Star Trek Discovery Season 3 Episide 1: That Hope Is You,part1

duffman13

Found its a little cringe at the end! I have sometimes enjoyed the first two seasons and the story arc has huge potential but I'm not sure I like where its going already. Still ill stick with it for a little while longer and see how this plays out

PhiloCypher

440Hertz wrote: »

I think the biggest issue is she’s written to be utterly humourless.

If you think of all the other emotionally cold characters:

Spock, Tuvok, T’Pol, Data & Seven of Nine, all of them were written with a certain deadpan, dry sense of humour. Burnham just has this dogmatic sense of duty, a god complex and is so serious she’s boring. There’s absolutely no let up to the heavy. I mean even when she was on drugs she was still serious!

They also absolutely destroyed the Klingons, with similar dark, weird, dogma type stuff. The Klingons were always a bit mad but fun.

I dread to think what they’ll do with the Betazoids, although it looks like that’s what they’ve just done with Book or whatever his name is ...

The problem with Burnham is she skirts dangerously close to a caricature of what someone thinks a star trek character/officer should be, overly earnest , amazed by everything, with a hero complex. Every scene with her is like a star trek version of that mock Oscar worthy film trailer.

Mules

I loved it and Discovery wouldn't usually be my favourite. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. If there were a bit less action and more story I'd give it a 10.

Smacruairi

So many people were massacred in this episode.

I have no idea what the hell was going on with that random older bloke at the end. What has he been doing all his life? Why does Burnham immediately trust everyone? This is thr equivalent of William Wallace showing up in modern day times, why the hell is she able to "fit in" at all?

GSPfan

I just wonder why the producers and writers have pinned the success of this show on one character who is widely known to be disliked.

The scene with Burnham and Sahil was funny.

Sahil: "So, I've pretty much been doing something really important for years without any official recognition."
Burnham: "You've done a great job."
Sahil: "Right, yeah, I know. But about that recognition thing..."
Burnham: "Like I said, great job."
Sahil: "Eh, thanks. But, you know, I'm not actually authorised to do anything for Star Fleet and maybe you could... as a Commander... kinda make me official?"
Burnham: "Well, sure, I could. But, you know, if you already FEEL like you're part of Star Fleet then you basically ARE part of the Federation. So, why the need to make it official?"
Sahil: "There's just you, me and that other guy in the room. And I'm pretty sure he's a criminal. I've spent my whole life here with this box and this flag."
Burnham: "..."
Sahil: "Sure. I get it. But could you just say a few words to swear me in? I could hold up my hand over the box with the flag in it and you could do your whole "Welcome to the Federation thing." We have a witness, it could be totally legal. If we ignore the fact that's he's probably a criminal."
Burnham: "..."
Sahil: (Sighs) "I'll hang the flag."
Burnham: "And then start surveying the whole galaxy so I can find my fellow Star Fleet colleagues. Which doesn't include you."

Worst manager ever.

EltonJohn69

GSPfan wrote: »

I just wonder why the producers and writers have pinned the success of this show on one character who is widely known to be disliked.

I like her x

flazio

GSPfan wrote: »

I just wonder why the producers and writers have pinned the success of this show on one character who is widely known to be disliked.

Is she though? Is there somewhere online not known for moaning where she is being pulled up as unwatchable? Can we be sure it's not planted in racism, sexism, anti wokeness?
I just happen to be at the Voyager 2 parter "Future's End" at the moment and this doesn't feel all that dissimilar, we're now looking at it from Braxtons pov before Voyager turns up. Only this time Burnham doesn't turn into a homeless bum.
The series still looks absolutely stunning. It's even surpassed the Abrams movies, never mind the Next Gen movies. We're only at part 1 so I won't comment on the story just yet, I need to see the pay off.

Evade

If you dislike Burnham as a character you might be a secret *ist sure is a constructive position.

mikhail

flazio wrote: »

Is she though? Is there somewhere online not known for moaning where she is being pulled up as unwatchable?

That's a fine get out of jail free card there. Anything that disagrees with you is known for moaning, I have little doubt.

This poll is a little harsh on Saru seeing as he finishes dead last, a rounding error behind a mutineer.
https://intl.startrek.com/article/poll-says-most-trusted-first-officer-is

Or here's a discussion on r/startrek which seems uniformly negative, and raises many of the same criticisms as came up here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/7xkep8/i_really_hope_michael_burnham_will_not_be_the/

I have no doubt there are people who like the character, but she certainly attracts plenty of negative reactions too.

Stark

mikhail wrote: »

That's a fine get out of jail free card there. Anything that disagrees with you is known for moaning, I have little doubt.

This poll is a little harsh on Saru seeing as he finishes dead last, a rounding error behind a mutineer.
https://intl.startrek.com/article/poll-says-most-trusted-first-officer-is

That's an odd poll tbh. "What first officer would you trust most?". Not the same as the character being likeable or not. Major Keira and Worf both behind Chatokay!? I mean sure you can trust Chatokay alright. Trust him to bore everyone to death.

Thargor

Evade wrote: »

I presume it all exploded at around the same time without warning somehow. Or at least that might be better than the alternative of being stranded in the middle of nowhere with no power slowly running out of supplies and being very aware of that fact.

I can't understand why they didn't go with the environmental disaster thing from TNG or an omega particle accident from Voyager. Both established as potential hazards and way less silly. Even if they had to Locarno/Paris the situation and call them Upsilon particles.

I bet there's Ferengi somewhere swimming in a pool full of latinum because he found an intact Iconian gateway.

Whats the environmental disaster thing from TNG?

Stark

In the 7th season episode "Force of Nature" it was established that warp engines were slowly damaging subspace and a speed limit of Warp 5 was imposed throughout the Federation as a result.

Sort of got glossed over in "Voyager". It was suggested that the variable geometry warp nacelle pylons were the "fix" but in "Nemesis", the Enterprise-E is still subject to the speed limit and that's a post-Voyager design.

Evade

Thargor wrote: »

Whats the environmental disaster thing from TNG?

Force of Nature. Warp drives damage space potentially making warp travel impossible in the future.

mikhail

Stark wrote: »

That's an odd poll tbh. "What first officer would you trust most?". Not the same as the character being likeable or not. Major Keira and Worf both behind Chatokay!? I mean sure you can trust Chatokay alright. Trust him to bore everyone to death.

It wasn't my only source, but I chucked it in as the first thing that popped up for a Michael Burnham poll search. Inevitably, the question in a poll like that gets muddled with "which one is your favourite?" It's not focussed on her, but shows a general destain for her.

440Hertz

Evade wrote: »

If you dislike Burnham as a character you might be a secret *ist sure is a constructive position.

That’s a bit of a stretch. Janeway is extremely likeable and is an extremely strong female lead and captain. Even in Discovery the Emperor is far more likeable, and she’s a complete psychopath.

The issue with Burnham isn’t the actress who’s playing her or her gender or any personal attribute. The role is just badly written and far, far, FAR too heavy and “the universe is on my shoulders”. She lacks depth of personality and is so deep she’s nearly a entering superhero / Ancient Greek god like status.

Star Trek is normally about a team. It’s basically a “space opera”. Discovery doesn’t develop any of the characters much beyond Burnham and a core few.

It seems to be all about these very intense scenes between two characters, often but not always, involving Burnham, that end up being entire shows.

Picard is also doing that.

I’m actually wondering if it’s a budget issue? Maybe it’s too expensive to shoot ultra complex scenes in 2:4 UHD ? Or is it just that they don’t want a big cast?

The format and production values are more like film, so I would assume the costs are astronomical compared to TNG, shot for standard definition TV.

The other big issue for me is it feels less “team” and more “military” and that’s something Trek never felt, even though there’s a hierarchy of command it seemed somehow modern and looser than a military. This feels a lot more like American “Sir! yes! sir!” military shoot em up sometimes. Flags and patriotic salutes and everything!

It’s Discovery. It’s not Star Trek.

Goodshape

mikhail wrote: »

This poll is a little harsh on Saru seeing as he finishes dead last, a rounding error behind a mutineer.
https://intl.startrek.com/article/poll-says-most-trusted-first-officer-is

Depends on how that poll is rated. If it's on first preference only, then it's not necessarily inferred that Burnham and Saru are anybody's least trusted characters, only that they aren't many people's most trusted. They could be #2 or #3 on everyone else's list.


Anyway, I don't particularly enjoy watching the adventures of Michael Burnham. Whether that's the character, the actor, the writing (which is linked to character, I suppose), or just that I miss the teamwork of previous shows, I'm not sure. Probably a mix of all of that.

Evade

440Hertz wrote: »

That’s a bit of a stretch.

This isn't my position, I was responding the post above mine. I probably should have quoted.

440Hertz wrote: »

I’m actually wondering if it’s a budget issue? Maybe it’s too expensive to shoot ultra complex scenes in 2:4 UHD ? Or is it just that they don’t want a big cast?

They have six or seven characters which is about the same as other Star Treks they just insist on letting Homer write Poochie.

440Hertz wrote: »

It’s Discovery. It’s not Star Trek.

That's a good way to put it.

Fenster

What the hell is with the writing?

It felt awful to watch Michael - supposedly a Starfleet officer all about honour and goodness - abruptly murder a bunch of hired goons. These were workers whose worst on-screen crime was to try and get to the bottom of a security situation with an intruder, who were then shown to be completely expendable with their suicidal charge into phaser fire. Has nobody in the future learned the lesson of "stay away from the maniac with the gun"?

The actions of the character of Burnham through the episode were in line with the traits of psychopathy:

• Play up her vulnerability in a doe-eyed speech, and say whatever it takes to get Book on her side.
• Engage in violence when it suited her goals. As I said above, these guys were mowed down in grand fashion.
• Not a single thought was given afterwards to action or consequence.

Burnham said whatever it took to get her way; engaged in dangerous thrill-seeking activities; inflicted harm or death with no care or conscience; and laughed off any emotional consequences. But hey, she helped to save a space worm so its all okay. Burnham hasn't been presented as a psychopath to date, though sometimes selfish and self-directed sometimes. So it's the writing that I'm calling out as bad. It beggars belief that nobody in the writer's room asked "would a Starfleet officer do this?"

I could get into all sorts of characterizations and analysis about the writing's reflection the toxic American expectation of strong people of action, as based on the success of sociopaths in business and society. Or how it was suddenly okay to murder people of the Alien Other because they weren't on your side.

I'll leave it at saying that watching Michael and Book ruthlessly vaporize people was profoundly uncomfortable.

Blazer

I had forgotten this was back and from reading the comments the show just continues with the same awful storyline as before. Ah well guess I’ll have to get my sci fi buzz from the Orville and the expanse when they get back.

440Hertz

To a degree Star Trek reflects US social norms at a given time.
If you look at the 60s series, it’s quite sexist and conformist in some ways, yet is trying to be edgy in others. It also presents a lot of Cold War and World War II echoes in some plots.

Fast forward to the 80s and TNG presents a far more progressive vision of the Federation and that continues to progress and evolve and is quite moralistic about human rights and so on, until you get into the 90s when those shows and that universe ends. It’s very reflective of that late 80s / 90s early days of tech wave era. Even having a counsellor on board was about as Californian as it gets. Aspects of the TNG Federation even chime with a lot of EU progressive concepts and ideals.

Then you move onto Enterprise and you can absolutely feel the impact of post 9/11 America on the whole show. It’s darker. It’s has terrorist plots (Terra Prime etc) and that whole Xindi story arch, which personally I found grating after a while.

Then late 2010s and Discovery’s full on dystopian future with plots to overthrow the entire federation, as is Picard. Both shows reflect a sort of Trump era American politics - plots, lies, propaganda wars, paranoia etc etc etc

Maybe we just live in a much more dismal time than we did in the 80s and 90s when the future looked far more optimistic.

Even in terms of TV at the moment generally, I’m finding myself Netflixing to those heady days of upbeat 90s shows with happier themes.

Sonics2k

flazio wrote: »

Is she though? Is there somewhere online not known for moaning where she is being pulled up as unwatchable? Can we be sure it's not planted in racism, sexism, anti wokeness?
I just happen to be at the Voyager 2 parter "Future's End" at the moment and this doesn't feel all that dissimilar, we're now looking at it from Braxtons pov before Voyager turns up. Only this time Burnham doesn't turn into a homeless bum.
The series still looks absolutely stunning. It's even surpassed the Abrams movies, never mind the Next Gen movies. We're only at part 1 so I won't comment on the story just yet, I need to see the pay off.

I find this argument to be quite annoying. While it's certainly true there may be an aspect of hating "woke" thing, but by and large from Trek fans it's simply the character of Burnham that people dislike.

Let's compare with Janeway, she's a scientist first and foremost. She's not a fighter or really experienced in combat or handling troublesome personal. So she has both Tuvok and Chakotay to handle those things. Janeway isn't a pilot, so she recruits Tom Paris back into Starfleet as he's considered one of the best.

Janeway is flawed, makes mistakes and clearly show's a growth of character throughout the show. Voyagers first season wasn't great, but for the most part improved massively. The same can be said with DS9 and TNG and even Enterprise (which I wasn't a big fan of overall).

Burnham though, well she can just about do it all. She goes toe to toe with a Klingon leader, is a total genius when it comes to engineering (often telling the Chief Engineer what to do). Burnham basically leads fleets, runs the Discovery and for some odd reason also just happens to have been the beta pilot tester for the super fancy space suit for reasons.

For some reason she has made to be Spocks sister, despite literally no reference to her ever existing in Spocks life. They chose Spock because he's a legend in the Trek universe, instead of just creating a character on their own.

The issue with Discovery is that Burnham can, and does, do it all. The other characters are by and large there to fill plot, add in some extra lines and occasionally do something heroic.

Typically speaking, Star Trek has had an ongoing plot (The Enterprise and Q, Voyager and getting home) and seasons are filled with exploration and seeing the Universe, new races and new cultures.

Discovery is just the same damn story over and over again. It's almost like Star Wars at this point. One families story of how they screwed up the universe.

Greyjoy

Decent enough start to the new season though it could have been more satisfying if they had dropped pts 1 & 2 together. I like that it's a blank slate now. I do agree it just felt wrong to see Burnham & Book casually vaporizing the security goons. I don't get the criticism of the flag unfurling scene. Star Trek at its core is about hope and optimism for the future. Why wouldn't they have a scene re-iterating that concept?

mikhail

Saluting the flag feels a bit more like jingoism than optimism. The scene didn't bother me, but it's more than a touch American.

Goodshape

Greyjoy wrote: »

I don't get the criticism of the flag unfurling scene. Star Trek at its core is about hope and optimism for the future. Why wouldn't they have a scene re-iterating that concept?

Wasn't so much optimism for the future this time, more like a longing for the past.

We, and Burnham, don't know anything about this time and place or the people in it, their customs, their rules, their cultures. But we can can happily vaporize goons by the dozen and then stand tall and proud in front of a shiny blue flag in a shiny white room with a well groomed man in a tailored suit.

Yuck.


Early days though. This episode obviously needs a part two, at least.

Greyjoy

Goodshape wrote: »

We, and Burnham, don't know anything about this time and place or the people in it, their customs, their rules, their cultures. But we can can happily vaporize goons by the dozen and then stand tall and proud in front of a shiny blue flag in a shiny white room with a well groomed man in a tailored suit.

Yuck.

That nostalgia for the Federation may be so but the way the future galaxy is presented it's a very obviously bad place : Book's description of his family, the ruthless nature of the trading post, species being hunted to near extinction etc. It did feel a little cold-blooded for Burnham to vaporize the guards but they were trying to do no less to her.

Evade

It's almost as if whoever was in charge of that scene forgot that in the vast majority of shootouts in Star Trek the good guys use the stun setting unless they're forced not to and thought "they're dead anyway vapourising them makes blocking shots easier so we'll do that."

Goodshape

Evade wrote: »

It's almost as if whoever was in charge of that scene forgot that in the vast majority of shootouts in Star Trek the good guys use the stun setting unless they're forced not to and thought "they're dead anyway vapourising them makes blocking shots easier so we'll do that."

Yeah I'd say that's it alright. I thought the same thing.

Quick little action scene to get from A to B. Just fire the phaser in that direction a few times and do some exposition in-between. We'll do the rest in post.

pixelburp

Very much a part 1 in feel, but I really enjoyed that + without the usual bucket of caveats about its approach. Maybe the only one that Burnham wasn't too annoying - because she spent a good portion tripping balls. Her line that she massively "overcompensates" feels like a nod from the writers that they know Michael's earnestness is a bit much sometimes.

Very early doors but we might, might be looking at another Season 3 turnaround for a Trek series.

a_squirrelman

I wasn't expecting much of anything, and it wasn't much of anything. Let's see where this season goes but it seems mostly pew-pew.

Mules

The phasers Michael and Book had might not even have stun settings. If that was the case, they could either kill or be killed so that may explain that scene. The future seems to be more lawless/dangerous so stun settings probably aren't in demand.

The stun settings always seemed a bit silly anyway. Star Trek is the Federation's military, why on earth wouldn't a military use proper weapons.

AMKC

Mules wrote: »

The phasers Michael and Book had might not even have stun settings. If that was the case, they could either kill or be killed so that may explain that scene. The future seems to be more lawless/dangerous so stun settings probably aren't in demand.

The stun settings always seemed a bit silly anyway. Star Trek is the Federation's military, why on earth wouldn't a military use proper weapons.

They were not silly and because Starfleet is not a military. They did not kill unless they absolutely had too. Starfleet was about peace and exploration not war and conquering like the Klingons or the Romulans etc.

Mules

AMKC wrote: »

They were not silly and because Starfleet is not a military. They did not kill unless they absolutely had too. Starfleet was about peace and exploration not war and conquering like the Klingons or the Romulans etc.

That's the propaganda anyway

Evade

Starfleet mat not call themselves a military but if your organisation is the one called on to defend your nation in a conflict you are a de facto military.

Didn't Burnham have her brand new in the box classic 23rd century phaser on her when she was vapourising all those people?

Mules

Evade wrote: »

Starfleet mat not call themselves a military but if your organisation is the one called on to defend your nation in a conflict you are a de facto military.

Didn't Burnham have her brand new in the box classic 23rd century phaser on her when she was vapourising all those people?

I think she did.

CramCycle

It was OK, the hammy scenes with Burnham were annoying. That's more the writers fault than the actors. A good editor would have made that a fantastic episode, and more in keeping with both what they tried to make Book into and what they want Burnham to be.

Complaining they shot some goons that would have shot them anyway is new levels of looking for fault.

Evade

Gunning down people over what is essentially a misunderstanding you've been dragged into is not a good look for the person being set up as the paragon of Starfleet ideals. Shoot first ask questions later is a completely legitimate tactic when you're using the stun setting but not so much when you're vapourising them. It's made worse by the fact she was carrying a weapon that could have stunned them and seemingly chose not to use it.

Out of universe I hope the scene was written with stuns in mind and someone messed it up during filming or visual effects.

CramCycle

They did have those giant stun everything pulse weapons which easily could have solved this considering where they were, there was probably a few around.

Greyjoy

Evade wrote: »

Didn't Burnham have her brand new in the box classic 23rd century phaser on her when she was vapourising all those people?

Having Burnham use her phaser on a stun setting while Book distintegrated the guards with his 'modern' weapon would have made the scene work much better. It would have been a nice visual metaphor for how times had changed and how out of place Burnham now finds herself in the future.

seamus

It was enjoyable for me, in as much as we basically have a reset. There's little or no canon now to have to worry about because it's separated from the last known events by a bit.

The main issues I have really are in terms of progression. Imagine a viking captain from the 1100s was transported onto the bridge of a modern navy frigate. Aside from recognising that he's on a big steel boat and there's a crew in control, everything else would be a complete mystery to him.

Burnham wandering around the bridge recognising key systems seems incredibly unlikely.

Time travel should also not really be an issue. It was outlawed, which means illegal to own, but the knowledge on how to build and use it would have remained.
Then the Federation collapsed. Presumably so too did lots of others large galactic powers. So 120 years later, why wouldn't the galaxy be awash with time travel tech again?

Of course, these may all be plot points. Whoever caused the burn to happen may be manipulating events using time travel and deliberately making it difficult for anyone to progress very far technologically.

Hector Savage

Is the captain a disabled trans muslim woman of colour yet ?
Because I won't look at it until they are !!!

Bigots!

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

The main issues I have really are in terms of progression. Imagine a viking captain from the 1100s was transported onto the bridge of a modern navy frigate. Aside from recognising that he's on a big steel boat and there's a crew in control, everything else would be a complete mystery to him.

Burnham wandering around the bridge recognising key systems seems incredibly unlikely.

Two factors to consider there:
1) Not every 900 years is the same. If you took someone from the Roman navy of 200 A.D. and transported him onto a Viking longboat of 1100, he'd be a damn sight more at home than your Viking time traveller. Consider too that there's been something on the scale of a complete collapse of civilisation in the interim. That resets a lot of progress.

2) Burnham is a Starfleet office, who are supposedly some of the best and brightest people in a multi-planet civilisation.

I don't think that scene was utterly implausible, but I would question its purpose. All it really does is suggest that the lead character is pretty smart, and given we're three seasons in, that's redundant at best. It suggests to me that the writers are just a little too invested in the character, at the expense of good writing.

Evade

The Temporal Integrity Commission could still be around enforcing the no time travel tech laws. That brings up a different issue in that they had transporters that could beam to almost anywhere in the galaxy as well as time.

Mules

Greyjoy wrote: »

Having Burnham use her phaser on a stun setting while Book distintegrated the guards with his 'modern' weapon would have made the scene work much better. It would have been a nice visual metaphor for how times had changed and how out of place Burnham now finds herself in the future.

That would have been a good scene.

pixelburp

In slim defence of Burnham, she was, or just had been, heavily drugged so hardly possessing amazing decision making.

Or. Thinking on it more, she was drugged to be truthful - "I overcompensate" - so perhaps this murderous version simply IS her true self, the Federation speechifying an attempt to convince herself of how "Starfleet" she really isn't. She did start a war after all through murder.

Every time she makes big speeches on the Fed, I'm going to presume now it's to suppress a murderous rage

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

In slim defence of Burnham, she was, or just had been, heavily drugged so hardly possessing amazing decision making.

Or. Thinking on it more, she was drugged to be truthful - "I overcompensate" - so perhaps this murderous version simply IS her true self, the Federation speechifying an attempt to convince herself of how "Starfleet" she really isn't. She did start a war after all through murder.

Every time she makes big speeches on the Fed, I'm going to presume now it's to suppress a murderous rage

Really? I watched the first episode back recently and that would be a fair stretch.

pixelburp

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Really? I watched the first episode back recently and that would be a fair stretch.

Honestly I don't recall "the Vulcan hello" all that much. My post was mostly in jest and a fun bit of hypotesising

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly I don't recall "the Vulcan hello" all that much. My post was mostly in jest and a fun bit of hypotesising

Ah, sorry I get you now.

It was definitely kill or be killed anyway.

CastorTroy

Was looking at the episode names for the season and (will spoiler in case no one wants to know anything)

There's no That Hope is You part 2. I guess a future season?