wars and the force doen't really exists but lets keep it grounded.
You don't just pick up a light saber for the first time in your life and defeat a sith lord or jedi master.
You don't learn to train yourself to fight without having a knowledge of the basics.
If you had read any clue about Star Wars you'd understand this,,,you'd also know why sabers exist and the different forms of saber fighting.
What those writers did was spit in decades of star wars canon.
Hell Luke lost a hand to his father even after being trained by Yoda.
For Rey to simply defeat Kylo Ren because she took a few swings with a saber is mind bogglingly stupid.
I actually hoped Kylo would defeat her. I think the movie would be a lot stronger if he had and it focussed on him etc.

Most of the people complaining are not against female characters at all.
I couldn't care less whether they female or male etc but I do care that regardless they are written well. There are far too many badly written female characters written in both of these.
And none of the Star Wars or female cast members on Discovery has been written well.
But it suits you to dismiss these people as nutjobs etc because they don't suit your opinion.

Badly written =/= SJW agenda.

Star Trek: Discovery is not an SJW agenda, it just happened to cast a black female as the lead. Not the first black lead, not the first female lead.

Absolutely it has badly written aspects and some massive flaws in Burnham's character, but it's shameful and wasteful to say that it's an SJW thing, when it in fact came down to lazy writing.

Inviere

I’d rather watch a Travis focused Enterprise episode than read this ongoing, unending debate. It’s painful at this stage, people just need to grow up and realise we’re all the bloody same (skin colour, race, creed, whatever), y’know, which is the whole point of Star Trek. So what if there’s loads of women in Discovery, who cares? The point should be to ask if the male AND female characters well acted and well written, and critique them accordingly. Leave the sexism to where it belongs, wherever adults are not.

Kirk out.

FGR

Jet Reno is a pretty cool female char. Shame she isn't a lead tbh.

Tilly, whether it was cast male or female, would still be a terribly written role. Same goes for the doctor/stamets (be they two men, women or man/woman) and especially Michael.

Just imo. Good show otherwise.

pixelburp

Think Reno has been the standout addition alongside Pike, the former grabbing most headlines, but I suspect the continued availability of Tig Notaro will probably depend on her standup schedule (and her interest I guess, but she seemed game in her appearances)

Liamalone

I enjoy how folk seem to agree that most characters are badly written, that there are plotholes galore and canon issues were dealt with by the swish of a pen..... yet folk still think it was a good show. A fairly large steaming pile of pish it was.

flazio

The reason being was you could not fault the visuals. At times it made Abrams movies look like TOS pre digital enhancement.

AtomicHorror

Liamalone wrote: »

I enjoy how folk seem to agree that most characters are badly written, that there are plotholes galore and canon issues were dealt with by the swish of a pen..... yet folk still think it was a good show. A fairly large steaming pile of pish it was.

You enjoy sneering at people, that it?