# Discovery and Star Trek



## CapnZapp (Oct 23, 2017)

Great quotes from a review:

- "The show is explicitly drawing on Trek lore to achieve its goals, and yet every nod to the original series [] just underlines how un-Star Trek this show really is."

- "I can’t appreciate what it does right because I’m routinely distracted by the weird, pointless, or outright bad choices the writers have made. We’re six episodes in, and I’m still getting annoyed at how advanced the technology is for a series that’s ostensibly set ten years before the original Trek."

- "The ship is just a series of rooms, not a place"
- "adding to the impression that there are maybe a dozen people aboard the Discovery, if that. (Everyone else is a hologram. [])"

https://www.avclub.com/another-episode-with-too-much-star-trek-not-enough-dis-1819758431
(review of episode 6 - SPOILERS obvs)


Add to this how the writers feel obliged to use action at every possible time, the movie-shiny surface with no depth, and (worst of all) the insane amount of mumbo-jumbo. 

They have actually went ahead and f*cked with every technical limitation there is. Discovery not only has transporters, holodecks, and replicators, they can travel instantly anywhere, and Burnham has the magical ability to connect with Sarek galaxy-wide.

There is no sense of place or time, since there are no limitations. It is limitations that separate "sci fi" from "sci fa", and these writers are hacks that simply don't care.

No, this is written by someone who just maybe has looked at the recent shallow action spectacles of the movies to learn everything they know of the property.

The end is very pretty but ultimately deeply unsatisfying trek, and way more science fantasy than science fiction.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 23, 2017)

I love it. It's the best Trek has been in a long, long time. It has the atmosphere and some of the aesthetic of Wrath of Khan - by far the best Trek movie or episode of all, and doesn't bore me silly like Enterprise and Voyager did. 

I also like that it's a journey. The Starfleet we know and love doesn't really exist yet - it's still a few years away, and we're going to see how we get to that point thorough the eyes of the Discovery. They've already namechecked the _Enterprise_, too!

It's got its haters, and they're kinda boorishly omnipresent, but I don't care. It's the one show I'm currently waiting for each week right now.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 23, 2017)

As a new sci-fi series, Discovery is decent and worth watching.  A little on the slow side, too much exposition, and I could skip every scene that shows the Klingons and not miss a single important thing.  But it's got a fun space war plot going on with multiple levels of conflict, flashy special effects, some interesting characters and long term plots that could turn out to be very interesting if handled well.

But when I want to watch a show about a group of scientist-diplomats traveling on the outskirts of the galaxy, exploring strange worlds, meeting aliens, and overcoming exciting and unexpected problems while bantering with a diverse crew that I can relate to and enjoy spending time with, I watch The Orville.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 23, 2017)

I'm still loving the show. Everything about Burnham trying to track down Sarek through their connection, and learning important things about their relationship in the process, feels absolutely like classic Trek to me. And while Lorca's storyline continues to run along a darker path, the slow unfolding of his backstory is an interesting exploration of how Starfleet's ideals bend under the pressures of war.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 27, 2017)

I think I will love the show, too, if I ever get to see it.

But...

Here's something of canon, changed by Discovery.  In the time of Kirk, Starfleet did not allow for female  Captains (according to the last episode of Season Three, *Turnabout Intruder*.


----------



## Guang (Oct 27, 2017)

Cannibalistic Klingons that don't care about honor, a Federation in which people can work together for years and still not cohere into a decent team, and now terrorist Vulcan xenophobes (Whatever happened to IDIC?). 

Some of the fan theories _might_ redeem it for me (like the section 31 one, in particular), but I'm no longer willing to watch to see what they want to undermine next. I'll browse reviews to see if section 31, or mirror universe people, or Romulan interference, or what not show up. If they do, I'll give it another try. If not, I'm done with this show. (although the giant worm invader _is_ tempting.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 27, 2017)

Water Bob said:


> I think I will love the show, too, if I ever get to see it.
> 
> But...
> 
> Here's something of canon, changed by Discovery.  In the time of Kirk, Starfleet did not allow for female  Captains (according to the last episode of Season Three, *Turnabout Intruder*.




Ugh. How ugly. Well, if they had such a misogynistic rule, I think we can all be grateful they did the right thing and retconned it away.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 27, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Ugh. How ugly. Well, if they had such a misogynistic rule, I think we can all be grateful they did the right thing and retconned it away.




Yeah, that was the whole point of that last episode, Turnabout Intruder.  One of Kirk's old flames, Janice Lester, is psychotically burned up with jealousy and hatred against Kirk because he can command a starship and she can't.  Lester is an archaeologist, and on an alien world, she finds an alien device that allows personality transfers between bodies.  She creates an emergency by killing her own staff, which lures the Enterprise to the planet.  Lester gets Kirk alone and changes bodies with him using the alien device.











From an RPG perspective the body transfer plot can be GM fodder for an interesting Star Trek game session, if done correctly.  Take a player aside and secretly tell him that his character's body has been possessed.  Make sure that none of the other players know of this secret agreement between GM and the player of the possessed character.  Then, watch to see which side the other players take.  Do they believe that the PC has been possessed?

You could even turn this scenario on its ear by setting up the situation, but not having the possession take place--just the claim that it did by a very deranged and psychopathic NPC like Janice Lester.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 27, 2017)

I'm not sure they disallowed as much as there was a glass ceiling as they say.  Of coruse there were women commanders during the Enterprise era and some say it was just a bitter line from a bitter woman that wasn't any kind of truth.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 27, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I'm not sure they disallowed as much as there was a glass ceiling as they say.  Of coruse there were women commanders during the Enterprise era and some say it was just a bitter line from a bitter woman that wasn't any kind of truth.




The line in Turnabout Intruder is, "Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women."  

On the surface, that looks pretty plain to me.  The other argument is that the line is uttered from deranged psychotic.  We have some retconned female captains from Discovery and Enterprise, and Number One is a first officer about Chris Pike's Enterprise.  Maybe there's no hard rule but there is a bit of a glass ceiling.  Even in later eras, it doesn't seem that the split between male and female Captains is 50%.  Even in TNG's time period, the male captains seem to outnumber the female captains.

I guess the comment could be construed from that point of view.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 27, 2017)

As a naive kid I thought that she didn't make captain because she was nuts. As an adult I realized that at the time it was a stretch that there was a woman, and a Black woman at that, on the bridge crew. A female captain would never make it past the producers.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 27, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> As a naive kid I thought that she didn't make captain because she was nuts. As an adult I realized that at the time it was a stretch that there was a woman, and a Black woman at that, on the bridge crew. A female captain would never make it past the producers.




It may be a retcon, but Uhura was not Command Path, just like McCoy and Scotty.  Both Sulu and Checkov were in the Command Path, with Checkov becoming first officer of the Reliant and Sulu taking command of the Excelsior.  Scotty does become a Captain, in *The Search For Spock*, taking equal rank with Kirk and Spock, but he is not a starship commander.  He's "Captain of Engineering" instead.

Also, Uhura seems to be in a dying profession.  The Communications Officer is dropped and merged into other positions in the TNG era.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 27, 2017)

Water Bob said:


> It may be a retcon, but Uhura was not Command Path, just like McCoy and Scotty.  Both Sulu and Checkov were in the Command Path, with Checkov becoming first officer of the Reliant and Sulu taking command of the Excelsior.  Scotty does become a Captain, in *The Search For Spock*, taking equal rank with Kirk and Spock, but he is not a starship commander.  He's "Captain of Engineering" instead.
> 
> Also, Uhura seems to be in a dying profession.  The Communications Officer is dropped and merged into other positions in the TNG era.




You need to view it through the lens of the time, not today. At the time it was a huge step forward in network TV.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 27, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> You need to view it through the lens of the time, not today. At the time it was a huge step forward in network TV.




I think I did, didn't I?  I say above that it's pretty plain to me that the sentence, ""Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women," means what it says--that Starfleet doesn't allow female captains.  That's a very 60's lens from which to view the show.

The rest of what I say is with respect to the shows that have come since TOS.  If, indeed, Enterprise  and Discover show female captains, then obviously, from that POV, starfleet doesn't have a no-female-captain mandate.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 29, 2017)

.


----------



## Guang (Oct 29, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> There is no sense of place or time, since there are no limitations. It is limitations that separate "sci fi" from "sci fa", and these writers are hacks that simply don't care.




Looks like you and me are the only ones that feel that way. Everyone else absolutely loves it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2017)

Star Trek full of technobabble?  The hell you say. Good grief the show has been replete with treknobabble so long that there is actually a term for it. 

Just a nitpick but would it actually be cannibalism to eat another species?  But, in any case it doesn’t bother me. The whole point of klingons has always been to be the bad guys. Now they really are. 

And how are people getting the impression that there are no people there?  We see all sorts of people all the time. And TOS has replicators. We see them in TOS all the time every time people eat. It was the movies that gave the enterprise a galley. Before that food just appeared in the slots. 

I really wonder if the people criticizing these points have actually watched Star Trek. As far as holodecks go, um that was seen in Enterprise.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 29, 2017)

In TOS they weren't replicators, they were food synthesizers.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> In TOS they weren't replicators, they were food synthesizers.




What’s the difference?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 29, 2017)

Morrus said:


> What’s the difference?




Rather large. Food synthesizers create food from a store of raw materials. Replicators create matter from energy and are not limited to just food.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 29, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> Rather large. Food synthesizers create food from a store of raw materials. Replicators create matter from energy and are not limited to just food.




Well, somewhere in the middle there. Replicators don't convert energy to matter - they use transporter technology to recombine existing matter into different forms at the molecular level. You still need a matter store that contains the correct types of elements - no high-tech alchemy involved here.

What we saw in Discovery may have been a full-on replicator, or it may have been a precusor to that technology, perhaps weaving existing molecules together at the microscopic level - which is about the same tech level as TOS food synthesisers. We don't get a sufficiently detailed explanation of the technology to say for sure.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 29, 2017)

MarkB said:


> Well, somewhere in the middle there. Replicators don't convert energy to matter - they use transporter technology to recombine existing matter into different forms at the molecular level. You still need a matter store that contains the correct types of elements - no high-tech alchemy involved here.
> 
> What we saw in Discovery may have been a full-on replicator, or it may have been a precusor to that technology, perhaps weaving existing molecules together at the microscopic level - which is about the same tech level as TOS food synthesisers. We don't get a sufficiently detailed explanation of the technology to say for sure.




I'll give you the statement on replicators, as it's definitely supported by in-series evidence. The TOS food synthesizers could run out of materials and so couldn't just recombine any old matter at hand.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2017)

There’s loads of terminology which changed, even just within TOS. I don’t really think it means anything. Didn’t even Starfleet’s name change a couple of times according to who was writing the episode? And I’m sure warp drive did early on.


----------



## Eltab (Oct 29, 2017)

Starfleet could have no/few woman Captains at the time of the TOS episode if they were letting women work their way up the chain of command.  This particular woman, given her description elsewhere, might have been unable to make the cut herself and during her exile turned it into a general prohibition.

But ultimately, we have to accept that _Star Trek_ was based on optimism and 'What if the better angels of human nature were winning?"  Give the people writing 50 years ago credit for stretching themselves, and opening up new space for their descendants to think about.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2017)

Having a little trouble reconciling these two points:

1.  I don't like Discovery because Star Trek is supposed to be about this utopian future.

2.  I don't like Discovery because there's a female captain (and Admiral!) and that breaks canon.

Umm, what kind of utopian future would restrict gender equality?  I'm fairly confident in saying that the idea of utopia has changed somewhat in the past couple of decades.  And, maybe, just maybe, our pop culture TV shows should reflect that.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 29, 2017)

Has anyone mentioned #2 at all?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> Has anyone mentioned #2 at all?




We don't like to talk about that in polite company.  Light a match and open the window.  

On a slightly less flippant note, which number 2 are you referring to?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 29, 2017)

Hussar said:


> We don't like to talk about that in polite company.  Light a match and open the window.
> 
> On a slightly less flippant note, which number 2 are you referring to?




The one in Hussar's comment, directly above mine.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 29, 2017)

I have a few problems with Discovery so far:

1. For a show named Discovery, there's precious little of that going around. I think the only time we've even seen a planet surface is the pilot.

2. Evil captain. Lorca has gone totally off the reservation, and belongs with folks like Benjamin Maxwell on the list of rogue Starfleet captains.

3. The Klingon redesign. It looks way worse than TNG/DS9-era klingons - and at this point, klingons should be very human-looking on account of Enterprise-era shenanigans.

3b. Klingons speaking Klingon with one another when alone. It's a time-honored tradition to have people who speak foreign languages speak the show's main language (usually English) when alone. It is understood that they do not _actually_ speak English, but that it's presented as such for the viewer's convenience - not to mention the actors'. I bet that the actors would feel more confident acting in English than in Klingon.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2017)

Klingons in the movies speak subtitled Klingon. See ST:TMP, Christopher Lloyd and co in STIII, and the ones in STV.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> The one in Hussar's comment, directly above mine.




Umm, the entire last page has been about that.  I suggest you start with comment #5 by Water Bob and go forward.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Umm, the entire last page has been about that.  I suggest you start with comment #5 by Water Bob and go forward.




You may be projecting a bit on that.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2017)

Staffan said:


> I have a few problems with Discovery so far:
> 
> 1. For a show named Discovery, there's precious little of that going around. I think the only time we've even seen a planet surface is the pilot.




OTOH, we have discovered a new intelligent race in the space pigs and dealt with that.  We've discovered a new form of travel.  And, considering they are in the middle of a large scale war, I'm thinking that scientific exploration is a bit much to ask.  

I wonder if the same complaints applied to DS9.



> 2. Evil captain. Lorca has gone totally off the reservation, and belongs with folks like Benjamin Maxwell on the list of rogue Starfleet captains.




Yup.  Loving it.  We've seen lots of evil captains over the years.  Guys that have gone completely off.  TOS had John Gill (admitted not a captain) who created Nazi Germany on an alien race.  Roger Korby wants to replace all of humanity with androids.  Captain Tracy slaughters thousands in violation of the Prime Directive.  On and on and on.  It's quite refreshing, IMO, to see an example of a bad captain going bad.



> 3. The Klingon redesign. It looks way worse than TNG/DS9-era klingons - and at this point, klingons should be very human-looking on account of Enterprise-era shenanigans.




Umm, ST TMP shows alien looking Klingons.  And that's TOS era.  Look, the reason we had human looking Klingons back in the day was because of budget constraints.  Which don't exist now.  What's the problem with having alien looking Klingons?



> 3b. Klingons speaking Klingon with one another when alone. It's a time-honored tradition to have people who speak foreign languages speak the show's main language (usually English) when alone. It is understood that they do not _actually_ speak English, but that it's presented as such for the viewer's convenience - not to mention the actors'. I bet that the actors would feel more confident acting in English than in Klingon.




Again, budget constraints.  And, well, the fact that Klingon as a language didn't exist.  You can't on one hand applaud the work of Trek fans for creating a consistent language and then bitch about the fact that Trek actually USES that language.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> You may be projecting a bit on that.




Fair enough I suppose.  After seeing complaint after complaint after complaint, it becomes a bit too easy to get touchy about yet another in an seemingly endless stream of people bitching about how this "just isn't Star Trek".  I mean, why bring up the point about "no female captains" if it isn't to make yet another point about how they are changing canon?  In this thread alone we've got people bitching about replicators (oh, sorry, synthesizers, yeah, because THAT'S going to make the difference), Treknobabble (all the while forgetting that 99% of the "science" in any version of Star Trek is babble anyway - what exactly is a phaser or a photon torpedo?), how our utopian future has been taken away, AND we're now allowing female captains.  

Personally, I think Jason Isaac's reaction to haters is pretty much pitch perfect:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...go-fck-themselves_us_59d9bbe0e4b0f6eed350ce3b


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough I suppose.  After seeing complaint after complaint after complaint, it becomes a bit too easy to get touchy about yet another in an seemingly endless stream of people bitching about how this "just isn't Star Trek".  I mean, why bring up the point about "no female captains" if it isn't to make yet another point about how they are changing canon?  In this thread alone we've got people bitching about replicators (oh, sorry, synthesizers, yeah, because THAT'S going to make the difference), Treknobabble (all the while forgetting that 99% of the "science" in any version of Star Trek is babble anyway - what exactly is a phaser or a photon torpedo?), how our utopian future has been taken away, AND we're now allowing female captains.
> 
> Personally, I think Jason Isaac's reaction to haters is pretty much pitch perfect:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...go-fck-themselves_us_59d9bbe0e4b0f6eed350ce3b




Sure, he's right about people who just tear on the show for it having a Black female lead, however, that's a rather small subset of the people who don't like the show. Something like the people who didn't like the new "Ghostbusters", just because it starred women. Writing off everyone who doesn't like something, in that way, is both wrong and an insult to the audience.

As to pedantry about canon, there are entire websites devoted to the minutia of the technology. I was the person "bitching" about replicators, because there is a clear delineation with respect to that tech.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 30, 2017)

Let us be clear: I dislike people who dislike STISCO because of race or gender much more than I dislike (elements of) STISCO itself, and I suggest we simply move on.

Isaacs response is all that needs to be said for that kind of base complaints, really.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 30, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Let us be clear: I dislike people who dislike STISCO because of race or gender much more than I dislike (elements of) STISCO itself, and I suggest we simply move on.
> 
> Isaacs response is all that needs to be said for that kind of base complaints, really.
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




As long as you realize that such people are a rather small subset of those who dislike Discovery, I'm happy to move on.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 30, 2017)

I've got the episodes but haven't watched yet, I was hoping for a new Trek show about optimism for the future, adventure, & discovery.  Not just a ship based show with a lot of starship combat.  I'll probably wait until the season is done then check it out then.  I'm so backlogged on TV shows I'm starting to wonder if I need a TV anymore.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, we have discovered a new intelligent race in the space pigs and dealt with that.  We've discovered a new form of travel.  And, considering they are in the middle of a large scale war, I'm thinking that scientific exploration is a bit much to ask.
> 
> I wonder if the same complaints applied to DS9.




Deep Space 9 had *lots* of exploration in it, particularly in the early seasons. They did, after all, have a new quadrant to explore. Not as much as TNG and Voyager, but still quite a bit. And some of the discovery of DS9 was done on-site, with weird things coming to them.

And DS9 always ran concurrently with another show (either TNG or Voyager) that could pick up the exploration slack.




> Yup.  Loving it.  We've seen lots of evil captains over the years.  Guys that have gone completely off.  TOS had John Gill (admitted not a captain) who created Nazi Germany on an alien race.  Roger Korby wants to replace all of humanity with androids.  Captain Tracy slaughters thousands in violation of the Prime Directive.  On and on and on.  It's quite refreshing, IMO, to see an example of a bad captain going bad.



We've seen them, yes. As antagonists. I would prefer it if they weren't co-leads. I mean, I'm willing to wait and see and I hope that Lorca will be replaced fairly soon, but I don't want to see a whole show about The Bad Starfleet Captain. Similarly, I'm not particularly looking forward to the Punisher, who in my book is a fairly straightforward villain, albeit one mainly directed at other villains.



> Umm, ST TMP shows alien looking Klingons.  And that's TOS era.  Look, the reason we had human looking Klingons back in the day was because of budget constraints.  Which don't exist now.  What's the problem with having alien looking Klingons?




Lore (no, not Data's brother, the concept). There is a canon reason why TOS Klingons looked like they did. It was dealt with on Enterprise (in, as I recall, a fairly good pair of episodes). If they had left it at Worf's "We do not discuss it with outsiders", I wouldn't have minded as much, but they've given an in-universe reason for the different looks, and they should stick with that.

Also, the new design is ugly. They look like ugly space orcs. Klingons with awesome hair are better than bald Klingons.



> Again, budget constraints.  And, well, the fact that Klingon as a language didn't exist.  You can't on one hand applaud the work of Trek fans for creating a consistent language and then bitch about the fact that Trek actually USES that language.



I certainly can. The Klingon language works best in short bursts, not when holding long speeches (as in the pilot).


----------



## Staffan (Oct 30, 2017)

All that being said? This week's episode was *great*. Probably because it didn't have most of the things I didn't like: no Klingons, very little of the Evil Captain, and even a bit of exploration (although Lorca didn't exactly seem excited about encountering the Space Whale).


----------



## MarkB (Oct 31, 2017)

They're also going in a completely different direction with Stamets than I expected. The initial introduction to his non-linear nature was definitely rather creepy, and I was expecting them to go all mirror-universe / evil-clone with it. The way he was portrayed in this episode was a welcome surprise, and while it still feels like there could be some nasty surprises ahead for/from his character, this once again feels like some great character building, taking the _Discovery_'s crew towards being a fully-functional team.

It was also an interesting way to explore Burnham's character and capacity for romantic relationships. The whole "you have to be romantic in order to save the ship" concept was a little heavy-handed, but the fact that Burnham wasn't retaining those memories allowed it to be an exploration of possibilities without committing her character to an instant relationship - again, strengthening character bonds and rounding out the main cast.

And Harry Mudd's eventual fate was a nice way of tying up the character's story arc in a way that led nicely into his appearances in the original series, also adding a little extra sting to his final fate in _I, Mudd_. He really never will get away from Stella.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2017)

I did rather like the latest episode.  It was a nice break away from the rather heavy themes of the first bunch.  Dark as all get out but also surprisingly funny as well.  Great writing.

As far as not liking a show goes, that's perfectly fair.  I have no problems with anyone not liking something.  What baffles me though is the need to tell everyone that you don't like it.  I don't like Game of Thrones (horror!).  I don't.  I found the books to be mind numbingly boring and desperately in need of some serious editing.  Which, in turn, has meant that I've never gotten into the TV version.  Fair enough.

But, I don't go into GoT threads to tell people how much I don't like the show.  I just do what I always do with stuff I don't like.  I completely ignore it.

I guess I'll just never understand the compulsive need that people seem to have to proclaim their dislike of something.  If you don't like it, why weave it into the fabric of your existence?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 31, 2017)

It's simple; discussions aren't always positive and people have opinions. For example look at the first post in this thread.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> It's simple; discussions aren't always positive and people have opinions. For example look at the first post in this thread.




Opinions are fine.  That's no problem.  Again, I have zero issue with someone not liking something.  But, to actively search out threads, or even starting a thread of your own, just to bitch about a TV show seems excessive.

And, we're not talking about things like, "Oh, I didn't like this part of the show".  Heck, that's normal.  That's just bog standard criticism.  It's "Wow, this show sucks, I can't believe anyone watches it".  Repeatedly.  

Why bang the drum for something you don't like?


----------



## Mort (Oct 31, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I did rather like the latest episode.  It was a nice break away from the rather heavy themes of the first bunch.  Dark as all get out but also surprisingly funny as well.  Great writing.




I really liked this episode, until the ending. 

I get what they were trying to do, it's meant to be comedic and to tie into the old trek. 

I'm putting this in Spoilers because it's close to the episode airing:



Spoiler



But it doesn't work with how they've established Mudd here. He's a total sociopath. By "giving" him to the woman and her father they've quite likely signed the, pairs death warrants! Mudd would totally murder them for their fortune!  

Further, what exactly is to stop Mudd from selling out Discovery indirectly? Even if he can't get back on it, he could totally sell its secrets. The crew, especially Stamets and Lorca 100% know this.



The attempt at the fun ending totally ruined it for me. 





Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 31, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I did rather like the latest episode.  It was a nice break away from the rather heavy themes of the first bunch.  Dark as all get out but also surprisingly funny as well.  Great writing.
> 
> As far as not liking a show goes, that's perfectly fair.  I have no problems with anyone not liking something.  What baffles me though is the need to tell everyone that you don't like it.  I don't like Game of Thrones (horror!).  I don't.  I found the books to be mind numbingly boring and desperately in need of some serious editing.  Which, in turn, has meant that I've never gotten into the TV version.  Fair enough.
> 
> ...



If you mean Star Trek fans must like the new show to express their opinions - that's absurd.

Of course you will hear us fans voice our differences when a Star Trek show abandons elements we consider key to such a show's nature. 

If anything, consider why you felt the need to post in this thread. Then maybe apply that exact desire to us before you publicly judge us, eh?  

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> If you mean Star Trek fans must like the new show to express their opinions - that's absurd.
> 
> Of course you will hear us fans voice our differences when a Star Trek show abandons elements we consider key to such a show's nature.
> 
> ...




Nope.  Not at all.  Not liking something is perfectly fine.  Take [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]'s comment above.  The episode ending was something he didn't like.  Fair enough.  I can understand that and, to be honest, I can sympathise.  I found the ending a bit... lacking as well.  Mudd previously was a scoundrel but, he wasn't a murdering sociopath.  Never minding the issue with letting him go without sending him to prison.  I mean, illegally boarding a Star Fleet vessel would probably merit some sort of jail time.  Doing so in a time of war, assault with a deadly weapon, death threats, admitting to treason with trying to contact the Klingons - all of this would merit a lot more serious of a punishment than being sent on his way.  

Like I said, fair enough.

The difference with what I'm talking about is people repeatedly complaining about the same thing, over and over again, telling all and sundry how the show sucks and it's terrible and so on and so forth.  If you hate the show, the solution seems simple enough.  Don't watch it.  What do you hope to accomplish by piddling in everyone else's cornflakes though?

I recently saw the phrase "hatewatching".  It's such a bizarre concept to me.  The idea that I'm going to hate something but then continue to be involved with that thing is just so far left field.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 31, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Opinions are fine.  That's no problem.  Again, I have zero issue with someone not liking something.  But, to actively search out threads, or even starting a thread of your own, just to bitch about a TV show seems excessive.
> 
> And, we're not talking about things like, "Oh, I didn't like this part of the show".  Heck, that's normal.  That's just bog standard criticism.  It's "Wow, this show sucks, I can't believe anyone watches it".  Repeatedly.
> 
> Why bang the drum for something you don't like?




Of the two which would you prefer; that people who don't like it thread crap all over it, or that they start their own critical threads? I have no commentary on the current episodes because I haven't seen them. I can certainly comment on what I have already seen, but my comments in the ongoing thread have become few. I don't hate watch. I'm critical of the Kelvin Universe reboot and have seen them all but it wasn't hate watching, but rather hoping and praying that they would improve.

You "bang the drum", as you put it, because fora and social media actually can have an effect on such things these days. I, for one, don't say that others shouldn't like Discovery, but I will certainly voice why I don't.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 31, 2017)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25...ity-spock-michael-burnham-technology-klingons

The all-encompassing question that this editorial piece fails to answer is:

*Why set it as a prequel if you intend to ignore much of everything established by "later" shows?
*

Here are some choice snippets from the comments section:



> Continuity is half the fun of being a fan. Throw that out and what’s the point of setting the show in the middle of Enterprise and TOS? Why not just set it after TNG and be as futuristic and open with story as you want?
> 
> My take is that this show is technically part of the kelvin timeline and they just can’t say so because of legal limitations. But that was always the intention.
> 
> Star Trek as a TV show or Movie series was always one giant universe. And the legal control over what lived where was never an issue before. And it now ruins the experience for the fans.






> I agree with you 100% — was about to post the same thing (though not as eloquently). What’s wrong with just continuing in the future, especially since we JUST HAD a "prequel" in ‘Enterprise". I’m the first to say "Voyager" wasn’t great, but that doesn’t mean a great series can’t be written with sequel-continuity rather than prequel.






> Writers: "Here’s a Star Trek show. It’s set after the other TV shows, it has a new enemy race, a new FTL method, etc…"
> CBS: "But it’s Star Trek. It must have Spock and Klingons in it. Rewrite it, so Spock and Klingons will be in it!"






> One reason and one reason only. Someone wanted the protagonist to be Spock’s Super Secret Step Sister. that’s a lotta S’s, but is the key to it all. If they had gotten over that crap, this could have been set 10 years after Voyager, and 90% of it’s sins would immediately not be sins.




Especially that last part is something I have difficulty reconciling myself with:

_"this could have been set 10 years after Voyager, and 90% of it’s sins would immediately not be sins"_

In that aspect Discovery feels just like repeating the egregious errors made by Enterprise


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2017)

I’ve largely given up trying to discuss the show other than a brief comment about new episodes.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2017)

I think you may have missed the main point of the article  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]:



> But here’s a thought that may seem controversial, depending on your take on Star Trek: maybe the showrunners are right, and Discovery doesn’t need to worry about making its story fit every other existing Trek series.
> ...
> 
> Ultimately, Discovery needs to be good on its own, with strong characters and storytelling, and not a glorified Wikipedia entry that explains where Spock was 10 years before he met Kirk. If it can win fans and build a world while fitting in with the rest of the franchise? All the better. But it seems like the best course of action is to let Discovery focus on being the best show possible, and worry about the consequences later.




I think it's a surprise to no one that I pretty much agree with everything the article says.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 31, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I’ve largely given up trying to discuss the show other than a brief comment about new episodes.



A suggestion (that perhaps should go into Meta), to add "plus" and "minus" threads. 

It's obvious you are frustrated with people that are... frustrated by the show, and I _did_ start this as a thread of my own instead of posting in the "discovery trailer" thread that has become a main STISCO thread (which I can only access using the EN World app).

How about letting people start threads with names like "STISCO [+]" where any post chiefly detailing percieved shortcomings and flaws with the show will be considered off-topic and moderated as such? 

Of course, the mods aren't supposed to strike down on every little criticism - nobody is every 110% happy with a show. But the plus sign signifies that if you don't agree with the basic premise of a thread as established in the first thread, you're supposed to move on, rather than dump your dissent in the thread.

And conversely, letting me suffix a "[-]" to this thread, signaling to Hussar and others that discussing why he is fed up with people nitpicking the show is not the intended topic and indeed not a welcome one?

I should add that I plan to start many more plus threads than minus threads. In my opinion, the frustration you express here - over Discovery - is shared by me in regards D&D issues such as magic item pricing in the general 5th edition forum, and to be honest, I hesitate posting my thoughts simply because very hostile and very derailing commentary has been allowed to remain unmoderated, in at least one case leading to the closure of the thread when any constructive response is drowned in negativism to the point where I got suckered into throwing pies rather than staying on topic.

Having plus and minus threads would do wonders to make this place, your home, an even friendlier place 

Best regards,
Zapp

PS. Let me add a link to the existing (old) Meta suggestion thread on this subject when I have time.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 31, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I think you may have missed the main point of the article  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]:



No I did not.

You might have missed* that I indicated exactly what question I considered the article author to fail at answering, and then I posted commentary quotes that _does_ address the question and provide possible answers for us to discuss. 

*) somehow.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> A suggestion (that perhaps should go into Meta), to add "plus" and "minus" threads.
> 
> It's obvious you are frustrated with people that are... frustrated by the show, and I _did_ start this as a thread of my own instead of posting in the "discovery trailer" thread that has become a main STISCO thread (which I can only access using the EN World app).
> 
> ...




I know what they are. We have talked about them before. I've even used it a couple of times on these boards. I might try starting one, though it might be too late in the day now.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> No I did not.
> 
> You might have missed* that I indicated exactly what question I considered the article author to fail at answering, and then I posted commentary quotes that _does_ address the question and provide possible answers for us to discuss.
> 
> *) somehow.




But, it was answered.  That you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered.  The reason to use a known IP is to give it immediate recognition.  The reason not to be tied down by (often contradictory) canon is because it makes for a poorer show.

I mean, good grief, Star Trek continuity is about as solid as Doctor Who continuity.  There are so many holes and contradictions that it isn't even funny.  I mean, seriously, there are any number of godlike beings wandering around in the Trekverse.  Any contradictions can easily be pinned on one of them.  

Why are klingons different?  Q did it.  A Q did it.  Why did he/she do it?  Who knows?  Maybe it was Tremaine.  Maybe someone wandered through the Guardian of Forever and changed history.  Maybe someone took a spin around a sun and changed history.  

Let me ask it a different way.  How would the show be improved by slavish attention to canon?  Should we be using card reader computers?  In many ways the technology on TOS is lower tech than what we have right now.  Makes sense in a FIFTY year old SF show.  So, we should ignore that and make sure that all the tech and materials adheres to something made before many viewer's GRANDPARENTS were born?  

Oh, and let's not forget some of the ... ummm... less than culturally aware elements of the time as well.  Original Klingons were white actors in what amounts to blackface made up to look vaguely Asian:







This doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?  The script for "Errand of Mercy specifically calls them out as "Orientals".  Maybe we should be keeping that in no?  It's canon after all.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Let me ask it a different way.  How would the show be improved by slavish attention to canon?



I know my answer: it wouldn't be. 



> Should we be using card reader computers?  In many ways the technology on TOS is lower tech than what we have right now.  Makes sense in a FIFTY year old SF show.  So, we should ignore that and make sure that all the tech and materials adheres to something made before many viewer's GRANDPARENTS were born?



Yeah, I understand the allure & desire for canon, but sometimes a thing has to be what it is (note my use of the Buckaroo Banzai School of Rhetoric...). Star Trek *is* a television and film franchise that's gone on for 50 years. It is *not* a set of accurate documents from a real independent future history (whatever the hell that is). So obviously there will be jarring elements w/r/t both technology and cultural attitudes as the franchise ages. How could there not be? A Trek for 2017 is made for an audience that carries talking computers in their pockets and can watch animated children's shows at least as, if not far more progressive than TOS's most daring episodes. 

Unless we make Trek into a period piece... about the future. Which is cool in small doses, like the Voyager pulp SF serial pastiche on the holodeck whose name escapes me. 



> Original Klingons were white actors in what amounts to blackface made up to look vaguely Asian.



Definitely Mongolface. No question. 

Issues with Discovery's adherence to the "spirit" of Trek are totally fair and open for debate. But nitpicks about the tech? I think they're interesting only when asking the broader question: what role does technology play in quintessentially Star Trek-style storytelling?


----------



## DemoMonkey (Oct 31, 2017)

_"what role does technology play in quintessentially Star Trek-style storytelling?"_

It breaks down in order to allow plots to occur.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2017)

DemoMonkey said:


> _"what role does technology play in quintessentially Star Trek-style storytelling?"_
> 
> It breaks down in order to allow plots to occur.



Good answer!

edit: plus the popular variations...

Tech works - with unforeseen consequence so the plot occurs, ex. something Wesley built for school, holodeck.

Tech doesn't work - for episode-specific reasons so the plot isn't resolved before the opening credits roll, ex. replicator, transporter.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 31, 2017)

I like Discovery. But if Discovery did not exist I am not sure I ever would have watched The Orville for a reminder of what Star Trek used to look like.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 31, 2017)

I also thing that the strangest thing about Star Trek in general is that any new stories are based on a timeline for humanity that is now 50 years out of date. Yes, they can easily clean up the technology implications of that with handwaving. But any time you want to refer to human history there is a very large chunk that is just not going to ring true anymore.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2017)

Kaodi said:


> But any time you want to refer to human history there is a very large chunk that is just not going to ring true anymore.



The SS Botany Bay was launched into space 21 years ago!

On a semi-related note: I absolutely loved the Wyclef Jean song in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad".


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2017)

I've been avoiding ENWorld for a while now (long story super short, I was harassed & attacked on Twitter by the project manager of Paizo and their followers, which has pretty much killed my enthusiasm for gaming in specific and life in general). But I've been missing reading about Discovery and other people's thoughts on geek culture. 
After seeing the excitement here for the Mudd episode, I was excited for that episode to win me over and convert me to Team: Discover.
It did the opposite. 

Now, it should be noted that I didn't finish the episode. 
The online app I was using to watch at the gym froze after 20 minutes - 10 of those minutes being un-skippable ads - and I had to rewatch another 10 minutes of ads before I could resume the show, but only had 5 minutes of workout left before I had to head to work. So, tomorrow at the gym I face a similar situation of 10 minutes of ads to watch the final 10 minutes of a show, followed by another set of ads before the next episode. 
Easier just to go back to Netflix...

The last bit I saw was Saru ordering the engineer to torture a living and potentially sentient creature to death in order to save one Federation captain. And ordering the ship's doctor to vivisect the creature in order to do so. Meanwhile, Captain Lorca - after confessing that he killed his entire crew in order to spare them from even a minute of torture at the hands of the Klingons - ing leaves Mudd behind to suffer that same fate. The fate Lorca literally considers worse than death.
Jebus, if an army colonel left a civilian contractor to be tortured by ISIS for the crime of being unwilling to take a beating, they'd be court martialed in a second. 

I don't care what Morrus says about this show being "before the Starfleet we know". Those actions are freakin unforgivable right here and now, let alone 9 years and 6 months before _The Original Series_ starts. 
_This is a show about horrible people doing horrible things!_

I continue to have two problems with the show:

*Problem One: The Roddenberry Rule*
There was quite a few interviews given on Discovery in EW magazine. One talked with the writers and the Roddenberry Rule that was discussed in the earlier thread, about how - in the future - people would get along and have settled their interpersonal differences. The writers talked about how they no longer had to follow that rule. 
Which is fine on paper, since the Roddenberry Rule is stifling and a little conflict is necessary. But literally almost every single interaction the show is now a conflict. Everyone is continually fighting and snipping at each other and being mean or manipulative. The entire show is designed around making the characters fight.
From one extreme to the other.
It's one thing to not follow the Roddenberry Rule, but it's another to do the exact freakin' opposite. To literally do the exact thing that the creator of the franchise wanted the show to do. 
It's like doing an adaptation of Asimov but having a robot uprising. Or an adaptation of Orwell and having the State be the good guys. 

*Problem Two: Canon*
Should a Star Trek show slavishly follow canon and continuity? No. There's some wiggle room and things should change with the times. But neither should it jettison the majority of canon. It's not an either-or situation. It's not a binary "all or nothing" in terms of continuity. 
You wouldn't expect a WW2 drama to just ignore history. And you'd expect writers of WW2 film and TV shows to do a modicum of research to avoid flagrant anachronisms. And you wouldn't do things like radically redesign German troops or change the look of British uniforms. 
Why should Star Trek be treated any differently?
There's more to making a show a Star Trek show than just titling it "Star Trek" and having Deltas. Respect what came before and build off that. Tell Star Trek stories in the world of Star Trek, not just unrelated stories that just use a few familiar names. 

I like _Battlestar Galactica_. That was a cool show. It was dark and gritty with a unique visual look and great cast with a solid serialized story. It's one of my favourite TV shows. 
But it would have been terrible - I would have hated it - had it been renamed _Star Trek: Galactica_. Even if they had made the backstory work (decades after the Federation fell, 13 human colonies survive), the tone of the show would have been wrong.
Just being a good show does not necessarily make something a good Star Trek show. 
But even in BSG, when Admiral Adama ended up making a poor choice and things got intense, after one or two episodes things would right themselves. It wasn't a full season of just hoping people just magically stopped being colossal unlikable dicks and grow a ing conscience. 


You can see the DNA of Trek in Discovery. The stuff Bryan Fuller likely had planned before he was asked to leave the show. 
Questioning what happens when the science of Starfleet is used for war and not exploration. Questioning the morality of torturing a living thing to win a war. Examining the relationship between the Federations and the other species whose borders they press against with the UFoP's constant expansion.
But all that stuff is muted and not the focus. The scientists at war aspect is just mentioned in the off line. No one gives a rats ass about torturing the Tardigrade for weeks until it looks like it's dying. 

I can imagine these ideas working well with a better run show, even if the actual story beats didn't change. 
Where the captain actually pauses to debate their choice and actively encourages seeking an alternative, only to be forced to use the creature anyway because they ran out of time. Or the captain, while in a POW camp, has to choose between one prisoner or another and regretfully leaves someone behind. 


Plus... what was up with the black badges? I mean, that was a huge thing and it was just dropped... Given the number of writers and producers working on the show, I do wonder if that was a dead plotline no one bothered to remove...


----------



## MarkB (Oct 31, 2017)

Jester David said:


> The last bit I saw was Saru ordering the engineer to torture a living and potentially sentient creature to death in order to save one Federation captain.



No. Not one captain. They were deep in enemy territory, and the spore drive was the only way out. Saru was trying to save the entire crew.



> And ordering the ship's doctor to vivisect the creature in order to do so. Meanwhile, Captain Lorca - after confessing that he killed his entire crew in order to spare them from even a minute of torture at the hands of the Klingons - ing leaves Mudd behind to suffer that same fate. The fate Lorca literally considers worse than death.
> Jebus, if an army colonel left a civilian contractor to be tortured by ISIS for the crime of being unwilling to take a beating, they'd be court martialed in a second.



And what about leaving a collaborator behind? Someone who was deliberately working with the Klingons to help them extract information from the other prisoners, meanwhile keeping himself out of harm's way? Does that sound like someone you want to bring with you on an escape attempt?

And it's a shame you didn't see the end of the episode. Because it means you missed Saru acknowledging his shortcomings in command, and ordering Michael to do everything in her power to save the Tardigrade; missed her succeeding, by setting it free and allowing it to continue its journey; missed Saru finally confronting Michael and admitting that what he felt towards her was not fear, but envy, for her being Captain Georgiou's protegee instead of him; missed Michael reconciling with him by giving him the telescope that Captain Georgiou had bequeathed to her.

And you'll also be missing the growing camaraderie that's been happening between the characters over the past couple of episodes, as these people who started out constantly at odds begin to forge better relationships with each other. Friendships that are actually earned, not just assumed.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 1, 2017)

Something that always bothers me about the "canon" argument is that it's so transparently self-serving.

If the argument was we should respect canon and avoid changes, that would be fine.  But, it's not.  It's always, "I don't like this change, thus we should respect canon and avoid changes".  No one ever argues, "I like this change, but, since changing canon is bad, we shouldn't do this."

If respecting canon was important, then every change to Klingons would be objectionable.  But they're not.  It's only changes that the observer happens to not like that are bad.  It's an attempt to legitimize a personal preference by changing it into an objective standard.  But, when that standard is only applied when the observer happens not to like the changes, then, well, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

Galactica was mentioned.  Now, that was a reboot, so, changes are to be expected.  But, they gender swapped Starbuck for no in world reason.  But, since everyone (by and large) likes the Katie Sackoff (sp) in the role, the change is accepted and canon can go jump in the lake.  Why?  Because of personal preference.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 1, 2017)

Changes are bad, when they're bad. In this case the changes to the Klingons not only break canon apparently for no good reason, they also are subjectively bad because they get in the way of the actors being able to speak, move, and emote. It's also rather glaring that when the rest of the production shows where the money was spent, the Klingons just look like a bunch of guys in rubber masks.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 1, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Something that always bothers me about the "canon" argument is that it's so transparently self-serving.
> 
> If the argument was we should respect canon and avoid changes, that would be fine.  But, it's not.  It's always, "I don't like this change, thus we should respect canon and avoid changes".  No one ever argues, "I like this change, but, since changing canon is bad, we shouldn't do this."
> 
> ...



Know what? You're right. Just referring to "canon" is a poor justification for arguing something. 

That doesn't make the Discovery writers' sloppy decision-making look any better though.

Nobody has responded to the quotes I made: that the show secretly wants to be part of the movie universe (and that's no secret; the look and feel, lighting, personal focus and pacing is much more like the movies than earlier shows), and/or that they secretly want to eat the cake (discover new worlds and techs) and have it too (the prequel with Klingons and the Spock family).

It's all well and good to discuss individual highlights of the show, but that doesn't help when the overarching framework makes your head hurt.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 1, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Know what? You're right. Just referring to "canon" is a poor justification for arguing something.
> 
> That doesn't make the Discovery writers' sloppy decision-making look any better though.
> 
> ...




I think part of the issue is that those who point at the "canon police" seem to think that we want everything to be rigidly locked into everything that has come before. As someone else noted every series has deviated from canon in some way or another. The difference is that they didn't eviscerate it; leave it in shreds on the floor. When you do that you're no longer making a Star Trek series; you're making generic SciFi.

If you want to be all "modern" and "edgy" there are other ways that you could do it, within the Star Trek framework. An actual Section 31 storyline. Independent mercenaries. Base a show on one of the other races like Romulans, Klingons, or the Orions.


----------



## ART! (Nov 1, 2017)

""Lethe" (episode 6) left me not caring much, except about Lorca - I want to see where that goes. I don't care much what happens to Burnham, although I LOVE that the lead is a WOC. I know for a lot of people, ep6 was the one that sold them on the show or turned it around for them. Me, I'm not so sure about this show anymore. I will keep watching, though, for a while at least.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2017)

Ryujin said:
			
		

> The difference is that they didn't eviscerate it; leave it in shreds on the floor. When you do that you're no longer making a Star Trek series; you're making generic SciFi.




But, again, that's just your personal preferences.  I mean, the change from TOS Klingons to TNG ones (or movie ones if you want to get pedantic about it) "evicerated" canon just as much as the new Klingons do.  The only difference is, you liked that change and don't like this one.



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> Nobody has responded to the quotes I made: that the show secretly wants to be part of the movie universe (and that's no secret; the look and feel, lighting, personal focus and pacing is much more like the movies than earlier shows), and/or that they secretly want to eat the cake (discover new worlds and techs) and have it too (the prequel with Klingons and the Spock family).




Umm, this was answered.  But, my answer again is, this is a feature, not a bug.  Forcing the show to obey 50 years of canon just to satisfy you makes the show boring and unwatchable to me.  I have zero interest in yet another show rehashing the past.  So, lean on the stuff that Star Trek has, make lots of call backs, expand the universe and give me a decent show. 

Because, at the end of the day, that's what I want.  A decent show to watch.  Is it interesting?  Is it compelling?  Is it good story telling?  Then that's all that matters.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2017)

Hussar said:


> But, again, that's just your personal preferences.  I mean, the change from TOS Klingons to TNG ones (or movie ones if you want to get pedantic about it) "evicerated" canon just as much as the new Klingons do.  The only difference is, you liked that change and don't like this one.




One change is not an evisceration. Keeping almost nothing but the name and badge is.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 2, 2017)

Jester David said:


> The last bit I saw was Saru ordering the engineer to torture a living and potentially sentient creature to death in order to save one Federation captain. And ordering the ship's doctor to vivisect the creature in order to do so.



One of best-regarded episodes of ST:TNG was about a Starfleet cyberneticist's attempt to essentially vivisect *Lt. Commander Data*. When Data refuses to give consent, he's taken to court to determine if he is really a person, or merely a thing which is property of Starfleet. Note this isn't a "rogue Starfleet officer" type-deal. It's official, chain-of-command, ending in a courtroom battle. 

The reason given for the invasive and potentially harmful study of Data is the promise of creating many more Datas, i.e. a race of rights-less chattel slaves who can be sent into dangerous situations without no further concern. Well, except maybe _cost_. 

Star Trek is Star Trek because these situations work out in the end. Which, as someone else pointed out, it did for the tardigrade!

BTW, I completely agree about Lorca leaving Mudd. Didn't like it, wasn't necessary. Reminded me of an unsuccessful scene from GoT. Having Lorca pause to consider leaving Mudd during the escape, then failing while attempting to rescue him would have been enough. 

I also agree about the general unpleasantness in some of the characters interactions. But that's changing. Stamets is really wonderful once he starts microdosing (err, macrodosing?) shrooms. I can't say all the character development is being handled gracefully, but it's clear after 7 episodes the season is going to be more than "unrepentantly unpleasant people... IN SPAAAACE".

edit: the 7th episode is delightful. They should make a rule that from now on, every time travel or time loop episode must feature a snarky theatrical antagonist. Also disco lights! And beer pong! More Wyclef or maybe The Fugees would be cool, too.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 2, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> One change is not an evisceration. Keeping almost nothing but the name and badge is.



Do people not recall how different ST:STG seemed from TOS when it premiered? Or how different the two shows actually are?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2017)

Mallus said:


> Do people not recall how different ST:STG seemed from TOS when it premiered? Or how different the two shows actually are?




And yet were all immediately recognizable as Trek, if you dropped into pretty much any 5 minute long section, until....


----------



## Mort (Nov 2, 2017)

Mallus said:


> Star Trek is Star Trek because these situations work out in the end. Which, as someone else pointed out, it did for the tardigrade!




I guess we'll have to see "in the end" since this season is essentially one long episode. 

But so far, this series tends to be expressly and purposefully bucking that. Take Burnam's actions that caused her fall. She *really and honestly * believed that she was doing the only possible correct thing. In prior series, when a main character acts like that, the worst that generally happens is an "oh you..." (his fault or not, Data should never be allowed near a Starfleet bridge, how many times did he hijack the Enterprise, 3?) Here, she actually faces the logical consequences of her actions. It's diffferent take and I mostly liked it. 



Mallus said:


> edit: the 7th episode is delightful. They should make a rule that from now on, every time travel or time loop episode must feature a snarky theatrical antagonist. Also disco lights! And beer pong! More Wyclef or maybe The Fugees would be cool, too.




While I mostly agree, the ending did not belong with the episode. It just didn't fit with how they portrayed Mudd. Also, what are the actual chances Lorca lets Mudd go considering Mudd's knowledge of the alien time looping tech. Talk  about a way to win the war! Lorca would lock Mudd in  tiny room and not let him out until every little secret about the tech had been explored. I get why they ended the episode like they did, it just didn't work - at least not for me. 



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> One change is not an evisceration. Keeping almost nothing but the name and badge is.




Hrm, warrior race dedicated to Kahless, ruthless adversaries that pretty much care nothing for lthe lives and well being of anyone else.  Sounds about right to me.  

The only thing that has changed about the Klingons so far is appearance.  As you say, one change is not eviceration.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, warrior race dedicated to Kahless, ruthless adversaries that pretty much care nothing for lthe lives and well being of anyone else.  Sounds about right to me.
> 
> The only thing that has changed about the Klingons so far is appearance.  As you say, one change is not eviceration.




Presuming that the Klingon appearance change is the only one in this series, which it isn't.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> Presuming that the Klingon appearance change is the only one in this series, which it isn't.




What else has changed?

TOS presents Klingons that will casually commit genocide on a planetary scale, will casually kill pretty much anyone they feel like, and are generally pretty darn unpleasant.  We're finally getting to directly see why we should be afraid of Klingons.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2017)

Hussar said:


> What else has changed?




Not much. Just history, tech, morality, appearance, metaphysics...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> Not much. Just history, tech, morality, appearance, metaphysics...




Buh?  What history has changed?  What morality?  The only tech change is adding a cloaking device to a single ship, and it's never actually been stated in canon where and when the Klingons got it.  There were explanations that they stole it from the Romulans, but, that was all fan explanations and never actually stated in canon.  Metaphysics?  I'm not even sure what that means here in context.

Look, in TOS, the Klingons were a stand in for Communists.  Like all good SF, they are a commentary on the real world.  Now, since this is 2017 and we deep in a cold war with the communists anymore, it's not really surprising that there have been some changes.

But, let's not forget.  The Klingons were SCARY.  In TOS, when you saw Klingons, it was very much an OH  moment.  But, in TOS, it was never really explained why.  Why are the Klingons considered such bad guys?  We did though, see all sorts of oblique references.  In Errand of Mercy, any disobedience to Klingons was an instant death sentence.  When the Organians resist, Kor orders the execution of 200 random citizens.  Not exactly warm and fuzzy.  Klingons were always described as being downright nasty, we just never actually directly saw it very much.  

Now?  Now we're getting up close and personal about why the Federation and it's allies distrusts and outright hates the Klingons so much.  It's not so much of a change in canon, but, rather, a change in how much we're directly getting to see.

The whole "noble warrior" thing that TNG and subsequent series added was a change to how Klingons were originally portrayed.  One would hope that it was contact with the Federation that causes the societal change.

Appearance?  Ok, yup.  I'll certainly grant you that.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Buh?  What history has changed?  What morality?  The only tech change is adding a cloaking device to a single ship, and it's never actually been stated in canon where and when the Klingons got it.  There were explanations that they stole it from the Romulans, but, that was all fan explanations and never actually stated in canon.  Metaphysics?  I'm not even sure what that means here in context.
> 
> Look, in TOS, the Klingons were a stand in for Communists.  Like all good SF, they are a commentary on the real world.  Now, since this is 2017 and we deep in a cold war with the communists anymore, it's not really surprising that there have been some changes.
> 
> ...




You keep falling back to the Klingons. I don't pin everything on that, though it certainly rankles.

- A cloaking device long before they could have had one, based on the (postulated) Romulan-Klingon treaty from TOS.
- Full, immersive telepathy over light years of distance when the best that Spock could manage was  a feeling of disbelief, after 430 Vulcans died.
- Cybernetic enhancements on crew members when the Eugenics War made humans, and through them the Federation, consider them to be anethema. 
- The "Mass Effect" style bridge lighting and uniforms.
- A point I raised earlier that apparently the Federation doesn't shoot first, but they will commit a war crime (booby trapping a corpse).

There's more, but that seems quite enough to make a point for me. Early claims were that they would *seem* to be breaking canon but, after a couple of episodes, would turn that around in each case. Sure didn't seem that way to me and it's far enough off course that I abandoned ship.


----------



## MarkB (Nov 4, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> You keep falling back to the Klingons. I don't pin everything on that, though it certainly rankles.
> 
> - A cloaking device long before they could have had one, based on the (postulated) Romulan-Klingon treaty from TOS.



It's not canon if it was never on screen. The origins of cloaking technology have never been established in any series.


> - Full, immersive telepathy over light years of distance when the best that Spock could manage was  a feeling of disbelief, after 430 Vulcans died.



When V'Ger was approaching Earth in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Spock sensed it from Vulcan and abandoned his Kolinahr training as a result. Similarly long-range telepathic or empathic connections have been shown elsewhere, for instance in the TNG episode _Tin Man_.


> - Cybernetic enhancements on crew members when the Eugenics War made humans, and through them the Federation, consider them to be anethema.



The Eugenics Wars resulted in the outlawing of genetic modification of humans, not cybernetic. Have you forgotten that TNG's Geordi LaForge is also a cybernetically modified bridge officer, or that Captain Picard has an artificial heart?


> - The "Mass Effect" style bridge lighting and uniforms.



Which isn't dissimilar to the bridge lighting in most of the movies - which also made changes to the uniforms.


> - A point I raised earlier that apparently the Federation doesn't shoot first, but they will commit a war crime (booby trapping a corpse).



Or at least, one person would, for a chance at stopping a war.



> There's more, but that seems quite enough to make a point for me. Early claims were that they would *seem* to be breaking canon but, after a couple of episodes, would turn that around in each case. Sure didn't seem that way to me and it's far enough off course that I abandoned ship.



Well, two of your points were things that weren't ever actually canon, and another was a stylistic nitpick that could equally be applied to each of the Star Trek movies. So that leaves you with "apparently the Federation will take desperate and sometimes illegal measures in times of war" to which the response is "yes, based upon plentiful established canon, they certainly will."


----------



## Mallus (Nov 6, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> And yet were all immediately recognizable as Trek, if you dropped into pretty much any 5 minute long section, until....



Even ST:TNG? A lot of that show seems like it takes place in a futuristic hotel - one with good discount rate for _kids_.

Even DS9? 5 minutes of Kira and Odo on the Promenade would probably seem pretty not-Trek to someone only familiar with the original. 

I mean, I find Discovery is immediately recognizable as Trek (as much as any of the other shows). Even without the obvious call-backs.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 6, 2017)

Mort said:


> I guess we'll have to see "in the end" since this season is essentially one long episode.



Agreed. I'm finding a lot of criticism of Disco isn't taking into account the major plot points & character beats are going to play out over 15 (or more) episodes, not 50 minutes. 



> But so far, this series tends to be expressly and purposefully bucking that. Take Burnam's actions that caused her fall. She *really and honestly * believed that she was doing the only possible correct thing. In prior series, when a main character acts like that, the worst that generally happens is an "oh you..." (his fault or not, Data should never be allowed near a Starfleet bridge, how many times did he hijack the Enterprise, 3?) Here, she actually faces the logical consequences of her actions. It's diffferent take and I mostly liked it.



My take on Burnham's mutiny in the 2-part quasi-pilot is in a prior Trek series, Burnham's high-stakes gamble would have _worked_, and everyone would have learned a valuable lesson about something. 

What we got was more akin to a remake of "The Galileo Seven" in which Spock's 'illogical' logical gambit failed, the rest of the shuttle crew died, and he got court-martialed/had to live with the consequences. I find it... wait for it.... _fascinating_.  

I think what I liked best about the mutiny is neither Burnham nor Georgiou were "right" in the end. An aggressive stance would have fared no better than a diplomatic one, given T'Kumva's intentions. 



> I get why they ended the episode like they did, it just didn't work - at least not for me.



It worked for me, but it didn't really make sense. It was transparently a way to bring Stella (and her excellent space-Mafioso dad) into a scene - and dress them in those wonderful costumes!


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 7, 2017)

MarkB said:


> It's not canon if it was never on screen. The origins of cloaking technology have never been established in any series.




That's the thing about canon being declared to no longer be canon. At one point the FASA stuff was considered to be canon. The real reason for the D7 being used was someone stole the original Warbird model. The behind the scenes explanation was Klingon-Romulan alliance, which eventually made it into the FASA RPG docs.



> When V'Ger was approaching Earth in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Spock sensed it from Vulcan and abandoned his Kolinahr training as a result. Similarly long-range telepathic or empathic connections have been shown elsewhere, for instance in the TNG episode _Tin Man_.




Again that was a feeling and empathic contact, rather than two people in a virtual room, having a conversation.



> The Eugenics Wars resulted in the outlawing of genetic modification of humans, not cybernetic. Have you forgotten that TNG's Geordi LaForge is also a cybernetically modified bridge officer, or that Captain Picard has an artificial heart?




The war resulted in a banning of genetic manipulation. It also resulted in a general attitude that the human body is good enough. Both of the cases you mention were for prosthetic purposes, not for enhancement. In LaForge's case it was of additional benefit, but they continually referenced how he wanted to see like everyone else. In Picard's case it killed him for a minute. Have you forgotten that the Big Bad was the Borg?



> Which isn't dissimilar to the bridge lighting in most of the movies - which also made changes to the uniforms.




Which movies; the originals? Generally it was 'combat' lighting. If you're talking about the Kelvin timeline I'll just say that I hate lens flares.



> Or at least, one person would, for a chance at stopping a war.




To save one ship. The war was a given at that point.




> Well, two of your points were things that weren't ever actually canon, and another was a stylistic nitpick that could equally be applied to each of the Star Trek movies. So that leaves you with "apparently the Federation will take desperate and sometimes illegal measures in times of war" to which the response is "yes, based upon plentiful established canon, they certainly will."




You're trying to break my point down into individual tidbits and argue them like that. It's the sum total that makes me dislike Discovery. As I've mentioned one or two things don't make me walk away. Throw out everything and you've lost me.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 7, 2017)

Mallus said:


> Even ST:TNG? A lot of that show seems like it takes place in a futuristic hotel - one with good discount rate for _kids_.
> 
> Even DS9? 5 minutes of Kira and Odo on the Promenade would probably seem pretty not-Trek to someone only familiar with the original.
> 
> I mean, I find Discovery is immediately recognizable as Trek (as much as any of the other shows). Even without the obvious call-backs.




Yes to the first two. The last only because of the badges, so _not._ I may have been using hyperbole, but not by much.


----------

