# Discovery Trailer



## Jester David

From Space as the CBS version is region locked to the US:

[video=youtube_share;o_xhb-mGU2w]https://youtu.be/o_xhb-mGU2w[/video]


----------



## Jester David

I had a bitch of a time watching this.
For an advertisement designed to build excitement, CBS didn't want people to see it...

Okay... I'll accept the use of the Enterprise assignment badge as the insignia, because it's just so recognisable as "Trek" that it makes no sense to go with another logo. It'd be odd not to have that. 

And I'll accept the bridge and look of the ship begin better than the Enterprise (which would have been built and in service at this point, commanded by Pike). Because set design has improved. But... they could have done a little to make it less obviously better. Maybe more of a low tech submarine look...

But the uniforms bug me. Too blue. The highlights seem to be copper/ silver/ gold, but I'm uncertain if that's rank related or department related. It could be argued that sleek blue is bridging the gap between the blue of _Star Trek: Enterprise_ and the colours of the Original Series, but the lack of division colours still bugs me. Yeah, we were *never* going to get the high collared sweaters of TOS pilot, but they could have found a happy medium. 
Personally, I quite liked what they did for Beyond. The pajama-esque design made to look more like uniforms. 

And the Klingons.... ugh
Okay, again, we were never going to get ridgeless TOS Klingons. Or acknowledgement of the Augment Virus from _Enterprise_ (too deep of a cut). But the look of Klingons could have been closer to the look from the movies. All they needed was a slight update make-up.
The complete redesign is unnecessary and completely distracting. And busy. Oh so busy.


----------



## RangerWickett

I like it. However.

"Ten years before

Kirk, 

Spock,

and ..."

if you do not end this with 'McCoy,' you're a bad person.


----------



## Ryujin

I'm sorry but as a fan of Star Trek from back when TOS was first aired, this leaves me cold. They stage this in a time period things should be comfortingly familiar to those who have grown up with Star Trek, but they remove everything that would make it so? (No, that wasn't a pun.) I can see why CBS/Paramount landed so hard on "Axanar" now; it would have eviscerated this thing.

There's a problem with people who want to "make their mark" while playing with a much beloved property. They generally fail.


----------



## Zaukrie

Looks interesting to me. And I see no reason to have the ship look like ToS at all. We know a lot more about computers amount other things.


----------



## Jester David

To me, this would have been just fine:



And it would been more interesting on the screen. 
Currently, the muted blues and dark metal sets are very grim and bleak for _Star Trek_. Visually it's very different from the bright, vibrant colours of the Kelvin Reality (aka the Abrams movies). 

Remove the Trek logo on the shirts and it looks like any generic space TV show done in the last twenty years. 


While a parody, this looks soooo much more like Star Trek than _Discovery_:



But, really, the design of the Klingons just bugs me the most...


Those look like any of a dozen generic, uninspired, and boring bumpy headed aliens from _Voyager_. Generic evil warrior aliens. 
Where the hell is their hair?! Their beards? 
And the overdesigned uniforms/ armour. Ugh. It would have been soooo easy to just look at the original Klingon uniforms and change some fabric, add some texture/ armour and make it look good. Or just use the designs of Klingons from any of the classic movies - all of which still hold up very well.


----------



## Ryujin

Zaukrie said:


> Looks interesting to me. And I see no reason to have the ship look like ToS at all. We know a lot more about computers amount other things.




Sure, there are things that can be updated a bit without losing the feel of the thing, but there's a whole bunch here that's been updated to the point that it doesn't feel like the source material anymore. The look and feel of "Enterprise", for example, was on par with what you would expect of something from its time period in canon, without looking out of place in the series' continuity. Instead of toggle switches and little light-up coloured plastic blocks (which were often visibly out of alignment), for example, you could have actual functioning touch panels. Our current cultural fascination with blue and blue-white LEDs doesn't do the visuals any service. For a spaceship the idea of such an expansive bridge, with so much wasted space, is rather jarring against other almost claustrophobic bridges from some previous shows. It's also something that I felt wasn't right in "Next Generation", but at least that ship was orders of magnitude larger than previous ships bearing the same name.

And then there's the Klingons......


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> But, really, the design of the Klingons just bugs me the most...
> 
> Those look like any of a dozen generic, uninspired, and boring bumpy headed aliens from _Voyager_. Generic evil warrior aliens.
> Where the hell is their hair?! Their beards?
> And the overdesigned uniforms/ armour. Ugh. It would have been soooo easy to just look at the original Klingon uniforms and change some fabric, add some texture/ armour and make it look good. Or just use the designs of Klingons from any of the classic movies - all of which still hold up very well.




Yes, they look very much like a random alien race suffering from the "throw some rubber genitalia in their heads" Next Generation school of thought. They spend decades building an iconic appearance and culture for the Klingons and then throw the whole thing in the nearest dunny. With a series set in this time period I would hope to see something like the "Imperial Klingon" stock get hit with that virus that they don't talk about or, my preference, the hybridization with a more human looking humanoid race, as was described in the old Star Trek RPG to explain why they look like they do in TOS.


----------



## Morrus

Video Not Available!


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> Yes, they look very much like a random alien race suffering from the "throw some rubber genitalia in their heads" Next Generation school of thought. They spend decades building an iconic appearance and culture for the Klingons and then throw the whole thing in the nearest dunny. With a series set in this time period I would hope to see something like the "Imperial Klingon" stock get hit with that virus that they don't talk about or, my preference, the hybridization with a more human looking humanoid race, as was described in the old Star Trek RPG to explain why they look like they do in TOS.




That actually came up in Season 4 of _Star Trek Enterprise_, where they showed the creation of the virus and it infecting Klingons and them losing their ridges. 

That whole season was pretty good.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> Video Not Available!



Try the video in CBS's Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/864961771685109760


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> That actually came up in Season 4 of _Star Trek Enterprise_, where they showed the creation of the virus and it infecting Klingons and them losing their ridges.
> 
> That whole season was pretty good.




I may have missed that, though I thought that I dutifully watched every episode. I kept waiting for the founding of The Federation, which they somehow ignored in favour of that stupid "temporal cold war."


----------



## Zaukrie

I just went to YouTube for the video. Explaining the change in Klingon appearance is, imo, silly. We over complicate stuff like this.


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> I may have missed that, though I thought that I dutifully watched every episode. I kept waiting for the founding of The Federation, which they somehow ignored in favour of that stupid "temporal cold war."




They dropped the Temporal Cold War at the start of season 4. That season laid the groundwork for Andorian and Tellarites working with humans, less jerk Vulcans, and the like. As well as had a not to Khan-esque "augments" created by a familiar Trek face, and a return to the Mirror universe in an episode that also served as a curious sequel to _Tholian Web_. 
It was pretty solid.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> They dropped the Temporal Cold War at the start of season 4. That season laid the groundwork for Andorian and Tellarites working with humans, less jerk Vulcans, and the like. As well as had a not to Khan-esque "augments" created by a familiar Trek face, and a return to the Mirror universe in an episode that also served as a curious sequel to _Tholian Web_.
> It was pretty solid.




I'm pretty sure that I saw most, if not all of it. Definitely saw the Goatee Universe episode. They had started where season 1 should have begun, just in time for cancellation.


----------



## Hussar

Watched the Netflix trailer for this - Netflix Japan gets this at the same time as it airs.  

Those are Klingons?  Seriously?  I had no idea.  Not very impressed.

As far as set design goes, I'm kinda torn.  Sure, it doesn't make a lot of continuity sense for a prequel to be higher tech than it's later era material, but, OTOH, it looks so cool.


----------



## HobbitFan

Honestly, I don't like how much the trailer looks like Abrams-trek in terms of its aesthetic.


----------



## Ryujin

HobbitFan said:


> Honestly, I don't like how much the trailer looks like Abrams-trek in terms of its aesthetic.




Well at least they turned the blue-white lights down to below lens flare levels. On the other hand how do they see the controls?


----------



## trappedslider

I think I'll give it a chance..if I wanted TOS era feelings then i'd go back and watch that.....or even Enterprise.....


----------



## Legatus Legionis

.


----------



## Hand of Evil

Kind of feel sad about it, poor Klingons.


----------



## Hussar

I have to say though, it does seem a bit... err... well... retreading a well trod path?  I mean, seriously?  Half vulcan XO with daddy issues?  Come on, that's kinda been done to death no?  

I'm getting less and less impressed the more I think about this.


----------



## cmad1977

Fans can be the worst fans. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hussar

cmad1977 said:


> Fans can be the worst fans.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Fair enough. I really want to like this. It's just that the trailer leaves me kinda cold.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> I have to say though, it does seem a bit... err... well... retreading a well trod path?  I mean, seriously?  Half vulcan XO with daddy issues?  Come on, that's kinda been done to death no?
> 
> I'm getting less and less impressed the more I think about this.




They take it one step further; Sarek is somehow involved with the half Vulcan, half Human character. So in addition to a full Vulcan half brother (Sybok) does Spock also have a half Vulcan half sister (Michael Burnham)? Do sensors detect the Mary Sue?


----------



## Morrus

I'll give it a try, since it'll be on Netflix. I haven't loved a Trek series since TNG though. I liked DS9 but didn't love it, and neither Voyager or Enterprise really worked for me.


----------



## Eltab

Would somebody PLEASE tell scriptwriters (and wannabees thereof) that they _must_ read Roddenberry's notes and absorb the philosophy of the "Star Trek future", before setting pen to paper?
Based on this trailer, the same goes for set designers and alien designers and makeup artists.


----------



## Hand of Evil

Also, show some freaking Andorian and Tellarites as part of the crew, they are part of the four races that united to build the Federation!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Ryujin said:


> I'm sorry but as a fan of Star Trek from back when TOS was first aired, this leaves me cold. They stage this in a time period things should be comfortingly familiar to those who have grown up with Star Trek, but they remove everything that would make it so? (No, that wasn't a pun.) I can see why CBS/Paramount landed so hard on "Axanar" now; it would have eviscerated this thing.
> 
> There's a problem with people who want to "make their mark" while playing with a much beloved property. They generally fail.




I don't get why they felt they needed to change the Klingons, but I think there is no way to go back to the TOS aesthetics for ... anything. It just looks too dated and it will just be jarring. It doesn't matter that some old school fans get annoyed - the problem is that everyone, old schoolers as well as the new audience, will feel the dated look.

They could avoid that problem probably if they would stop trying to go for prequels or "alternate timeline" and either move the timeline forward, or make a complete reimagination.


----------



## Ryujin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't get why they felt they needed to change the Klingons, but I think there is no way to go back to the TOS aesthetics for ... anything. It just looks too dated and it will just be jarring. It doesn't matter that some old school fans get annoyed - the problem is that everyone, old schoolers as well as the new audience, will feel the dated look.
> 
> They could avoid that problem probably if they would stop trying to go for prequels or "alternate timeline" and either move the timeline forward, or make a complete reimagination.




Or, if they have their hearts set  on making a Star Trek that doesn't fit the aesthetics or essential core of Star Trek, then just don't. Make something new. That avoids the issue of angering the fans. they won't do that, though. They see a property that has made money for them in the past and just can't resist going back to the well again.


----------



## Blue

Morrus said:


> I'll give it a try, since it'll be on Netflix. I haven't loved a Trek series since TNG though. I liked DS9 but didn't love it, and neither Voyager or Enterprise really worked for me.




It'll be on Netflix?  That's good news.  I thought I was only going to be on CBS's streaming site.


----------



## Ryujin

Blue said:


> It'll be on Netflix?  That's good news.  I thought I was only going to be on CBS's streaming site.




Different countries, different places to see it. In Canada, for instance, it will be on SPACE (the Canadian scifi channel). In the USA it will be on the CBS streaming service.


----------



## Morrus

Blue said:


> It'll be on Netflix?  That's good news.  I thought I was only going to be on CBS's streaming site.




CBS is only in America.


----------



## trappedslider

Ryujin said:


> Or, if they have their hearts set  on making a Star Trek that doesn't fit the aesthetics or essential core of Star Trek, then just don't. Make something new. That avoids the issue of angering the fans. they won't do that, though. They see a property that has made money for them in the past and just can't resist going back to the well again.




Or they could just wait till everyone who grew up on TOS/NG/DS9/VOY/ENT all die off and then bring it back thus avoiding every single problem with the fandom...other than the fandom wanting Trek that they grew up on.


----------



## Ryujin

trappedslider said:


> Or they could just wait till everyone who grew up on TOS/NG/DS9/VOY/ENT all die off and then bring it back thus avoiding every single problem with the fandom...other than the fandom wanting Trek that they grew up on.




Given that they want to play on the nostalgia for such properties by those who look fondly back upon them, it wouldn't make much sense for them to wait until those with such nostalgic feelings are no longer around. It seems like every major studio is churning out such properties these days. Some do it right (Marvel), while not slavishly sticking to the exact text. Some don't.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Ryujin said:


> I'm pretty sure that I saw most, if not all of it. Definitely saw the Goatee Universe episode. They had started where season 1 should have begun, just in time for cancellation.




Disagree. S1 started exactly where it should. S3 just shouldn't have happened, and there should have been at least one season after s4, showing some of the actual first years of the federation, as such.


----------



## Blue

Morrus said:


> CBS is only in America.




Thanks.  I mistakenly thought their new Streaming service was aimed worldwide.


----------



## Ryujin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Disagree. S1 started exactly where it should. S3 just shouldn't have happened, and there should have been at least one season after s4, showing some of the actual first years of the federation, as such.




Yes, you're probably right there. I suppose I'm somewhat blindered by how annoyed I am that they squandered such an opportunity. The first episode and the bulk of the first season was fine, following a growth in exploration. Someone must have felt they needed some epic through-thread and came up with that ridiculous temporal cold war thing, when they already had one; the creation of the Federation. Episodes like the Vulcan listening post in the temple were quite good. They needed more like that. The concept that "humans form communities" making it feasible for disparate, more advanced cultures to come together is a great story.


----------



## Jester David

doctorbadwolf said:


> Disagree. S1 started exactly where it should. S3 just shouldn't have happened, and there should have been at least one season after s4, showing some of the actual first years of the federation, as such.




Agreed. Mostly.

I think S1 and S2 had a little too much filler. They had sone good episodes that touched on the idea of exploring without the rulebook and laying the groundwork for Trek tropes and the Federation. But they were often spaced out between generic and bland episodes. Too little of note happened. For a show set in "history" very little historical happened. 

But too little happened too slowly. Too many random bumpy headed aliens of the week and anomalies of the week. Too few classic races. And like Voyager, it always seemed a little too easy for the ship to recover between episodes and have fresh food.


----------



## Vagabond234

How can they keep rebooting series and keep everything fresh? I guess it's for the new younger generation?


----------



## Ryujin

It's the universe. How many stories are there in it? How many races? So far they haven't even checked out half the games in the playground, assuming just The Federation. Civilians? Merchant Marine? Vulcan science vessel? Andorian frigate? Orion crime syndicate? Fully military vessel? Mining colony? The ACTUAL founding of The Federation? Thirtieth century time enforcement? Political machinations at the heart of The Federation?


----------



## Jester David

I'd still love to see a Section 31 series. I'm still sad they went with _Enterprise_ rather than that.

I agree that something like Section 31 or the Timeships wouldn't work now. After the show has been off the air for a decade or so, they need to renew interest and reintroduce the series to people. Do something classic. 

But I really hope _Discovery_ does really well and they feel confident enough to continue or even try a spin-off or two. I'd love to be watching a couple Star Trek shows each week rather than DC heroes in the Arrowverse. (Seriously... the CW will have five of them this fall.)

However, since they seem intent on redesigning things, I wonder if the people in charge and producers are the people I want running Trek. And I wonder if this has anything to do with why Brian Fuller decided to jump ship and focus on other projects instead.


----------



## Morrus

I'm not sure I'd want to see a post-Voyager show. I feel like the tech upgrades would make it no longer feel like Star Trek. Star Trek always had this slightly ponderous (in a good way) old fashioned naval feel to it.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure I'd want to see a post-Voyager show. I feel like the tech upgrades would make it no longer feel like Star Trek. Star Trek always had this slightly ponderous (in a good way) old fashioned naval feel to it.




Yes, that show to far too many things "to eleven", and not in that good "Spinal Tap" way. Deus ex machina is a way of life in the Star Trek universe, but it felt like Voyager abused the privilege. Borg hardware tied to Federation hardware, with aspects of tech from a dozen other Gamma Quadrant races? I definitely like the naval aspects of the various Star Trek properties but, as i said elsewhere, I really like military SF.


----------



## Quickleaf

Hussar said:


> Fair enough. I really want to like this. It's just that the trailer leaves me kinda cold.




It left me cold too. If there's something I want a Star Trek series to showcase it's snappy witty interesting dialogue, a bit of campy humor, and some space action sequences. Instead, the trailer was all about this grim focus that just felt joyless. And while that works for some sci-fi series, "joyless" isn't a word I've ever associated with Star Trek.


----------



## Zaukrie

I want a Klingon based show someday


----------



## Mallus

I was pretty down on Discovery after reading about Fuller's departure & the rest of the production difficulties. But I like the trailer quite a bit. It doesn't look like Star Trek in a good way (though it does look a tad Mass Effect), and the leads look good. Fingers crossed! 

I enjoys like dead-on mimicry of TOS found in fan works like Star Trek Continues, but I want to see the new series bring something fresh to the Trek aesthetic. Which is why I was so jazzed by Bryan Fuller's involvement.   

In the best of all possible worlds, Discovery will combine the different look/feel on display in the trailer with storytelling that's unmistakable Trek. I can hope, right?


----------



## Ryujin

Quickleaf said:


> It left me cold too. If there's something I want a Star Trek series to showcase it's snappy witty interesting dialogue, a bit of campy humor, and some space action sequences. Instead, the trailer was all about this grim focus that just felt joyless. And while that works for some sci-fi series, "joyless" isn't a word I've ever associated with Star Trek.




They live in a post consumerism virtual Utopia. I agree that "dark" certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, I think [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] hit things on the head for me.  When thinking about Star Trek, "joyless and dark" are not what I'm typically thinking.  Good grief, do we really need _another_ grim dark reboot?  Can't we have at least one optimistic show?


----------



## Mallus

Hussar said:


> Can't we have at least one optimistic show?



1. Supergirl 
2. Sense8
3 ???

Sorry, I could only come up with 2! 

(I don't want the first Trek in a dog's age to be dark, either. But I'll reserve judgment until I see a bit more than the trailer.)


----------



## Hand of Evil

Zaukrie said:


> I want a Klingon based show someday




I would just like Captain Logs, a season with a different ship and crew.  Think they could do so much more with the envelope and pushing it.


----------



## Istbor

#NotmyKlingons


----------



## Morrus

Klingons have changed three times already. I find it hard to be bothered by a fourth.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Water Bob

The trailer looks good to me.  High production values.  Story looks interesting.

I don't like the uniforms.

Alien make-up, sets and props look fantastic.

I sure hope they changed the design of the Discovery from what we saw in the Teaser.

Alghough this looks good, it's probably not going to be enough to get me to subscribe to CBS All Access.


----------



## Water Bob

My preference for the various series actually go in order of production date.


1.  Star Trek
2.  Star Trek:  The Next Generation
3.  Star Trek:  Deep Space Nine  (Excellent once Worf comes on and the Dominion War heats up)

4.  Star Trek:  Voyager  (missed opportunity)
5.  Enterprise  (another missed opportunity)



Movies:
1.  Star Trek The Wrath of Khan  (the all-time best film)

2.  Star Trek The Motion Picture  (has grown on me a lot over the years)

3.  Star Trek The Search For Spock  (needs a stronger third act)

4.  Star Trek The Voyage Home  (not dating well, used to love this one)

5.  Star Trek Beyond  (surprised me how "Trek" this one was)

5.  Star Trek The Undiscovered Country  (Rura Penthe bores me)

6.  Star Trek (popcorn movie, but many things bother me about it)

7.  Star Trek Generations  (Kirk should have died on the bridge of a starship, saving the day)

8.  Star Trek First Contact  (never saw what everyone else seems to see in this one.)

9.  Star Trek Insurrection  (Feels like a two-hour TV episode)

10.  Star Trek Into Darkness  (like a sugar high, liked it at first, then that ran out of gas)

11.  Star Trek The Final Frontier (good idea poorly executed)

12.  Star Trek Nemesis  (Just don't like this one)


----------



## Hussar

Y'now, I just rewatched DS9.  I really enjoyed the rewatch until they kill off Jadzia.  The final season of DS9 just really failed to grab me in any way.  They kill off Jadzia/Dax, then completely ignore canon and let Ezria/Dax join the crew, and pretty much invalidate all the emotional effect of killing off Jadzia.  

Then we had the whole Wraith/Dukat thing where he disguises himself as a Bajorran?  Blearg.  I just thought the whole plot line was ridiculous.

But, I do agree, up to Season 6, DS9 was a great show.


----------



## Water Bob

The real missed opportunity was Star Trek Insurrection.  That movie came out right in the heat of the Dominion War shown on DS9.  It was an opportunity to connect the TV and the movie--to have a Trek movie about WAR!  All kinds of Trek morality problems could have been presented--those awesome, disguised statements and war and what not.  Plus, it would just be cool to see what the Enterprise was doing in the war.  They could have had the Enterprise pick up Worf off of DS9 for some special reason related to the plot.

But, no.

Instead, they gave us and OK movie (meh, as a movie, but is probably a good two-hour TV episode) instead of something really great that connected with the TV show.

At least the war was mentioned in the film.  The powers that be at Star Fleet didn't want Picard in the war because of his connection with the Borg (who had nothing to do with the Dominion War), so they kept him far away from it.

Now, they'll let him command one of their brand new fancy starships.  And, he'd just saved the timeline against a Borg attack.  But, hey, he's not in good enough shape to fight the Dominion.

Big.  Missed.  Opportunity.


----------



## trappedslider

Water Bob said:


> At least the war was mentioned in the film.  The powers that be at Star Fleet didn't want Picard in the war because of his connection with the Borg (who had nothing to do with the Dominion War), so they kept him far away from it.
> 
> Now, they'll let him command one of their brand new fancy starships.  And, he'd just saved the timeline against a Borg attack.  But, hey, he's not in good enough shape to fight the Dominion.
> 
> Big.  Missed.  Opportunity.




Umm..your confusing the reason with First Contact and you have forgotten that Worf was on leave from  DS9 when they went to the briar patch due to Data learning too much and getting damaged and then going rogue for a bit. 

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Insurrection


----------



## Water Bob

No, it was Insurrection. There was a throwaway line in that film as to why the Enterprise is not in the Dominon War. 

I'm saying that it was a big missed opportunity that a Trek movie based on the Dominion War should have been made in place of Insurrection.

Picard should be fighting the Dominion, not in some back sector checking out the Ba'ku.


----------



## trappedslider

Water Bob said:


> No, it was Insurrection. There was a throwaway line in that film as to why the Enterprise is not in the Dominon War.
> 
> I'm saying that it was a big missed opportunity that a Trek movie based on the Dominion War should have been made in place of Insurrection.
> 
> Picard should be fighting the Dominion, not in some back sector checking out the Ba'ku.




If you had clicked the link :

"Aboard the USS Enterprise-E, Doctor Beverly Crusher fusses over the collar on Captain Jean-Luc Picard's dress uniform. Reading from a PADD, Counselor Deanna Troi repeats an alien greeting for the captain to memorize: "Yew-cheen chef-faw, emphasis on the 'cheen' and the 'faw'." Similarly decked out in his dress uniform, Commander William T. Riker arrives at the captain's quarters to gather the other officers – the guests are getting impatient. They are also eating the flower arrangements on the banquet tables.

As the four officers march down a corridor and into a turbolift, Riker breaks it to the captain: the Enterprise has been ordered to the Goren system to mediate a territorial dispute. Picard expresses his dissatisfaction, with the Federation embroiled in a bloody war with the Dominion, the Enterprise and her crew have been relegated to a diplomatic role. In that capacity, Picard and company are playing host to new protectorates, the Evora. "Can anyone remember," Picard wonders, "when we used to be explorers?""


----------



## Water Bob

trappedslider said:


> If you had clicked the link :
> 
> "Aboard the USS Enterprise-E, Doctor Beverly Crusher fusses over the collar on Captain Jean-Luc Picard's dress uniform. Reading from a PADD, Counselor Deanna Troi repeats an alien greeting for the captain to memorize: "Yew-cheen chef-faw, emphasis on the 'cheen' and the 'faw'." Similarly decked out in his dress uniform, Commander William T. Riker arrives at the captain's quarters to gather the other officers – the guests are getting impatient. They are also eating the flower arrangements on the banquet tables.
> 
> As the four officers march down a corridor and into a turbolift, Riker breaks it to the captain: the Enterprise has been ordered to the Goren system to mediate a territorial dispute. Picard expresses his dissatisfaction, with the Federation embroiled in a bloody war with the Dominion, the Enterprise and her crew have been relegated to a diplomatic role. In that capacity, Picard and company are playing host to new protectorates, the Evora. "Can anyone remember," Picard wonders, "when we used to be explorers?""




I did get it right.  Where am I wrong?

There's a throw away line for Picard to be somewhere else besides the Dominion War.   Picard has been relegated to a diplomatic role.

That's exactly what I was talking about.  The Entierprise is sent out to BFE when we could have had a superb Trek War film that ties in with the TV series.



EDIT:  And, I did click the link.


----------



## trappedslider

Water Bob said:


> I did get it right.  Where am I wrong?



 right here is your confusion :


Water Bob said:


> T The powers that be at Star Fleet didn't want Picard in the war because of his connection with the Borg (who had nothing to do with the Dominion War), so they kept him far away from it.
> 
> 
> .




From First contact:

[FONT=&quot]Picard dutifully informs his crew that they are to take the new [/FONT]_Sovereign-class__[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]USS Enterprise-E[FONT=&quot] to patrol the [/FONT]Romulan Neutral Zone[FONT=&quot], a minor threat compared to the Borg. The senior crew protest and are confused as to why the most advanced ship in the fleet is relegated to a relatively unimportant task; the Romulans have not caused any incidents recently and would almost certainly not take the opportunity to start a conflict. Picard doesn't disagree with the protests but is compelled to follow orders. He later confides to [/FONT]first officer[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]William T. Riker[FONT=&quot] that the reason Starfleet is keeping the [/FONT]Enterprise away from the Borg is due to Picard's history with them. 


_but yeah it was a missed chance since what they were up to was relegated to the books.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> Klingons have changed three times already. I find it hard to be bothered by a fourth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World



They changed from TOS to the movies, but were pretty consistent since then. For almost 30 years really. 
Unless you count _Into Darkness_. But even then that's only twice.



Water Bob said:


> The real missed opportunity was Star Trek Insurrection.  That movie came out right in the heat of the Dominion War shown on DS9.  It was an opportunity to connect the TV and the movie--to have a Trek movie about WAR!  All kinds of Trek morality problems could have been presented--those awesome, disguised statements and war and what not.  Plus, it would just be cool to see what the Enterprise was doing in the war.  They could have had the Enterprise pick up Worf off of DS9 for some special reason related to the plot.
> 
> But, no.
> 
> Instead, they gave us and OK movie (meh, as a movie, but is probably a good two-hour TV episode) instead of something really great that connected with the TV show.
> 
> At least the war was mentioned in the film.  The powers that be at Star Fleet didn't want Picard in the war because of his connection with the Borg (who had nothing to do with the Dominion War), so they kept him far away from it.
> 
> Now, they'll let him command one of their brand new fancy starships.  And, he'd just saved the timeline against a Borg attack.  But, hey, he's not in good enough shape to fight the Dominion.
> 
> Big.  Missed.  Opportunity.



I imagine they wanted a stand alone film that would be accessible for people not watching DS9. Which was likely a *lot* of people. That and the people making the movies were unrelated to the staff writing the TV show. Or requiring people to watch the movie to keep understanding the show.
And it'd be hard to coordinate a movie around the plot of a TV show that wasn't being written let alone filmed until months after the movie ended production but would still air earlier.


----------



## Water Bob

Jester David said:


> TI imagine they wanted a stand alone film that would be accessible for people not watching DS9. Which was likely a *lot* of people. That and the people making the movies were unrelated to the staff writing the TV show. Or requiring people to watch the movie to keep understanding the show.
> And it'd be hard to coordinate a movie around the plot of a TV show that wasn't being written let alone filmed until months after the movie ended production but would still air earlier.




What you say is correct, I'm sure.  Those reasons aside, it's still a big missed opportunity.  Continuing a plot or theme through several movies (or, in this case, between TV show and movie) does take coordination, but as the new Marvel movies are proving, when done well, the public likes it.

Star Trek Generations was tied fairly closely to the TV show (The Duras Sisters), and it did more business than the film they created (on a budget that was significantly bigger), Insurrection.

I'm sure it was possible for make a film about the War that was both accessible for people not watching DS9 and still connected to it at the same time.


----------



## Jester David

Water Bob said:


> What you say is correct, I'm sure.  Those reasons aside, it's still a big missed opportunity.  Continuing a plot or theme through several movies (or, in this case, between TV show and movie) does take coordination, but as the new Marvel movies are proving, when done well, the public likes it.



True. But, in fairness, even Marvel's films don't cross over to the TV shows. They've referenced a location that was first seen in the TV show, a couple years later, but that's about it. Typically, the TV show alters itself to match whatever the movies are doing. 

Really, having _Insurrection_ directly reference what's going on in the TV is a step beyond what Marvel has done.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> True. But, in fairness, even Marvel's films don't cross over to the TV shows. They've referenced a location that was first seen in the TV show, a couple years later, but that's about it. Typically, the TV show alters itself to match whatever the movies are doing.
> 
> Really, having _Insurrection_ directly reference what's going on in the TV is a step beyond what Marvel has done.




Except for "Marvel's Agents of Shield." That show had incidents occur as a direct result of the movies and events from the movies were foreshadowed in the TV show.


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> Except for "Marvel's Agents of Shield." That show had incidents occur as a direct result of the movies and events from the movies were foreshadowed in the TV show.




Right. But it's always the TV show referencing the movies. Like when DS9 changed over uniforms to match the new Trek movie uniforms from _First Contact_.
Because the movie is filmed a year before it airs over the course of three or four months, while a TV show is filmed over four days a few months before it airs. So SHIlELD can reference and act as a prequel to Avengers or Captain America since those movies are in the can and just going through final FX and the TV shows can write around them. 

Doing the reverse - tying a movie into a TV show - is super hard. When _Insurrection_ was released in December '98 but production work began (sets, FX, etc) at the start of the year. While scripting occurs in mid-1997.
So the movie was written halfway through season 6 of DS9 and aired halfway through season 7. That's a long time to ask the TV show to think ahead. 
"Hey, I know you're busy planning the second half of the season... but you could also plan all of next season at the same time so a movie can happen?"


----------



## Water Bob

Ryujin said:


> Except for "Marvel's Agents of Shield." That show had incidents occur as a direct result of the movies and events from the movies were foreshadowed in the TV show.




And, the entire first season of Daredevil on Netflix saw Kingpin involve himself in the feast for building contracts after the Avengers leveled New York City in the movies.


----------



## Water Bob

Jester David said:


> Doing the reverse - tying a movie into a TV show - is super hard. When _Insurrection_ was released in December '98 but production work began (sets, FX, etc) at the start of the year. While scripting occurs in mid-1997.
> So the movie was written halfway through season 6 of DS9 and aired halfway through season 7. That's a long time to ask the TV show to think ahead.
> "Hey, I know you're busy planning the second half of the season... but you could also plan all of next season at the same time so a movie can happen?"




Although I don't doubt it can be done, especially with the amount of money on the table that could be gained by pulling it off, you do make some excellent points.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> They changed from TOS to the movies, but were pretty consistent since then. For almost 30 years really.
> Unless you count _Into Darkness_. But even then that's only twice.




Bad phrasing on my part.

There have been three versions of the Klingons already. I'm not bothered by a fourth.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> Right. But it's always the TV show referencing the movies. Like when DS9 changed over uniforms to match the new Trek movie uniforms from _First Contact_.
> Because the movie is filmed a year before it airs over the course of three or four months, while a TV show is filmed over four days a few months before it airs. So SHIlELD can reference and act as a prequel to Avengers or Captain America since those movies are in the can and just going through final FX and the TV shows can write around them.
> 
> Doing the reverse - tying a movie into a TV show - is super hard. When _Insurrection_ was released in December '98 but production work began (sets, FX, etc) at the start of the year. While scripting occurs in mid-1997.
> So the movie was written halfway through season 6 of DS9 and aired halfway through season 7. That's a long time to ask the TV show to think ahead.
> "Hey, I know you're busy planning the second half of the season... but you could also plan all of next season at the same time so a movie can happen?"




I mentioned "Agents of Shield" because it both foreshadowed AND followed the movies, though it is most certainly the exception.


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> I mentioned "Agents of Shield" because it both foreshadowed AND followed the movies, though it is most certainly the exception.




But I think the only thing from Agents of SHIELD to make it into any of the movies was the prison that appeared in season one that reappeared in _Civil War_. 

And other than _Thor 2_, _Cap2_, and _Avengers 2_ I don't think there's been many crossovers. Nothing recent anyway. _Civil War_ barely got a mention, and the Sokovia Accords have at best been a footnote through much of this season.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure I'd want to see a post-Voyager show. I feel like the tech upgrades would make it no longer feel like Star Trek. Star Trek always had this slightly ponderous (in a good way) old fashioned naval feel to it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World



I don't know, the VOY tech upgrade might be impressive in-universe, but on screen - in the end, big ships fire torpedoes and energy weapons. They can still beam around, they can still fly faster than light. They still have easy ways to time travel they usually forget exist until the plot demands them.

But I am more interested in something set after Deep Space Nine then Voyager, in regards to dealing with the aftermath of the Dominion War. Seeing the impact of the war and how people rebuild could be interesting. Of course, if you want your sense of exploration back, that's not the right step. For that, I would suggest sending a ship into a new galaxy. You can still have Romulans or Klingons if you must have them (be it as members of the crew, part of a small exploration fleet, or as competing explorers), but you can introduce new aliens and deal with new challenges.

Or you can just reimainge it all. Clean up the timeline, start with Archer, Kirk or someone new. 



But as long as they're not doing that; I am happy to give Discovery a try.


----------



## Water Bob

Well, if the post art is any indication, it does look like the Discovery is going to remain very similar to what we saw in the first trailer--the ship design that makes me throw up.

It does look like the saucer section is wider, which is good, and the triangle shaped secondary hull is not as wide, which is also good.  But, that's about all you can tell.

I like everything I've seen about this new version of Star Trek except the uniforms, which suck the high heavens, and the design of the Discovery.

Of course, I hated those same two things with TNG, and I ended up loving that show.  Hopefully, history will repeat itself.


----------



## Water Bob

Is is me, or do the uniforms in Discovery look like something you'd expect to see in a comedy.

From, The Orville, a new Seth McFarland comedy series due out this fall.








From Galaxy Quest...








And, from Discovery...


----------



## Water Bob

I'm interested in uniforms.  They've always intrigued me.

If you want to see the new ranking and Department system used in discovery, then CLICK HERE.

As you can see above, the uniforms are basically a bright blue.  Department is denoted by the chrome and silver piping on the  shoulders and under the arms.

Rank is still shown in pips, as was first seen in Star Trek The Next Generation.  What is strange is that the rank pips are very small, inside the Star Fleet symbol on the chest.  The captain is easy to make out since she has more gold piping on her shoulders.  But, for everybody else, seeing rank is quite hard and cannot be done from a distance.


----------



## Water Bob

Hopefully, Discovery will get new, improved uniforms in Season Two, if there is a Season Two.


----------



## Water Bob

CLICK HERE to see more details about the uniforms.


----------



## Ryujin

Water Bob said:


> I'm interested in uniforms.  They've always intrigued me.
> 
> If you want to see the new ranking and Department system used in discovery, then CLICK HERE.
> 
> As you can see above, the uniforms are basically a bright blue.  Department is denoted by the chrome and silver piping on the  shoulders and under the arms.
> 
> Rank is still shown in pips, as was first seen in Star Trek The Next Generation.  What is strange is that the rank pips are very small, inside the Star Fleet symbol on the chest.  The captain is easy to make out since she has more gold piping on her shoulders.  But, for everybody else, seeing rank is quite hard and cannot be done from a distance.




And more little things which irk me. Again we see the Enterprise insignia used for a ship that is not her, in a timeline when ships should be carrying their own insignia plate shapes. The only reason to have subdued rank insignia is in an active combat zone, in which officers might be targeted by snipers or other long-range attacks. This isn't an issue on shipboard and rank should be clear. In TOS it was handled by piping on the sleeve. Sleeve piping or shoulder bards are traditional naval methods of showing rank and would logically be extended to an organization like Star Fleet. So they have incorporated something that vaguely looks like shoulder boards, but they don't seem to serve any purpose?

Yeah, maybe I'm just looking for reasons not to like it, but these little things just pile up along with the bigger issues that are already bugging me.


----------



## Morrus

I definitely prefer it when the different departments wear different colours.

Unless it's the TOS movies where they all wear those red things. By far my favourite Trek uniform.


----------



## Water Bob

Ryujin said:


> Sleeve piping or shoulder bards are traditional naval methods of showing rank and would logically be extended to an organization like Star Fleet. So they have incorporated something that vaguely looks like shoulder boards, but they don't seem to serve any purpose?




Just the captain has gold piping on the shoulders.

And, I agree with you.  Rank should be more pronounced.  Rank in Star Trek has gotten smaller and smaller.  First, the sleeve rings in TOS and TMP.  Then, the individual rank symbol pins used in the maroon TWOK uniforms throughout TOS movies.

TNG got even smaller with the pips, which seem to have stuck, in one version or another.  



Remember, though, that Enterprise used pips, too.  And, Enterprise pre-dates Discovery by almost a century.



I like a lot of what I see in Discovery.  But, there are three things that are really, really bugging me as well.  First, I don't think I'll pay for CBS Online.  Second, I don't like the look of the Discovery at all.  Third, I don't like the uniforms.

But, then again, I never really liked the Enterprise D or the early TNG uniforms either, so I guess I'll get over it.







Morrus said:


> I definitely prefer it when the different departments wear different colours.




Yep.  Looks like they're going with Silver, Bronze, and Gold, rather than Gold, Blue, and Red.







> Unless it's the TOS movies where they all wear those red things. By far my favourite Trek uniform.




I loved the TOS movie uniform, too.  It's my favorite.  And, I do love the original TOS series uniform.

I love this fan-mix of the two...


----------



## Water Bob

And, in my opinion too, I think Discovery is missing a beautiful opportunity to go back to the different badges worn on different vessels (some say it's a Divisional patch or crest).  Think of all the cool new symbols we'd get.


----------



## Ryujin

Where Enterprise is concerned the uniforms and insignia were one of the things I didn't like, but the perhaps the least among many.


----------



## Hussar

I'd point out that star fleet is not a military organization. There's really no need for rank insignia at all. 

And before people get up in arms, lots of civilian organizations have rank. Police officers being one of the easiest to see. Could you distinguish different police ranks by sight?  I can't.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> I'd point out that star fleet is not a military organization. There's really no need for rank insignia at all.
> 
> And before people get up in arms, lots of civilian organizations have rank. Police officers being one of the easiest to see. Could you distinguish different police ranks by sight?  I can't.




No, but the police can. I’ll credit Starfleet officers with being able to recognise their own insignias. 

The comment wasn’t that people didn’t know what the rank insignia meant, it was that the rank insignia were too small to see.


----------



## Hussar

Morrus said:


> No, but the police can. I’ll credit Starfleet officers with being able to recognise their own insignias.
> 
> The comment wasn’t that people didn’t know what the rank insignia meant, it was that the rank insignia were too small to see.




But, that's my point.  Rank insignia in a civilian organization generally isn't all that large.  Other than epaulet insignia, a lot of ranks aren't easily noticeable.  

It's not like that honking big A on the chest of the uniform is hidden or anything.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that it's not that terribly unreasonable for a civilian organization, even a quasi-military one like Star Fleet, to not have large rank insignias.  And it's not out of keeping with Star Trek either.  TNG went with small insignias.  And, the non-com ranks never really had insignias at all.  O'Brian, for example, didn't really have anything to distinguish him from a regular crewman, did he?  Granted Scotty did have a braid on the sleeve though.  

Star Trek has never really been all that consistent with rank insignias.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> But, that's my point.  Rank insignia in a civilian organization generally isn't all that large.  Other than epaulet insignia, a lot of ranks aren't easily noticeable.
> 
> It's not like that honking big A on the chest of the uniform is hidden or anything.
> 
> I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that it's not that terribly unreasonable for a civilian organization, even a quasi-military one like Star Fleet, to not have large rank insignias.  And it's not out of keeping with Star Trek either.  TNG went with small insignias.  And, the non-com ranks never really had insignias at all.  O'Brian, for example, didn't really have anything to distinguish him from a regular crewman, did he?  Granted Scotty did have a braid on the sleeve though.
> 
> Star Trek has never really been all that consistent with rank insignias.




As Morrus said, at least police themselves can recognize it. Oddly enough Ontario Provincial Police use shoulder boards for their rank insignia


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> But, that's my point.  Rank insignia in a civilian organization generally isn't all that large.  Other than epaulet insignia, a lot of ranks aren't easily noticeable.




Well, they’re not designed for TV. A Star Trek viewer cares more about the characters’ ranks than they do about the rank of that police officer they saw yesterday.


----------



## Water Bob

Hussar said:


> O'Brian, for example, didn't really have anything to distinguish him from a regular crewman, did he?  Granted Scotty did have a braid on the sleeve though.




Scotty started off as a Lieutenant Commander in TOS.  In the movies, he was a full Commander.  And, in The Search For Spock, we see him get promoted to Captain.  Captain of Engineering.

With O'Brien, his rank insignia changed a few times until a symbol was eventually made for Chief Petty Officer.



Here's some pics show his rank insignia changing.


























And, here's where they finally came up with some enlisted rank insignia.


----------



## trappedslider

Ryujin said:


> Yeah, maybe I'm just looking for reasons not to like it, but these little things just pile up along with the bigger issues that are already bugging me.





I think you might be just looking for more reasons,and I honestly think that you are a bit biast due to your feelings regarding the actions CBS took against Axanar. 



Hussar said:


> Star Trek has never really been all that consistent with rank insignias.




Don't try to argue with professional Trekkies lol


----------



## Hussar

Water Bob, I think you've proven my point. O'Brien's rank insignia is tiny. You'd probably not even see it in less than hi-def tv. 

And, if you look at Enterprise, the characters barely had any rank insignia. It's really only TOS that has highly visible rank. 

I'm thinking it's pretty well established that we don't need braids for ranks.


----------



## Ryujin

trappedslider said:


> I think you might be just looking for more reasons,and I honestly think that you are a bit biast due to your feelings regarding the actions CBS took against Axanar.




I'll certainly admit to bias as everyone has it, whether they know it or not. Where Axanar is concerned, however, I see a lot of blame to spread around on all sides. I just don't get the Star Trek feel from this show while, simultaneously and as previously mentioned, getting a definite feeling of something that had its birth in Star Trek fanfic; The Mary Sue. The lead character, who for the first time isn't the captain of a ship, looks like someone's wish fulfillment. From Wikipedia (admittedly not the best source, however...) _"First officer of the USS Shenzhou, referred to as "Number One". She was raised as a Vulcan by Sarek, and is the first human to attend the Vulcan Learning Center and Vulcan Science Academy. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman noted that Sarek's son Spock never mentioned a sister in the original series, and that they were careful to not break the existing canon. The show's protagonist was not made a starship captain, like those of previous Star Trek series, "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context""_

Lighting - Seems like someone took a look at Abrams' work and decided to distance themselves as much as possible from lens flares. The result is a dark set reminiscent of the bridge of a submarine.

Uniforms - Say what you will but Star Fleet is a paramilitary organization along the lines of European navies from the empire building period; enforce, interdict, explore, take in the name of The Crown. As such a naval feel is essential, to me.

Insignia - See above discussion.

The Ship as Revealed - Half Fed half Klingon. Hate it. Of course that's purely subjective, but there are so many previous designs that are so much better. And yes, the Ares class from Axanar is just one of them. The Discovery feels like a kludge. Personally, I'd have gone for something along the lines of the Baker Class Cruiser, made period appropriate of course.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> The lead character, who for the first time isn't the captain of a ship, looks like someone's wish fulfillment. From Wikipedia (admittedly not the best source, however...) _"First officer of the USS Shenzhou, referred to as "Number One". She was raised as a Vulcan by Sarek, and is the first human to attend the Vulcan Learning Center and Vulcan Science Academy. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman noted that Sarek's son Spock never mentioned a sister in the original series, and that they were careful to not break the existing canon. The show's protagonist was not made a starship captain, like those of previous Star Trek series, "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context""_




Huh? Which bit is the wish fulfilment? Seems a lot less Mary Sue (god, I hate that term - it's so dismissive) than Kirk, the youngest ever starship captain, and his bestie Spock.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> Huh? Which bit is the wish fulfilment? Seems a lot less Mary Sue (god, I hate that term - it's so dismissive) than Kirk, the youngest ever starship captain, and his bestie Spock.




I guess that we'll have to wait and see on that.

*Ninja Edit* Kick was the youngest but not the best, who was presented in that show. That honour goes to Garth of Izar, who was a legendary strategist (and at the time of TOS quite mad). Kirk was also not presented as flawless. Good, but not perfect.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> I guess that we'll have to wait and see on that.
> 
> *Ninja Edit* Kick was the youngest but not the best, who was presented in that show. That honour goes to Garth of Izar, who was a legendary strategist (and at the time of TOS quite mad). Kirk was also not presented as flawless. Good, but not perfect.




I’m curious where “flawless” featured in that quote you presented as the Mary Sue-ness? It’s just a sentence saying she was raised by Sarek. 

You seem to be trying real hard to dislike this. Which is fine, you don’t have to like it. But why invest so much effort in doing so?


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> I’m curious where “flawless” featured in that quote you presented as the Mary Sue-ness? It’s just a sentence saying she was raised by Sarek.
> 
> You seem to be trying real hard to dislike this. Which is fine, you don’t have to like it. But why invest so much effort in doing so?




Please note that my original post said that "I'm getting a feeling"


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> I just don't get the Star Trek feel from this show while, simultaneously and as previously mentioned, getting a definite feeling of something that had its birth in Star Trek fanfic; The Mary Sue. The lead character, who for the first time isn't the captain of a ship, looks like someone's wish fulfillment. From Wikipedia (admittedly not the best source, however...) "First officer of the USS Shenzhou, referred to as "Number One". She was raised as a Vulcan by Sarek, and is the first human to attend the Vulcan Learning Center and Vulcan Science Academy. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman noted that Sarek's son Spock never mentioned a sister in the original series, and that they were careful to not break the existing canon. The show's protagonist was not made a starship captain, like those of previous Star Trek series, "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context"




I don't see any reason to invoke the "Mary Sue" trope. Even in the trailers alone we can see she has anger issues and struggles with feelings of insecurity over not being "Vulcan enough". 
As mentioned by Morrus, Kirk fits that so much better, and certainly qualifies for the "wish fulfilment" aspects.

I like the idea of focusing on the first officer. The captain should stay on the ship after all, so if much of the story is elsewhere then the officer in charge of the away teams is the main character. Riker was very much the main character of the away team focused episodes.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> I don't see any reason to invoke the "Mary Sue" trope. Even in the trailers alone we can see she has anger issues and struggles with feelings of insecurity over not being "Vulcan enough".
> As mentioned by Morrus, Kirk fits that so much better, and certainly qualifies for the "wish fulfilment" aspects.
> 
> I like the idea of focusing on the first officer. The captain should stay on the ship after all, so if much of the story is elsewhere then the officer in charge of the away teams is the main character. Riker was very much the main character of the away team focused episodes.




I would love a show which focused on lower decks and you rarely saw the bridge crew.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I definitely prefer it when the different departments wear different colours.
> 
> Unless it's the TOS movies where they all wear those red things. By far my favourite Trek uniform.




Even then, the divisions were colour coded by the undershirt, the shoulder band, and the stripe on the pants.
But, agreed, those were nice uniforms. Personal favourite as well, just ahead of TNG movie uniforms.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I would love a show which focused on lower decks and you rarely saw the bridge crew.




Agreed.
But that would have been a great show following DS9 or Voyager. I think we need something more classical for a relaunch.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> Agreed.
> But that would have been a great show following DS9 or Voyager. I think we need something more classical for a relaunch.




Should’ve just been a new Enterprise, same mission.


----------



## Jester David

I commented earlier that I disliked the monochromatic uniforms. Especially since this series is set following the events of the _The Cage_ but before the events of TOS. Obviously they couldn't use those uniforms directly, but they could have done something similar but updated. Something that looks casually similar and makes you think of the turtleneck uniforms without being a straight update. 

(That said, gold/ silver/ bronze for departments does kinda work.)

I agree that the rank pips are pretty small. That would be hard to see in person, let alone on a TV screen. 
There's so much piping already, it would have been easy to add more to the sleeves. Or give everyone varying epulattes. 

Oh well, maybe they'll tweak after the first season.


They've also released a new trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBz8QsZNcQ&feature=share

Yeah... generic space battles. That's exactly what I don't want from a Star Trek. There's a dozen other science fiction shows and films I turn to for spaceships blowing each other up. 
That's way down the list for Trek.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> I don't see any reason to invoke the "Mary Sue" trope. Even in the trailers alone we can see she has anger issues and struggles with feelings of insecurity over not being "Vulcan enough".
> As mentioned by Morrus, Kirk fits that so much better, and certainly qualifies for the "wish fulfilment" aspects.
> 
> I like the idea of focusing on the first officer. The captain should stay on the ship after all, so if much of the story is elsewhere then the officer in charge of the away teams is the main character. Riker was very much the main character of the away team focused episodes.




You don't. I see it as a possibility. I tend to start with low expectations this sort of thing so I'm either pleasantly surprised, or at the very least not horribly let down. 



Morrus said:


> I would love a show which focused on lower decks and you rarely saw the bridge crew.




As would I. "Redshirt Diaries" gives a little comedic taste of that but I'd certainly line up for a real lower decks show, set on a large cruiser of the line. "Deep Space Nine" gave us something very different in that the universe had to come to them, in the stories. Engineering, Support, Medical..... all of that daily work would be good to see, along with how it interacts with Command.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> I commented earlier that I disliked the monochromatic uniforms. Especially since this series is set following the events of the _The Cage_ but before the events of TOS. Obviously they couldn't use those uniforms directly, but they could have done something similar but updated. Something that looks casually similar and makes you think of the turtleneck uniforms without being a straight update.
> 
> (That said, gold/ silver/ bronze for departments does kinda work.)
> 
> I agree that the rank pips are pretty small. That would be hard to see in person, let alone on a TV screen.
> There's so much piping already, it would have been easy to add more to the sleeves. Or give everyone varying epulattes.
> 
> Oh well, maybe they'll tweak after the first season.
> 
> 
> They've also released a new trailer:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBz8QsZNcQ&feature=share
> 
> Yeah... generic space battles. That's exactly what I don't want from a Star Trek. There's a dozen other science fiction shows and films I turn to for spaceships blowing each other up.
> That's way down the list for Trek.




I could get behind a ship design something like the one that appears at 1:08, but it doesn't look like it lasts very long.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> You don't. I see it as a possibility.




I see it as a possibility there's a talking dog they haven't told us about. But there's no evidence to suggest it. Your approach sounds kinda depressing.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> Should’ve just been a new Enterprise, same mission.




I would have loved the adventures of the Enterprise-B. Pretty much wide open.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> I see it as a possibility there's a talking dog they haven't told us about. But there's no evidence to suggest it. Your approach sounds kinda depressing.




Sure, except that while it's debatable that there's evidence for The Mary Sue, there's absolutely not even debatable evidence of a talking dog.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> Sure, except that while it's debatable that there's evidence for The Mary Sue, there's absolutely not even debatable evidence of a talking dog.




I'd be really interested in seeing this evidence. It hasn't been presented in this thread! (Unless "raised by Sarek" qualifies, but I'd struggle to find anything to debate there.)


----------



## Mallus

The full trailer *really* makes Discovery look like Star Trek: Mass Effect. Seeing as I'm playing through ME2 right now, I'm okay with that. More than okay. 

From what we can see at this juncture, the trailer looks like a -- gasp -- contemporary movie or TV trailer. I'm not quite sure how you make a trailer that conveys Star Trek without verging into parody or pantomime, i.e. a Shatnerian soliloquy, a TNG boardroom... ahem... ready-room meeting. We'll have to wait a bit longer to see if this feels right. For whatever value of "feels like Star Trek" you use. 

I'm looking forward to have the first new televised Trek in over a decade. If nothing else, it'll give me a space show to watch after Killjoys (hint: watch Killjoys it's surprisingly great) wraps and before the 3rd season of The Expanse begins (hint: also a great show).


----------



## MarkB

Ryujin said:


> The lead character, who for the first time isn't the captain of a ship




Well, that's certainly not true. It took Benjamin Sisko two seasons to acquire a starship, and most of a third to earn the rank of Captain.


----------



## Ryujin

MarkB said:


> Well, that's certainly not true. It took Benjamin Sisko two seasons to acquire a starship, and most of a third to earn the rank of Captain.




You're quite correct, of course. I'd have been better off saying "in command."



Morrus said:


> I'd be really interested in seeing this evidence. It hasn't been presented in this thread! (Unless "raised by Sarek" qualifies, but I'd struggle to find anything to debate there.)




I've referenced it. If you don't see it that's fine too. We all have our opinions.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> I've referenced it. If you don't see it that's fine too. We all have our opinions.




Your entire reference was “brought up by Sarek”. That, in its entirety, your mind, equals “Mary Sue”? 

Do you think there’s a teeny weeny possibility you are bringing your own baggage to this and inventing stuff that simply isn’t there?

You have a worldview that bewilders me. Sure, it’s an opinion, if you like. But man, like I said, that must be depressing.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> Your entire reference was “brought up by Sarek”. That, in its entirety, your mind, equals “Mary Sue”?
> 
> Do you think there’s a teeny weeny possibility you are bringing your own baggage to this and inventing stuff that simply isn’t there?
> 
> You have a worldview that bewilders me. Sure, it’s an opinion, if you like. But man, like I said, that must be depressing.




Yes, that's quite possible, as I stated previously. I also mentioned the Mary Sue thing far earlier in the thread.

I do quite well, thank you


----------



## Elodan

Looks good but not good enough to buy into yet another streaming service.


----------



## Morrus

Elodan said:


> Looks good but not good enough to buy into yet another streaming service.




There's an easier way! Rather than paying $5 or whatever for a Star Trek series, you could move to any other country (except Canada) and watch it on Netflix.

Yes, I'm mildly gloating. It's rare that things are better for us than for you.


----------



## Water Bob

Just watched the new trailer.  I think it looks good, except that I worry that it will be more like Abrams Trek than TOS.  I've been hoping for a return to TOS.

Looks like the phasers are the Abrams type.  Not long beams, but short pulses.

You guys already know that I really dislike the uniforms.

And, I think that's the Discovery at 1:33 or so.  The ship that is shown a few times in the trailer before that is far superior looking to what we see in the Discovery.  That's really disappointing.

I still don't know if I'll pay for this.  Leaning towards "no".


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> I still don't know if I'll pay for this.  Leaning towards "no".




I'll let you know if it's good.


----------



## trappedslider

Water Bob said:


> Just watched the new trailer.  I think it looks good, except that I worry that it will be more like Abrams Trek than TOS.  I've been hoping for a return to TOS.




Hope springs eternal....I think this is something you and others will need to get used to..other than fan works,I don't ever see a return to TOS.


----------



## Water Bob

At 1:47.  Did he say his name is Mudd?

Are we talking Harry Mudd?

Age is about right, given his engagements with Kirk a decade later.


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> At 1:47.  Did he say his name is Mudd?
> 
> Are we talking Harry Mudd?
> 
> Age is about right, given his engagements with Kirk a decade later.




Yes. The bloke from _The American Office_ is playing Mudd.


----------



## Zaukrie

I hope for a way to see this. Not paying money for one show at that price.


----------



## Ryujin

Zaukrie said:


> I hope for a way to see this. Not paying money for one show at that price.




Got any friends in Winnipeg who have cable TV? it'll be showing on the Canadian SF cable channel SPACE.


----------



## Jester David

Zaukrie said:


> I hope for a way to see this. Not paying money for one show at that price.




You can watch the earlier Trek shows at the same time. Marathon the best of TNG or Voyager. 
Or the '60s Mission Impossible or other classic CBS shows. 
Or wait until halfway through and binge over a single month.
Or buy the inevitable disc (and pay 2x as much).

But what do I know? I'm paying waaaay more right now for HBO to watch a single show.


----------



## Morrus

I never got into Voyager (too bland) but I’ve been watching a few eps recently. It occurs to me that is basically an updated TOS. Single ship exploring and encountering  new civilisations. They could easily have just called it the Enterprise, and ignored the “going home” metaplot mentions. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> I never got into Voyager (too bland) but I’ve been watching a few eps recently. It occurs to me that is basically an updated TOS. Single ship exploring and encountering  new civilisations. They could easily have just called it the Enterprise, and ignored the “going home” metaplot mentions.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World




Except that TOS is a much more interesting show.  I got bored with Voyager, too.  I thought it had a lot of potential but petered out in the end.


----------



## Jester David

Voyager ended up using a bunch of unproduced TNG episodes. That was it's biggest weakness IMHO. It should have been unique and done its own thing - stories that only work when you're a crew stranded halfway across the galaxy - but instead they went with generic Trek-ness.
(That said, with 140+ episodes, there are some gems and solid episodes.)

Now, I like me some generic Trek, but after seven years of TNG I was looking forward to something different. Ditto after Voyager ended: Enterprise was okay, but they could have done so much more...

I half-joked on the Modiphius forums that it'd be fun to do an alternate Voyager RPG campaign. Doing a game with limited fuel, torpedoes, food, energy, and resources. Where the ship doesn't fix itself between episodes and struggles to survive.


----------



## Hussar

Morrus said:


> I never got into Voyager (too bland) but I’ve been watching a few eps recently. It occurs to me that is basically an updated TOS. Single ship exploring and encountering  new civilisations. They could easily have just called it the Enterprise, and ignored the “going home” metaplot mentions.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World




I just happened to rewatch the entire Voyager run.  The first three or four seasons are pretty darn good actually.  Some fantastic stuff there.  The last three seasons though blow massive amounts of chunks.  Just awful crap.  They basically chuck out anything approaching continuity, rehash earlier stories yet again, and fail to bring anything to the table.  Basically, if you watch until Kes leaves the ship and treat that episode as the series finale, you'll be a lot happier.


----------



## MarkB

Voyager always reminded me of the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon. Every few episodes they'd find some way of possibly getting back to the old fairground, and then lose it, either through bad luck or noble choices.

For me, its main issue was that it only had two interesting characters, and they weren't enough to sustain it through the blandness of the rest of the cast.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Voyager always reminded me of the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon. Every few episodes they'd find some way of possibly getting back to the old fairground, and then lose it, either through bad luck or noble choices.
> 
> For me, its main issue was that it only had two interesting characters, and they weren't enough to sustain it through the blandness of the rest of the cast.



Agreed. 

Kim was bland as eff. Chakotay had no personality beyond being being First Nations. Tuvok was just a cookie cutter Vulcan, basically Spock with the "science" removed and nothing added.
Nelix wasn't just annoying, but was an unsympathetic, controlling, and abusive boyfriend. Who spent his time on the ship being flagrantly culturally insensitive to Tuvok. Ass.

Voyager just approached its concept poorly. As you say, too many stories were "here's a way home... can you take it?" But, of course, we all know the attempt will fail. Because then the story will end. 
Instead, the focus should have been on a _Battlestar Galactica_ survival. They need to find resources, and survive and the how is the issue. What do they do to survive? Where do they draw the line and what hard choices do they make? 
It probably would have been better served with more serialized storytelling. Stories in arcs of 2-5 as they pass through the territory of new races and then move on.


----------



## Water Bob

With Voyager, and all the battles they went through, we should have seen the ship more as a character--as it deteriorates more and more as the series goes on.  There are no Starbases for repairs refits.  The crew has to jury-rig what it can't replicate.  That ship should have been held together by toothpicks and gum wrappers, MacGuyver style, at the end of its run.  The hull should be discolored at the end, showing alien vessel parts grafted to the hull with a hope and a prayer.


----------



## Jester David

Water Bob said:


> With Voyager, and all the battles they went through, we should have seen the ship more as a character--as it deteriorates more and more as the series goes on.  There are no Starbases for repairs refits.  The crew has to jury-rig what it can't replicate.  That ship should have been held together by toothpicks and gum wrappers, MacGuyver style, at the end of its run.  The hull should be discolored at the end, showing alien vessel parts grafted to the hull with a hope and a prayer.



Totally agree. 
I was always dissapointed they never slowly updated the model to reflect the damage and repairs, new tech poorly integrated, alien patch jobs, and the like.


----------



## Jester David

Just showed the second trailer to Mrs. Jester. Her reaction: 
"They can call it Star Trek all they want, that doesn't make it true. If anything, that second trailer made me less excited. It looks more like that other show we're watching right now [Dark Matter on Netflix] than Star Trek."

Interestingly, when watching the trailer, I had to turn up the brightness on my iPad. Twice. It's such a dark show. While it's been called out as similar to the Abrams films, those were bright and colourful. The ships were all white and full of lens flares. This is just grim and grey and bleak...


----------



## Ryujin

Water Bob said:


> With Voyager, and all the battles they went through, we should have seen the ship more as a character--as it deteriorates more and more as the series goes on.  There are no Starbases for repairs refits.  The crew has to jury-rig what it can't replicate.  That ship should have been held together by toothpicks and gum wrappers, MacGuyver style, at the end of its run.  The hull should be discolored at the end, showing alien vessel parts grafted to the hull with a hope and a prayer.




Instead Voyager came back to the Federation as the most powerful ship in the fleet; Borg armour and shields, Borg and Federation weaponry, engines improved via alien tech....


----------



## Ryujin

The esthetic still doesn't strike me as particularly "Star Treky" but it looks much better to me in the lighting of the photo shoot, than it does in the trailers.

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/27/wat...ery-cover-shoot-from-sets-of-u-s-s-discovery/


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> The esthetic still doesn't strike me as particularly "Star Treky" but it looks much better to me in the lighting of the photo shoot, than it does in the trailers.
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/27/wat...ery-cover-shoot-from-sets-of-u-s-s-discovery/




I don’t really know what a “Star Trek aesthetic” is. Are you saying that Wrath of Khan and The Next Generation have a shared aesthetic that this lacks? Or that TOS and Star Trek: Generations look at all similar?  That DS9 and ST:TMP look like they’re even vaguely related? There is no single Star Trek aesthetic.


----------



## Hussar

Other than maybe in ship design.  Maybe.  But as far as anything else goes?  Not even remotely.

People tend to forget that once upon a time, Klingons didn't have bumpy heads.  Completely radical shift in appearance that was not explained for a very, very long time.  Trek canon is pretty darn loosey goosey.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> Other than maybe in ship design.  Maybe.  But as far as anything else goes?  Not even remotely.
> 
> People tend to forget that once upon a time, Klingons didn't have bumpy heads.  Completely radical shift in appearance that was not explained for a very, very long time.  Trek canon is pretty darn loosey goosey.




Yep. This is actually the fourth Klingon appearance. TOS, TOS movies/TNG, reboot movies, Discovery. They seem to change in appearance  every time somebody has a hot dinner.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I don’t really know what a “Star Trek aesthetic” is. Are you saying that Wrath of Khan and The Next Generation have a shared aesthetic that this lacks? Or that TOS and Star Trek: Generations look at all similar?  That DS9 and ST:TMP look like they’re even vaguely related? There is no single Star Trek aesthetic.




I think it's mostly the lighting. Star Trek tends to be bright. Even in the movies it was mostly pretty illuminated, save a few scenes on planets and during _Search for Spock_. Contrast this with Discovery, where every interiour shot in the trailer seems dark. 
Trek is normally the opposite of "The Future is Noir" ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFutureIsNoir ). Discovery looks much more like the _Expanse _or _Dark Matter_. 

The one exception I can think of was the lighting change between ST:tNG the show and _Star Trek Generations_ where it looks like 2/3rds of the light in the Enterprise burned out. But that was because they were using television sets that were made for far lower resolutions and wouldn't look well on the big screen. Dimming the lights hit the seams and imperfections.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> I think it's mostly the lighting. Star Trek tends to be bright. Even in the movies it was mostly pretty illuminated, save a few scenes on planets and during _Search for Spock_. Contrast this with Discovery, where every interiour shot in the trailer seems dark.
> Trek is normally the opposite of "The Future is Noir" ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFutureIsNoir ). Discovery looks much more like the _Expanse _or _Dark Matter_.
> 
> The one exception I can think of was the lighting change between ST:tNG the show and _Star Trek Generations_ where it looks like 2/3rds of the light in the Enterprise burned out. But that was because they were using television sets that were made for far lower resolutions and wouldn't look well on the big screen. Dimming the lights hit the seams and imperfections.




I dunno. _Wrath of Khan_ - the best Trek movie by far! - is pretty dark. I think the bright stuff is more TOS (series) and TNG.




STVI is fairly dark in palette, too.



And this is the Defiant bridge.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I dunno. _Wrath of Khan_ - the best Trek movie by far! - is pretty dark. I think the bright stuff is more TOS (series) and TNG.
> 
> STVI is fairly dark in palette, too.
> 
> 
> And this is the Defiant bridge.



The difference is one of contrast. While the movies were darker (having more shadows) there was a lot more colour. The uniforms popped against the darkness. Even in _Search For Spock_ (and the even darker Klingon bridge in _Voyage Home_ they gave Kirk the bright red jacket. 

Check out these shots from _The Expanse_:
View attachment 86445
View attachment 86444
View attachment 86443

And these from _Dark Matter_:
View attachment 86446
View attachment 86447
View attachment 86448

And _Killjoys_:
View attachment 86450
View attachment 86449

Dim lighting, lots of black and high contrast, darker costumes, and lots of blue mood lighting. 
The future is lit by high contrast blue lights. 

For example, go to the trailer of Discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPVdbsG4bY
Grab the time button and scroll from side to side looking at the thumbnails at the bottom of the video and just look at how many are dark or outright black. 
View attachment 86454

It's hard to tell what's an exterior space shot, a caption, or an interiour shot of the ship. 
Then compare that with the Abrams Trek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFUZ10Wmbw
Or the original TNG trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmsI07AMsE
Or the Motion Picture trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlV_JVtO5c

And here's Wrath of Khan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJTi7KJPx_E

They're dark, but not noir dark. Heck, in _Discovery_, even the desert planet was cloudy and overcast...


----------



## Morrus

Not really seeing it. I think people see what they want to see.


----------



## MarkB

Morrus said:


> And this is the Defiant bridge.




That's Voyager's bridge. This is the Defiant Bridge.


----------



## Morrus

Looks pretty dark too with everybody wearing grey uniforms. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Jester David

In DS9/ Voyager, the ships tend to have Red Alert mood lighting. It does get dark then, but that's to emphasize the bright red lights. 


There doesn't seem to be any difference in the ships in Discovery:

vs


The entire bridge is hard gunmetal blue grey. It lacks the the carpets of modern Trek shows. The only colours (when not in Red Alert) are blue and dark grey. The consoles are monochromatic blue. And even in Red Alert the colours seem muted.

Even in the dark DS9 picture, you can see multiple lights on the walls, lights on the backs of the consoles, red and blue stripes on the floor, light grey walls and blue turbolift. The red alert lights are vibrant and fill the screen, running along the entire shot. 

To say nothing of the original Enterprise bridge with its red railings, turbolift doors, and red backed consoles.


----------



## Jester David

The thing is, every science fiction show in the last five years or so had really cranked up the darkness of the set and contrasted it with bright blue lighting. 
Part of that is for Orange/Blue contrast reasons: 
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrangeBlueContrast
http://www.slashfilm.com/orangeblue-contrast-in-movie-posters/

_Battlestar Galactica_ takes some of the blame of this. Especially for hallways design.  (It's CIC was comparatively bright.)
But you can see its influence in _Stargate Universe_. And the recent cropping of shows on Syfy. Dark, harder futures where the "worn" sci-fi of _Star Wars_ meets the Noir of _Blade Runner_. 

Star Trek has managed to eschew that until now. Doing its own thing and setting its own tone. An optimistic, hopeful tone. 
But now, if you remove the obvious Trek logo, the shots look like every other generic sci-if crapsack dark future show on television:


----------



## Morrus

Like I said, I guess people see what they want to see. There’s a clear “can do no right” position. I mean, you criticised the *weather* in a scene earlier - that’s grasping for reasons to criticise it.

Nobody has to like the show, but the dogpile is kinda weird. People seem to be really looking or things to dislike.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> Like I said, I guess people see what they want to see. There’s a clear “can do no right” position. I mean, you criticised the *weather* in a scene earlier - that’s grasping for reasons to criticise it.
> 
> Nobody has to like the show, but the dogpile is kinda weird. People seem to be really looking or things to dislike.



Yeah, the CGed weather on what was probably a soundstage planet. The gloomy and sepia desert that's right out of a Zack Snyder film.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> Yeah, the CGed weather on what was probably a soundstage planet. The gloomy and sepia desert that's right out of a Zack Snyder film.




Well, OK. :shrug:

I’m gonna watch it.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> Well, OK. :shrug:
> 
> I’m gonna watch it.




Question: Are you gonna watch it because you're excited by what you've seen, or because you're a Trek fan and this is new Trek?
Are you watching it _because_ of the trailers or _despite_ the trailers? 

If the latter, at this point, is there _anything _the show could do or say that would make you uninterested in watching it?

(And would you pay an additional $5.99-$6.99 per month (potentially 3-4 months) to watch said show? )


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> Question: Are you gonna watch it because you're excited by what you've seen, or because you're a Trek fan and this is new Trek?
> Are you watching it _because_ of the trailers or _despite_ the trailers?
> 
> If the latter, at this point, is there _anything _the show could do or say that would make you uninterested in watching it?




It sounds like you _want_ it to. The more interesting question is — _why?_

I mean, I’m interested in a new TV show and plan to check it out, and it seems really important to some people that that not happen. 

I’m gonna check it out. I’m not bothered by the  shade of their uniforms or the hue of their shoelaces or what the weather was like in that one scene in the trailer. Sorry! 



> (And would you pay an additional $5.99-$6.99 per month (potentially 3-4 months) to watch said show? )




I don’t have to, as it will be on Netflix. But that’s an inconsequential amount of money to me, so sure. I spend that on a coffee.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> It sounds like you _want_ it to. The more interesting question is — _why?_
> 
> I mean, I’m interested in a new TV show and plan to check it out, and it seems really important to some people that that not happen.
> 
> I’m gonna check it out. I’m not bothered by the  shade of their uniforms or the hue of their shoelaces or what the weather was like in that one scene in the trailer. Sorry!




I *want *to be interested for the same reason I played _Mass Effect Andromeda_. For reasons explained in Penny Arcade:

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/03/20

I love Star Trek. I've wanted more since Enterprise went off the air. Before, really, as I didn't enjoy that show's first couple seasons.
But I want more actual Star Trek. Not generic science fiction with the name "Star Trek" slapped overtop...


----------



## Morrus

I don't get the references in that cartoon.

Yeah, but the question is why do folks seems to be expending so much effort trying to persuade other people that they should not be interested? It's  like any expression of interest has to be challenged and beaten down. Some of us just wanna watch it and share our enthusiasm without being told we're wrong because folks so desperate to find something to criticise it have resorted to condemning the weather in a brief scene they saw. It makes fandom feel like a chore, where you have defend your interests constantly.

Same thing with the DC movies (which were brought up above). I quite like them, except for the overused of lightning in the big end fights. The colour pallette literally isn't a thing for me. Just don't care.


----------



## Zaukrie

I'm with morrus on this. Seems like some people are looking for things not to like, rather than just giving it a shot with an open mind. Like my friends who couldn't just enjoy the LotR movies because the plot wasn't identical.


----------



## cmad1977

Zaukrie said:


> I'm with morrus on this. Seems like some people are looking for things not to like, rather than just giving it a shot with an open mind. Like my friends who couldn't just enjoy the LotR movies because the plot wasn't identical.




Tom Bombadil!! WHERE WAS TOM BOMBADIL??!? He's canon! CANON!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I don't get the references in that cartoon.



Google "mass effect andromeda animation". Possibly adding "gif" to the search.



Morrus said:


> Yeah, but the question is why do folks seems to be expending so much effort trying to persuade other people that they should not be interested?



Likely the same reasons people try to defend the franchises. 

Not to get personal, but this current discussion started when someone posted that they didn't care for the aesthetics, not replying to anyone in particular, and you asked a follow-up question:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ailer/page14&p=7180821&viewfull=1#post7180821

The intent isn't to say you're wrong with being excited but try and explain why I (and possibly others) is put off by the look and colour pallet of the show


----------



## Hussar

Morrus said:


> I don't get the references in that cartoon.
> 
> Yeah, but the question is why do folks seems to be expending so much effort trying to persuade other people that they should not be interested? It's  like any expression of interest has to be challenged and beaten down. Some of us just wanna watch it and share our enthusiasm without being told we're wrong because folks so desperate to find something to criticise it have resorted to condemning the weather in a brief scene they saw. It makes fandom feel like a chore, where you have defend your interests constantly.
> 
> Same thing with the DC movies (which were brought up above). I quite like them, except for the overused of lightning in the big end fights. The colour pallette literally isn't a thing for me. Just don't care.




I love this. 

I'm so sick to death with fandom coming along and taking a big steaming dump on everything I like. 

I just want to watch a frickin tv show not make a major life choice.


----------



## Morrus

Thing is, it may very well be awful. A lot of Star Trek is. I didn’t like Enterprise, Voyager, and several of the movies. I put it at about a 50% chance I’ll like it right now. But I’ll give it a shot.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> I love this.
> 
> I'm so sick to death with fandom coming along and taking a big steaming dump on everything I like.
> 
> I just want to watch a frickin tv show not make a major life choice.




Don’t get me wrong. Everything has its Corpsetaker/Water Bob. That’s just the price of existence. They’re allowed to talk. But that didn’t stop us telling them how we find that dialogue tiresome. IME that makes no difference, though.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> I *want *to be interested for the same reason I played _Mass Effect Andromeda_. For reasons explained in Penny Arcade:
> View attachment 86469
> https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/03/20
> 
> I love Star Trek. I've wanted more since Enterprise went off the air. Before, really, as I didn't enjoy that show's first couple seasons.
> But I want more actual Star Trek. Not generic science fiction with the name "Star Trek" slapped overtop...




Yeah, and if I'd listened to the criticisms of Mass Effect Andromeda, or let them colour my expectations, I'd have missed out on a game and story that kept me entertained for more hours than there are in any Star Trek season.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> I don't get the references in that cartoon.
> 
> Yeah, but the question is why do folks seems to be expending so much effort trying to persuade other people that they should not be interested? It's  like any expression of interest has to be challenged and beaten down. Some of us just wanna watch it and share our enthusiasm without being told we're wrong because folks so desperate to find something to criticise it have resorted to condemning the weather in a brief scene they saw. It makes fandom feel like a chore, where you have defend your interests constantly.
> 
> Same thing with the DC movies (which were brought up above). I quite like them, except for the overused of lightning in the big end fights. The colour pallette literally isn't a thing for me. Just don't care.




I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm making statements about my feelings on the matter. You feel the way that you do. Why cannot I be free to feel the way that I do?


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm making statements about my feelings on the matter. You feel the way that you do. Why cannot I be free to feel the way that I do?




You are free to do so. Nobody has suggested otherwise.  Disagreement is not suppression.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> You are free to do so. Nobody has suggested otherwise.  Disagreement is not suppression.




Nor is a statement of personal opinion an attempt to alter yours.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Yeah, and if I'd listened to the criticisms of Mass Effect Andromeda, or let them colour my expectations, I'd have missed out on a game and story that kept me entertained for more hours than there are in any Star Trek season.




I think the focus on animation and graphics was misplaced. I played and had a lot of enjoyment. The good bits were solid.
But considering in the length of time I played through Andromeda I could have played through all three other ME games, if felt lacking. There was good stuff but oh so much padding. So much unecassary travel between planets... 
It didn't even have a real end. Soooo many mysteries that will now never be resolved.

The  development also sounded pretty unfortunate and messed up:
http://kotaku.com/the-story-behind-mass-effect-andromedas-troubled-five-1795886428


----------



## Water Bob

THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO is quite good and full of information about the new show.

It's 22 min. long, but I thought it was extremely informative.

I learned some things.  Some good.  Some bad.  It did heighten my appetite for the show (though that clearly wasn't the intent).  And, there are some interesting rumors in there, too.


----------



## Jhaelen

We'll see. I've just watched Star Trek Beyond this weekend. Oh my, what a rush that was. Non-stop action (most of it rather senseless) with just a few strategically placed breaks to catch your breath. And the story: Nothing much 'beyond' a hunt for a McGuffin. There really isn't a lot of 'Star Trek' left in the franchise. This was more like 'Indiana Jones in Space'.


----------



## Ryujin

Jhaelen said:


> We'll see. I've just watched Star Trek Beyond this weekend. Oh my, what a rush that was. Non-stop action (most of it rather senseless) with just a few strategically placed breaks to catch your breath. And the story: Nothing much 'beyond' a hunt for a McGuffin. There really isn't a lot of 'Star Trek' left in the franchise. This was more like 'Indiana Jones in Space'.




Given that it was directed by Justin Lin, I would say more "Fast and Furious" in space. I gave it a chance.


----------



## Hussar

Thing is, what do you mean by "not much Star Trek" left?

I mean, a LOT of Star Trek is very, very boring.  People talking in boardrooms endlessly.  It's not like TOS was low on action.  There were action sequences in virtually every episode.  Kirk had to get his shirt ripped somehow.    Then you had ST:TMP, and it was a snooze fest.  That was one long, boring movie.

Look at the Trek that gets held up as "really great Trek".  Wrath of Khan - lots and lots of action.  First Contact - battle sequences all over the place.  Going with episodes, you have things like Amok Time and a pretty big chunk of action.  Any of the TOS Borg episodes, like Best of Both Worlds.  DS9 had tons of action sequences.  It's not like Star Trek has been afraid of blowing stuff up.  The only thing that held them back from blowing more stuff up was budget.

Sure, there's lots of thought provoking stuff too.  Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra is absolutely one of my favorite episodes.  But, expecting something like that in a big budget movie?  Good luck.  Producers get rather shirty when movies flop badly and they don't get paid.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Thing is, what do you mean by "not much Star Trek" left?




That's what I was wondering. The whole point of Star Trek as an anthology show is that it gets to tackle different kinds of stories each week. One episode it's an action movie, the next it's a detective story, the one after that it's a romance or a straight-up comedy.


----------



## Morrus

I wonder if we’ll see the Enterprise. This is 10 years before Kirk, so the USS Enterprise is already in service, isn’t it? Under Pike?


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## trappedslider

Hussar said:


> Any of the TNG Borg episodes, like Best of Both Worlds.




Fixed it for you and I should note that  Best of Both Worlds is the ONLY Trek episode to receive both a big screen and blu-ray  release, along with being edited to form a movie length episode.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> I wonder if we’ll see the Enterprise. This is 10 years before Kirk, so the USS Enterprise is already in service, isn’t it? Under Pike?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World




Or, possibly, April.  Do we really know how long Pike was in command?  I've seen conflicting stories.

That link I have above says that Discovery might be yet another timeline all by itself.  That is starts in the Prime Timeline and something happens....

And, the lead, the black girl from Walking Dead (whom I like, from what I've seen), is....Spock's adopted sister!


----------



## Jhaelen

Hussar said:


> I mean, a LOT of Star Trek is very, very boring.  People talking in boardrooms endlessly.  It's not like TOS was low on action.  There were action sequences in virtually every episode.  Kirk had to get his shirt ripped somehow.    Then you had ST:TMP, and it was a snooze fest.  That was one long, boring movie.



I guess it's true that Star Trek works better as a TV show than as blockbuster movies.
Personally, my favorite Star Trek incarnation was 'The Next Generation'. I suppose I'm just a fan of 'people talking in boardrooms endlessly'. What you found boring I found thought-provoking and interesting.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> That's what I was wondering. The whole point of Star Trek as an anthology show is that it gets to tackle different kinds of stories each week. One episode it's an action movie, the next it's a detective story, the one after that it's a romance or a straight-up comedy.




Which might not be the case here. It's hasn't been sold as an episodic or anthology show, but instead one big story like the Netflix Marvel series.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> Which might not be the case here. It's hasn't been sold as an episodic or anthology show, but instead one big story like the Netflix Marvel series.




It's been sold as having a strong story arc, but that doesn't stop it from focusing on different individual themes and stories each week. Plenty of other shows manage that balance, including previous Star Trek series.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Kim was bland as eff. Chakotay had no personality beyond being being First Nations. Tuvok was just a cookie cutter Vulcan, basically Spock with the "science" removed and nothing added.
> Nelix wasn't just annoying, but was an unsympathetic, controlling, and abusive boyfriend. Who spent his time on the ship being flagrantly culturally insensitive to Tuvok. Ass.
> 
> Voyager just approached its concept poorly. As you say, too many stories were "here's a way home... can you take it?" But, of course, we all know the attempt will fail. Because then the story will end.
> Instead, the focus should have been on a _Battlestar Galactica_ survival. They need to find resources, and survive and the how is the issue. What do they do to survive? Where do they draw the line and what hard choices do they make?
> It probably would have been better served with more serialized storytelling. Stories in arcs of 2-5 as they pass through the territory of new races and then move on.




Battlestar Galactica is bascially what Voyager had been if Ron Moore had been running it instead of DS9. 
Though honestly, I don't think he could have done VOY the way he did BSG then. He needed the experience of DS9 and maybe see what went wrong with VOY, and gain more experience, to make BSG.
Quite possibly it might also have required CGI advances... Stuff like the deterioration of the Galactica over the series (though it's not really constantly happening)... It's not so easy if you really need to reuse old footage.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> The thing is, every science fiction show in the last five years or so had really cranked up the darkness of the set and contrasted it with bright blue lighting.
> Part of that is for Orange/Blue contrast reasons:
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrangeBlueContrast
> http://www.slashfilm.com/orangeblue-contrast-in-movie-posters/
> 
> _Battlestar Galactica_ takes some of the blame of this. Especially for hallways design.  (It's CIC was comparatively bright.)
> But you can see its influence in _Stargate Universe_. And the recent cropping of shows on Syfy. Dark, harder futures where the "worn" sci-fi of _Star Wars_ meets the Noir of _Blade Runner_.
> 
> Star Trek has managed to eschew that until now. Doing its own thing and setting its own tone. An optimistic, hopeful tone.
> But now, if you remove the obvious Trek logo, the shots look like every other generic sci-if crapsack dark future show on television:
> 
> View attachment 86467




How does a generic sci fi "bridge/CIC" setting actually look like?

I can only think of the non-generic ones, like Alien, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Dark Matter, and they all seem just different in their layout and organization to some extent. 
I don't think the only distinction is colors... Or that it's even a meaningful one. 

Deep Space Nine changed the aesthetics a lot, but it kinda masked that over by being on an alien space station. But the lighting is different, and it's particularly noticeable in space, where there is a stronger contrast between dark and light and the dark is really dark. They basically inverted the color scheme on the uniforms, too, leading to a much darker look, that was later adopted to Voyager. I believe a big reason for the stronger contrast might have been that we had more and more shoots of things that really were in space, and it was basically an attempt to make it more realistic.


----------



## Jester David

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How does a generic sci fi "bridge/CIC" setting actually look like?
> 
> I can only think of the non-generic ones, like Alien, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Dark Matter, and they all seem just different in their layout and organization to some extent.
> I don't think the only distinction is colors... Or that it's even a meaningful one.



You don't often just get a look at the bridge. Typical cinematography gives you the 3/4 shot of the cast member at their position, focusing on one crew member at a time for more dramatic scenes. I always knew what the bridge of the Enterprise D looked like because they had these wide shots, but the bridge of Voyager or Ops on DS9 were harder to mentally picture. 

Because of that, the colours of the scene and _look_ of the bridge matters as much as its actual layout. In this case, it's the standard gunmetal floors, walls, and consoles and strategic bright blue lighting. All to contrast the faces of the actors in their dark uniforms against the backgrounds.


----------



## Water Bob

There's a couple of new trailers out.

CLICK HERE.



Looks like it could be a mix of Old Trek and Abrams.  Or, it could be just Abrams.  It's definitely not just Old Trek, as it was advertised.

Still, it could be good.  I'm excited about it.

But, Old Trek, it is not.  Which is a tad disappointing, too.

I really like the look of the Shenzou.  It fills the screen early in the trailer.

At about 0:53, you see the Discovery, which still looks like hell.


----------



## Jester David

*CBS Won't Allow Any Reviews of Star Trek: Discovery Before It Airs*

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782


That's... not a good sign.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> *CBS Won't Allow Any Reviews of Star Trek: Discovery Before It Airs*
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782
> 
> 
> That's... not a good sign.




It's understandable if they are trying to use the show as a tentpole production with which to lure people into signing up for their streaming service, and don't want potential viewers to be swayed by potential bad or luke-warm reviews.

... especially if it sucks.


----------



## Morrus

I can’t wait. Less than two weeks, is it?


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Hussar

Jester David said:


> *CBS Won't Allow Any Reviews of Star Trek: Discovery Before It Airs*
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782
> 
> 
> That's... not a good sign.




I can see both sides here.  Sure, early reviews are great for generating buzz.  But, on the other hand, we're dealing with geek culture which seems to take a pretty perverse pleasure in ripping apart anything that doesn't fit their own, personal, narrow, but vaguely designed, view of what something "should" be.  

And all that negative reaction isn't helpful.  Letting people, as in everyone who wants to, see it first and then make a decision on their own instead of being met with a tidal wave of nerd rage over how they got vulcan ears wrong does make a certain amount of sense.


----------



## cmad1977

Hussar said:


> I can see both sides here.  Sure, early reviews are great for generating buzz.  But, on the other hand, we're dealing with geek culture which seems to take a pretty perverse pleasure in ripping apart anything that doesn't fit their own, personal, narrow, but vaguely designed, view of what something "should" be.
> 
> And all that negative reaction isn't helpful.  Letting people, as in everyone who wants to, see it first and then make a decision on their own instead of being met with a tidal wave of nerd rage over how they got vulcan ears wrong does make a certain amount of sense.




It's not about the  ears. It's the Rank insignias. All wrong. UNFORGIVABLY WRONG!! I'll nevar watch this travesty!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I can’t wait. Less than two weeks, is it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World



Off the top of my head, the 22nd. So a week and a day...



Ryujin said:


> It's understandable if they are trying to use the show as a tentpole production with which to lure people into signing up for their streaming service, and don't want potential viewers to be swayed by potential bad or luke-warm reviews.
> 
> ... especially if it sucks.



Which is the worry. Not letting reviews out suggests it's not good or outright bad. That they're hoping people will subscribe before the negative buzz gets out.
I was _really_ hoping it'd surprise me with something awesome.



Hussar said:


> I can see both sides here.  Sure, early reviews are great for generating buzz.  But, on the other hand, we're dealing with geek culture which seems to take a pretty perverse pleasure in ripping apart anything that doesn't fit their own, personal, narrow, but vaguely designed, view of what something "should" be.
> 
> And all that negative reaction isn't helpful.  Letting people, as in everyone who wants to, see it first and then make a decision on their own instead of being met with a tidal wave of nerd rage over how they got vulcan ears wrong does make a certain amount of sense.



Not every reviewer is going to be a part of "geek culture" and subscribe to ripping apart fandom. They should - in theory - review it like everything else. Many might be unable to discern if the Vulcan ears are wrong or not. 

Not having the professional reviews give their opinions means their reviews will be mixed with that of fandom's at the time of release. Bringing that nerd rage farther to the forefront.


----------



## Morrus

I'm not worried. I didn't much like the last two Trek TV iterations, and didn't like DS9 nearly as much as most people seemed to, so if it's not good, I don't feel like I'll be losing anything. I hope it's good, though; it would be nice to have some decent Trek on TV.

TNG started off_ terribly_, but the TV show became my favourite Trek iteration (after the TOS movies, especially II-IV).


----------



## Hussar

Jester David said:


> /snip
> 
> Not every reviewer is going to be a part of "geek culture" and subscribe to ripping apart fandom. They should - in theory - review it like everything else. Many might be unable to discern if the Vulcan ears are wrong or not.
> 
> Not having the professional reviews give their opinions means their reviews will be mixed with that of fandom's at the time of release. Bringing that nerd rage farther to the forefront.




Should being the operative word here.  But, the problem is, professional reviews get buried under the tsunami of nerd rage that sometimes follows geek culture.  Look at Suicide Squad.  If that wasn't named "Suicide Squad" and was just a movie (and not tied to DC universe) the level of kvetching would have been a lot lower.  It was a fun action movie.  Popcorn Saturday night viewing.  Instead we see article after article on the net telling everyone how this movie is just the worst thing in the world.

Compare to the reaction to, say, the Fast and the Furious movies.  Absolutely mindless action movies, that don't get anywhere near the level of nerd rage directed at them.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> Should being the operative word here.  But, the problem is, professional reviews get buried under the tsunami of nerd rage that sometimes follows geek culture.  Look at Suicide Squad.  If that wasn't named "Suicide Squad" and was just a movie (and not tied to DC universe) the level of kvetching would have been a lot lower.  It was a fun action movie.  Popcorn Saturday night viewing.  Instead we see article after article on the net telling everyone how this movie is just the worst thing in the world.
> 
> Compare to the reaction to, say, the Fast and the Furious movies.  Absolutely mindless action movies, that don't get anywhere near the level of nerd rage directed at them.



I think you overestimate the number of critics that are "nerds".
Really, most would be "film nerds" rather than any other type.

_Suicide Squad_ was soooo bad. Bad in ways that even the _Fast and the Furious_ movies are not. Without knowledge of the comics, and affection to the characters it would be unwatchable. 
Bland action, limited humour, unlikable characters, poor plotting, bad SFX... There's just so few redeemable qualities. I have friends who almost walked out...


----------



## MarkB

Not getting reviewed in advance isn't exactly uncommon for TV shows. I can't actually think of a recent TV series for which I saw advance reviews.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Not getting reviewed in advance isn't exactly uncommon for TV shows. I can't actually think of a recent TV series for which I saw advance reviews.



Most TV series I'm aware of air a couple episodes for critics. I just read a review of the Orville based one one. And even Netflix tends to send critic review copies. 
It's quite common to send reviews. That's how reviews appear in newspapers and online before the premier.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> It's quite common to send reviews. That's how reviews appear in newspapers and online before the premier.




Which is what I've come to expect for movies, but I haven't seen it very often for TV shows. Then again I am spoiler-wary, so maybe I just haven't been looking.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Which is what I've come to expect for movies, but I haven't seen it very often for TV shows. Then again I am spoiler-wary, so maybe I just haven't been looking.




It might also depend on what you're reading and when.
And in the spring/fall, there's often so many shows, reviews tend to be pretty small. More like blurbs saying what's good and what's bad in the new crop of shows.


----------



## Morrus

Some studios are super secretive and some aren’t. The BBC tends to be (plus they’re super sensitive about spoilers). I don’t know which American ones are and aren’t though. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Water Bob

From the previews, the show is not what we were lead to believe.  But, in spite of that, I'm excited about it.


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> From the previews, the show is not what we were lead to believe.  But, in spite of that, I'm excited about it.




Huh? The previews are *exactly* what they’re leading you to believe. That’s what a preview is. Them in the very process of leading you to believe something.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> Huh? The previews are *exactly* what they’re leading you to believe. That’s what a preview is. Them in the very process of leading you to believe something.




I guess I shouldn't have said "previews".  I'm talking about all the press about a return to the classic Trek.  It's not that.  It's something different.

But, I'll welcome it if it's good.  The previews do make me think it's got the flash and style of the new films but combined with something those shows really don't have--a real Trek story.


----------



## CapnZapp

We will always have The Orville. 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Water Bob

I caught about 15 minutes of The Orville and turned it off.


----------



## CapnZapp

There's a separate Orville thread for those of you that, like me, didn't ☺

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

The Advance Viewing some people were invited to apparently still allowed them to give a spoiler-view first impression. Some of them: 

https://twitter.com/shananaomi/status/910350910643228672 
https://twitter.com/TrekGeekDan/status/910356913082298370 
https://twitter.com/jhoffman/status/910350478973788161 
https://twitter.com/dannysullivan/status/910349593287720960 
https://twitter.com/Salami_Inferno/status/91034892473759744
https://twitter.com/DanCasey/status/910351137408208898 
https://twitter.com/CubanMissileDH/status/910358655274496007 
https://twitter.com/melcaylo/status/910354452292489217 
https://twitter.com/TrekMovie/status/910359277524733957 
https://twitter.com/ncc_1031_com/status/910356705229312003 
https://twitter.com/grantimahara/status/910356048363565057 
https://twitter.com/velocciraptor/status/910353275320520704 
https://twitter.com/RBryant2012/status/910352711186550786 
https://twitter.com/michelledeidre/status/910355554169651200 
https://twitter.com/jakeboyslim/status/910361456171978752

Ezri Dax and Bevery Crusher's opinion might be the more interesting ones to Trek fans:
https://twitter.com/nikki_deboer/status/910382889119965185
https://twitter.com/gates_mcfadden/status/910365161223057408


----------



## Jester David

There's some more collected here: 
http://nerdist.com/star-trek-discovery-first-reactions-positive/


----------



## Mallus

The guy who got the Mythbusters to build the anti-Gorn diamond log cannon liked it? I am tremendously reassured by this!


----------



## Richards

Personally, I hope this show fails miserably.  Not because of anything the guys creating it have or haven't done (although on that front, I'm not very impressed with it), but simply because I don't want to encourage any of the networks to follow this approach.

Had CBS created this show and put it on CBS, I'd be all for it and be rooting for it to do well.  Likewise had it been a Netflix show from the beginning, or on HBO, or whatever, I'd be a strong supporter of having another "Star Trek" show to watch.

But for a network like CBS to decide to branch out into having their own streaming service, and then put their "big" show exclusively on the streaming service (after one "free" episode on their normal network to build up interest), that's a model I emphatically don't want to encourage.

Sure, the argument goes, it's not a whole lot of money a month for the streaming service.  But I don't want to pay an extra fee to see the one show I'm interested in seeing on that network, and I'm certainly not going to do the same if all of the other networks follow suit.  Ask yourselves: would you be cool paying for HBO and then paying extra on top of that just to watch "Game of Thrones," and paying extra just to watch "The Walking Dead" after having already paid to get AMC?  (These are just two examples that popped into my head - choose your own favorite shows and networks.)

I don't want to support a model where the networks all decide to charge extra for their top shows, and I end up getting nickel-and-dimed to death.

Johnathan


----------



## Water Bob

Here are my thoughts as I watched the show.

OK....

Opening teaser was....FANTASTIC! LOVED IT!

That quick shot of the alien was excellent.

Opening credits visuals are pretty cool, too.

Not a fan of the title song. I miss the old boisterous marches and such.

And...the Klingons...are they telling us that there are 12 tribes that look differently from each other? The Motion Picture change was mentioned a few times here and there but never explained. I think the closest they got was in the Deep Space Nine episode where Worf said something like, "It's complicated. We don't talk about it."





Interesting. The bridge on the Shin-whatever is on the lower side of the saucer.

Was that a droid I saw at a bridge station?

That space suit is kinda...sexy.

Feels like TREK!

I already like it better than any of the new movies.

So far, this is much better than I thought it would be.







2nd commercial break.

This is great!

It is far beyond my hopes. I'm really digging this show, in spite of its silly uniforms.

It reminds me of The Motion Picture...but _better_.







3rd commercial break.


Conatact Starfleet Command! Tell them: We have engaged the Klingons!


Yeah!







4th Commercial break.

Lots of surprises!

Still digging it.

Much better than any Abrams movie.

Feels like Trek. Updated Trek, but still Trek.

I like it a lot.







Episode 1 is over.

Can you say, "Wolf 359"?

Awesome.

I absolutely loved the show. It's the best Trek in decades. When I said above that it reminds me of The Motion Picture, it's that it's new, updated, but still "Trek", which the Abrams films did not pull off for me.

This is full of Trek themes and ideas. It's not just a flashy action romp. It's got a Trek heart.

Now...will I subscribe?

I don't think so. It irritates me that they want me to order a new service for this Trek show.

Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to let the season play out. Then, provided they still have the two-week free trial, I'll take that and binge watch the season before canceling the service.

Or, I'll wait for DVD. Maybe it will play on Netflix next year.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I also won't support the business model, but I don't wish the show ill.  Maybe someday, I'll get to watch it in syndication.


----------



## Jester David

Richards said:


> Personally, I hope this show fails miserably.  Not because of anything the guys creating it have or haven't done (although on that front, I'm not very impressed with it), but simply because I don't want to encourage any of the networks to follow this approach.
> 
> Had CBS created this show and put it on CBS, I'd be all for it and be rooting for it to do well.  Likewise had it been a Netflix show from the beginning, or on HBO, or whatever, I'd be a strong supporter of having another "Star Trek" show to watch.
> 
> But for a network like CBS to decide to branch out into having their own streaming service, and then put their "big" show exclusively on the streaming service (after one "free" episode on their normal network to build up interest), that's a model I emphatically don't want to encourage.
> 
> Sure, the argument goes, it's not a whole lot of money a month for the streaming service.  But I don't want to pay an extra fee to see the one show I'm interested in seeing on that network, and I'm certainly not going to do the same if all of the other networks follow suit.  Ask yourselves: would you be cool paying for HBO and then paying extra on top of that just to watch "Game of Thrones," and paying extra just to watch "The Walking Dead" after having already paid to get AMC?  (These are just two examples that popped into my head - choose your own favorite shows and networks.)
> 
> I don't want to support a model where the networks all decide to charge extra for their top shows, and I end up getting nickel-and-dimed to death.
> 
> Johnathan



What police procedural show would your put before Trek each week? 
Because you want the show before and after to have a similar audience so people keep watching. And it needs to match the regular demographics of the network so the long term advertisers show their products to the appropriate demographics. 

What's good? One of the three NCIS? Survivor? MacGuyver? Criminal Minds?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Criminal Minds _is _a good show.  Could do worse.


----------



## Jhaelen

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Criminal Minds _is _a good show.  Could do worse.



Just because there's worse doesn't mean it's good... Let's say, it's a matter of taste


----------



## Morrus

Woohoo! Just checked Netflix and there it is! I know what I’m doing for the next 45 minutes!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Hand of Evil

Visually it was fantastic, little too dark but that is a cheap way to hide/help the FX. Klingons, just a waste, does not even look like they can turn their heads.  Writing and dialog was on par with most network prime time shows, meaning it is not character driven but plot driven, making the characters look smart when needed or dumb in scenes.  Characters, well still too early to tell and it mostly focused on the Captain and her number one.  

Figure that is it for me watching, at this time, as I don't plan to get CBS All Access.


----------



## Morrus

I loved it! Best Star Trek I’ve seen in years - way better than Voyager, Enterprise, or the new movies. I’m in for the long haul.

If “feels” Wrath of Khan-like to me in terms of tone and visuals. 

Now I have to wait a whole week for episode 3. Darn it.

This is what Enterprise should have been like. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Jester David

It sounded great. 
The classical sound FX and background bridge noises were great.

The holocalls was initially weird, but makes sense. It's something Trek flirted with during DS9 but couldn't make work with budget constraints. No reason not to do it now. 

Things like the captain's office and personal quarters looked good: nice and brightly lit. As did the hallways. The bridge was a little dark for some reason. 

I would have preferred uniforms that were more of a nod to the Pike era. Colour coded shirts of some kind. But the metallic highlights on the uniforms were keen. They really popped on the show, as did the badges. 
(Telling the rank of characters is unfortunately hard and kinda irritating. Impossible to tell from a distance. Some bands on the wrists would have still been nice...)

The story. It's still somewhat weird that there was apparently a noteworthy war between the Federation and Klingons that has gone unrecorded. 
I was still hoping for something optimistic and upbeat. Something on the human condition and humanity... Maybe that's a season long plot instead? 
And Michael sure does a terrible job at the end. Telling the Captain *not* to kill the Klingon captain because it will make him a martyr and all...

The Klingons...
One of the most beloved races in science fiction. One of the top 5 - if not top 3 - most iconic and well recognised alien species in Sci-fi. And they were totally and completely redesigned. They removed their hair, their beards, their freakin' ears. They made their heads mishshapen in the back. They added extra nostrils. 
It's all too much. They could have just updated the make-up a little but kept some of the older design elements. An update not a revision. 
Instead, they took a beloved alien race - as well known as the Wookies or Vulcans - and _completely _changed what they looked like, making them virtually unrecognisable. 
As I have said before, the design of the Vulcans was just as limited by the simple make-up of the '60s. Why not redesign them completely?  
I found the Klingons more distracting than anything. It really took me out of the show. I couldn't focus on what was happening or being said as much because I was goggling at their over designed costumes and weird Peter Jackson Orc-like heads.

(Also, cloaking devices were a Romulan invention created in 2266 and first seen in TOS. Klingons didn't get cloaking technology until after TOS ended.)

I'm curious to see where it goes. The ending to the second episode was certainly dramatic. And a cliffhanger. The punishment seemed a little harsh... It's odd that the titular ship hasn't even appeared yet.


----------



## Mallus

I could write up a list of nitpicks and not-so-nitpicks, but overall I thought it was fantastic. Much more Trek-y than the Pine/Quinto vintage (and I enjoyed all three of those).

Martin-Green was great. I loved Michelle Yeoh and my biggest disappointment is that she's only a "guest star". I'm not entirely sure about Burnham deciding to break her Paragon run by taking the Renegade interrupt -- I've been calling it Star Trek: Mass Effect and I didn't realize how right I'd be -- but I sure as Hell didn't expect it. So I guess it was... intriguing.

As soon as the broadcast episode finished I signed up for the 1-week free trial of the streaming service so I could watch the 2nd episode. I think I'm in. I hate the decision by CBS to gate this behind their ill-advised service (no option to buy on iTunes or Amazon, even), but it's *good*. 

And I'll pay $6 for a beer, so how can gripe about the cost? At least they shoveled money into Discovery. The production values & art design are amazing.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> The Klingons...
> One of the most beloved races in science fiction. One of the top 5 - if not top 3 - most iconic and well recognised alien species in Sci-fi. And they were totally and completely redesigned. They removed their hair, their beards, their freakin' ears. They made their heads mishshapen in the back. They added extra nostrils.
> It's all too much. They could have just updated the make-up a little but kept some of the older design elements. An update not a revision.
> Instead, they took a beloved alien race - as well known as the Wookies or Vulcans - and _completely _changed what they looked like, making them virtually unrecognisable.
> As I have said before, the design of the Vulcans was just as limited by the simple make-up of the '60s. Why not redesign them completely?
> I found the Klingons more distracting than anything. It really took me out of the show. I couldn't focus on what was happening or being said as much because I was goggling at their over designed costumes and weird Peter Jackson Orc-like heads.




If there’s one thing about Klingons that is a constant, it’s that every iteration of them has competent redesigned them. This is the 4th design. There is no single Klingon appearance. 

I like that they acknowledged that by saying each of the 24 houses looks different.


----------



## Zaukrie

I only saw episode one. I was not as enthused as the rest of you. Is was ok to good for me. And no, I won't pay for only this.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> If there’s one thing about Klingons that is a constant, it’s that every iteration of them has competent redesigned them. This is the 4th design. There is no single Klingon appearance.
> 
> I like that they acknowledged that by saying each of the 24 houses looks different.



They implied differences in the other houses. But they looked relatively the same in the hollocall. 
And while Klingons changed in _Into Darkess_, that was an alternate reality that changed everything. In the regular timeline, Klingons have been unchanged since 1978. Until now. 

Their modern look (the one for the previous 37 years) has become iconic. Like Wookiee, ET, and a few other aliens that are identifiable even by non-fans. 

I've commented before that changing the Klingons now feels like changing the Vulcans. 
Which they could do:

These are identifiably Vulcan, having the iconic traits. 

The frustrating thing is that this change is more dramatic than even _Into Darkness_. They changed things more than the reboot films....
And why? What is gained? What is the benefit of a complete redesign rather than a slight tweak to improve the fabric and details of the prosthetics?  

It's a change for change's sake.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> It's a change for change's sake.




I guess we all have our crosses to bear. Didn't bother me one iota. Sorry to hear it spoiled the show for you.


----------



## Mallus

I like the new Klingon look, including the design of the Funeral at a Gaudí Cathedral class battlecruiser. 

Frankly, while I want callbacks to the earlier aesthetic(s), what I'm looking for is a *new take* on Star Trek. If you're just going to repeat yourself, why bother?

This is why Fuller's departure almost killed my interest in the series. He knows his Trek, but God knows where he would have boldly gone with it.


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I guess we all have our crosses to bear. Didn't bother me one iota. Sorry to hear it spoiled the show for you.



It bugged me and took me out of the show. A lot. Which is frustrating as so much else was actually much better than I had feared. That cold open was excellent. I want to see where the show goes, and what happens next in the story. 
Hopefully not every episode deals with the Klingons...

But it was a deal breaker for my wife. She half-watched it beside me and I could hear her eye rolls. And she has zero interest in the rest of the series. 
She's a big Klingon fan. A Worf fan really, as she's a TNG Trekkie, never having seen much of TOS or the related movies (TOS was too campy for her tastes.) They're the only Klingons she's really familiar with. 
(Which is the catch with updating properties/ franchises: you have to be carefully when making changes to something that might be someone's favourite element.)

This makes watching the show awkward for me. We only have a few hours of time between the munchkin going to bed and sleeping ourselves. Often 60-90 minutes. And there's no shortage of TV as it is, and generally limited couple time. Finding time to watch a show she's uninterested in is going to be hard. There's a bunch of stuff on Netflix I'm trying to watch (some anime and Archer) and I barely get to see that, getting snippets at the gym while on the treadmill. 
But ironically Discovery isn't streaming in Canada, being on the sci-fi channel "Space". So I can only couch watch.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> (Also, cloaking devices were a Romulan invention created in 2266 and first seen in TOS. Klingons didn't get cloaking technology until after TOS ended.)



This was always an assumption made based on that the TOS Klingons didn't seem to have it, and the Romulan/Klingon deal, but it was never confirmed in canon.
Of course, it could still be that these Klingons have it from the Romulans - but since the houses are apparently mostly isolated until now, it could be T'Kuvma or his allies organized it from the Romulans. 

Since the Klingons are also the first culture the Federation encounters that can manage to build a cloak that can be used while firing, it might suggest that the Klingons were actually developing the technology on their own, independent from the Romulans. (Or maybe there is a 3rd party, like the Suliban perhaps, that invented it first.)


----------



## Ryujin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This was always an assumption made based on that the TOS Klingons didn't seem to have it, and the Romulan/Klingon deal, but it was never confirmed in canon.
> Of course, it could still be that these Klingons have it from the Romulans - but since the houses are apparently mostly isolated until now, it could be T'Kuvma or his allies organized it from the Romulans.
> 
> Since the Klingons are also the first culture the Federation encounters that can manage to build a cloak that can be used while firing, it might suggest that the Klingons were actually developing the technology on their own, independent from the Romulans. (Or maybe there is a 3rd party, like the Suliban perhaps, that invented it first.)




It was confirmed that the Klingons had received cloaking  tech from the Romulans when someone stole the model of the original Romulan Warbird from the studio, so they had to make do with the Klingon ships
, and so concocted the Romulan- Klingon tech exchange treaty to explain why Romulans were in Klingon ships. (No room in the budget to replace it.)


----------



## Richards

Jester David said:


> What police procedural show would you put before Trek each week?
> Because you want the show before and after to have a similar audience so people keep watching. And it needs to match the regular demographics of the network so the long term advertisers show their products to the appropriate demographics.
> 
> What's good? One of the three NCIS? Survivor? MacGuyver? Criminal Minds?



I don't think I'm fully understanding your argument.  Are you claiming that only police procedurals would have the same demographics as a Star Trek show?  Are you claiming that this Star Trek show is so much different (and possibly better) than the rest of the CBS programming that the network simply had no choice but to put it in a streaming model?

Personally, for the shows I choose to watch, I pay no attention to whatever shows are on before or after the show I'm interested in watching.

Johnathan


----------



## Water Bob

I remember being a kid and watching TMP for the first time.  All we had was the three seasons of TOS.  The show started, and there were these Klingon vessels.  They looked like D-7, but with a lot more "stuff" on their hulls.  OK, loved it.

Then, we cut inside...who are those guys?  Those are Klingons?  Really?  Why'd they change 'em?

But...I dug it.

As for Discovery's Klingons--their "look"--I could live with the change.  It doesn't really bother me.  I'd be just as happy if they looked like TMP Klingons or TOS Klingons.


----------



## Jester David

Richards said:


> I don't think I'm fully understanding your argument.  Are you claiming that only police procedurals would have the same demographics as a Star Trek show?  Are you claiming that this Star Trek show is so much different (and possibly better) than the rest of the CBS programming that the network simply had no choice but to put it in a streaming model?



I'm saying Star Trek is completely different from every other show on the network. That the demographics of their audience is completely different from those who would watch Star Trek. 
Google the CBS fall lineup. They have sports, a couple sitcoms, Survivor, and a whole mess of police proceedurals. That's what they air. 
Putting Star Trek is like putting CSI or Real Housewives on SyFy. It's just not a good fit.



Richards said:


> Personally, for the shows I choose to watch, I pay no attention to whatever shows are on before or after the show I'm interested in watching.



That's great for you. 
But the people in charge of TV networks have to worry about that stuff. Because they have to cultivate an audience. Because they pay the bills through advertisements, which requires pairing ads with shows. You can't have a show aimed at 20-30 year olds with commercials aimed at 40-50 year olds. Your sponsors won't make money, and will go elsewhere. 
They want people who watch their channel to turn into multiple shows and not just watch one.

CBS isn't a good fit for Star Trek. They tried going against their demographics a couple years ago with Supergirl. And it didn't work well.

They do have other networks. 
Do you think Star Trek would be a better fit for the CW? Pair it with Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, or Arrow. I'm sure everyone is craving a Star Trek show about attractive 20yo with drama based on secrets. 
Maybe Showtime. Add some gratuitous nudity and heavy sexuality.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> Maybe Showtime. Add some gratuitous nudity and heavy sexuality.




Maybe HBO. They did start out pretty "Game of Thrones."


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> Maybe HBO. They did start out pretty "Game of Thrones."




Different network. That's owned by HBO not CBS.
Ditto SyFy, which is owned by NBC/Comcast.


----------



## Wolf72

Could live without the mutated klingons.  I grew up on TOS, but I like Work ... [typo! ... Meant Worf!] and that klingon style.

Wait? this is 10 years before the newest Trek movies? ... are they going to try to complete a story arc, or fall apart like Enterprise (it just really wonky and odd imo)?


----------



## trappedslider

'Star Trek: Discovery' debut led to record sign-ups for CBS's streaming service and  on the flip side ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Pilot Becomes One of the Most Pirated TV Episodes in Less Than 24 Hours


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"You take the good, you take the bad..."


----------



## Hussar

I can see why people are a bit taken aback at the new Klingons.  It did kinda make me raise an eyebrow as well.  One thing I'm not sure I like is the new Klingon space ships.  All chunky and blocky.  But, they did explain it in the show too, mentioning the warrior culture decorations and whatnot and especially with the Beacon at the beginning.  I'm kinda waffling back and forth whether it's something I like or not.

There was a bit back in Enterprise where they talked about some sort of genetic disease that was affecting Klingons and changing their appearance.  I wonder if this show ties in with that.

OTOH, I watched this on Netflix Japan.  So, I had to go into the subtitles menu.  I dunno about other places, but, here, it's sub'd in English, Japanese, Portuguese and *Klingon*.  How incredibly geeky is it that they subtitled the entire show in Klingon?  O.O


----------



## CapnZapp

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

trappedslider said:


> 'Star Trek: Discovery' debut led to record sign-ups for CBS's streaming service and  on the flip side ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Pilot Becomes One of the Most Pirated TV Episodes in Less Than 24 Hours



That last link doesn't work on the app, here's another:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/star-trek-discovery-is-getting-pirated-a-lot/
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> If there’s one thing about Klingons that is a constant, it’s that every iteration of them has competent redesigned them. This is the 4th design. There is no single Klingon appearance.
> 
> I like that they acknowledged that by saying each of the 24 houses looks different.




I rewatched both episodes last night. They really don't look appreciably different.


----------



## Richards

Jester David said:


> They want people who watch their channel to tune into multiple shows and not just watch one.



[Rolling Stones]"You can't always get what you want..."[/Rolling Stones]

Johnathan


----------



## Jester David

Richards said:


> [Rolling Stones]"You can't always get what you want..."[/Rolling Stones]
> 
> Johnathan




No. But you don't have to _actively help_ people not giving you what you want...


----------



## Hand of Evil

IF the ratings were good and then they see a drop on Access, they may move it back to the network, possibly during the off-season and on one of their sister networks.


----------



## MarkB

I liked it a lot. I particularly liked that the Klingons, while clearly the villains, were given a reasonably sympathetic motivation. This isn't the first show to explore the concept of the Federation as cultural imperialism, but it is the first to make it such a major focus, and it's a subject that feels more relevant than ever these days.


----------



## CapnZapp

MarkB said:


> I liked it a lot. I particularly liked that the Klingons, while clearly the villains, were given a reasonably sympathetic motivation. This isn't the first show to explore the concept of the Federation as cultural imperialism, but it is the first to make it such a major focus, and it's a subject that feels more relevant than ever these days.



It is nice that we get to understand the Klingons. They quite reasonably assume the Vulcans have told the Humans about their "Vulcan Welcome"!

The scene where Michelle Yeoh tries diplomacy and the Klingons go "...here it comes!" is priceless. 

You might think the Humans would have appreciated if the Vulcans clued them in to how Klingons interpret "We come in peace" as "You will be assimilated" 

I quite like how the show confirms the Vulcans as prissy a-holes, just as we knew all along! 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar

THinking about it, it also shows a very different side of the Vulcans.  The whole "logic" thing leads them to automatically destroy every single Klingon ship they meet until the Klingons decide that it's just not worth fighting the Vulcans.  One has to wonder though, if the Vulcans were THAT much more powerful than the Klingons, why aren't they running the galaxy?  It looks like Federation and Klingon ships are roughly on par, pound for pound.  Sure, the Federation gets beaten in the fight, but, they give a pretty darn good showing for themselves, managing to seriously damage or destroy several Klingon ships.

It makes you wonder what the Vulcan ships are like.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> The whole "logic" thing leads them to automatically destroy every single Klingon ship they meet until the Klingons decide that it's just not worth fighting the Vulcans.  One has to wonder though, if the Vulcans were THAT much more powerful than the Klingons, why aren't they running the galaxy?




They didn't say that. Only that the Vulcans started shooting first. The implication is "us Vulcans are not easy gullible targets", not "we could have killed you easy, we just chose not to - until you forced us to"

As for the Federation, it's established lore that Humans were essentially "uplifted" by Vulcans once we managed warp on our own. It's safe to assume we quickly caught up somewhat with Vulcan tech.

In the 2nd ep battle I'm getting the feeling Federation ships are perhaps 80-90% as strong as Klingons, with the difference mostly explained by "Klingon war spirit" rather than any technological disparity.

Cloaking didn't seem to play a role in the battle (except Admiral Stupid getting what's coming to him)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## MarkB

CapnZapp said:


> You might think the Humans would have appreciated if the Vulcans clued them in to how Klingons interpret "We come in peace" as "You will be assimilated"
> 
> I quite like how the show confirms the Vulcans as prissy a-holes, just as we knew all along!
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app



To be fair, the 'Vulcan Hello' is a specifically Vulcan solution to the problem, and Sarek does express his doubts that it will work for the Federation. The Vulcans, at least back in the old Star Trek: Enterprise days, were never out to win any popularity contests, so they could afford to take the most pragmatic approach. The Federation, on the other hand, very much are out to establish and maintain a particular reputation, and to them, it may be worth the cost of a ship, a fleet, or even a full-scale war to be seen not to be betraying their principles by becoming the aggressors.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> THinking about it, it also shows a very different side of the Vulcans.  The whole "logic" thing leads them to automatically destroy every single Klingon ship they meet until the Klingons decide that it's just not worth fighting the Vulcans.  One has to wonder though, if the Vulcans were THAT much more powerful than the Klingons, why aren't they running the galaxy?  It looks like Federation and Klingon ships are roughly on par, pound for pound.  Sure, the Federation gets beaten in the fight, but, they give a pretty darn good showing for themselves, managing to seriously damage or destroy several Klingon ships.
> 
> It makes you wonder what the Vulcan ships are like.



It mentions the Vulcans fire first, not that they destroy every Klingon ship. 
It's implying that taking a swing right away is like punching the biggest guy in prison: it earns you respect.



Hand of Evil said:


> IF the ratings were good and then they see a drop on Access, they may move it back to the network, possibly during the off-season and on one of their sister networks.



One thing that is going unsaid here is budget. 

The per-episode budget of _Discovery _was around $8 million. Making it one of the most expensive shows in TV history (right up there with _Westworld_. But they're justifying that as an investment because it's bringing people to its streaming platform. 

_Supergirl _had a budget of $3 million on CBS. So if Discovery moved onto the network for the second season, they'd probably trim down its budget to match that of other network shows. They'd have to literally _half _its budget. 
And if moved to the CW or a similar sister channel, the budget would be even lower. Again, like how _Supergirl_'s budget was slashed when it moved. 

So picture _Star Trek Discovery_ with a budget of $2 million per episode rather than $8...


----------



## Water Bob

I like how the Vulcans shot first, too.  It's not what you'd expect from those pacifist, veg-eaters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

So, is "H'an" Klingon for "Vulcan"?


----------



## Jester David

Trailer for the rest of the season: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKUDJKnxto


----------



## Jester David

So...
[sblock]
Blaming Burnham for the seems like an attempt at cheap drama. You have to *really* stretch to assign the blame to her. 

She killed a Klingon. But it was there to kill her. 
She landed on their probe. But that was a trap to draw in Starfleet ships. 
She was going to shoot first. But didn't actually, so the Klingons didn't know.

She cautioned the captain not to martyr the Klingon leader. And then killed him herself immediately afterwards. 
Okay... that's on her. But things would have unfolded the same without Burnham, as Captain Georgiou would have just continued to commit the war crime (booby trapping the body of a fallen soldier). 

Meanwhile, the Klingons lured the Starfleet ships to that region. They called allies. And then they rejected the request to talk _and_ fired first. Then they attacked during a brief cease fire using a cloaked ship as a weapon, deliberately killing a Starfleet Admiral. And they did the last three while Burnham was locked in the brig.

How exactly is it her fault?[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar

But, that's not what they pin on her, [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION].  They pin mutiny, assaulting an officer, and a couple of other charges.  The point being, she directly disobeyed orders, attacked her captain and tried to fire on another ship, in direct violation to Star Fleet regulations ("We do not fire first!").

I'm kinda curious how they actually figure out a way to get her back into a star ship.  I mean, regardless of whether you are right or not, when you do that sort of thing that should be the end of your career.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> I'm kinda curious how they actually figure out a way to get her back into a star ship.  I mean, regardless of whether you are right or not, when you do that sort of thing that should be the end of your career.




One obvious answer, which I hope they don't go with, is political nepotism. Sarek still believes in her, and would consider her confinement in prison a waste of resources. If the Federation find themselves in particular need of Vulcan expertise, Sarek could easily make Michael's reinstatement a condition of the deal.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> How exactly is it her fault?




She assaulted her captain and then mutinied. That’s what’s her fault.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, finally saw part of episode 1...because the football game that preceded it ran long.  I wasn't around to make my DVR grab the next show.  And there will be no rebroadcast because of CBS's planned business model.  Oh well.

Thoughts: 

1) I can see where they spent the money.  The show _looks_ like a movie.
2) The dialog was decent.  For those keeping score: two women were on-screen alone and did NOT talk about men or relationships.
3) Not a fan of the new look Klingons.


----------



## Water Bob

Jester David said:


> Trailer for the rest of the season:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKUDJKnxto




Looks fantastic.  I'll have to find a way to watch it.  Still not paying for CBS All Access.


----------



## Morrus

That new trailer looks fantastic. I can’t wait! New episode tomorrow!


----------



## Hand of Evil

Rotten Tomatoes Scoring vs The Orville


----------



## Water Bob

Hand of Evil said:


> Rotten Tomatoes Scoring vs The Orville




Call me a critic, then, because I loved the first episode of Discovery.  And, I couldn't take more than 15 minutes of Orville.


----------



## cmad1977

Water Bob said:


> Call me a critic, then, because I loved the first episode of Discovery.  And, I couldn't take more than 15 minutes of Orville.




It boils down to:
Klingons look different! Yuck! 
Vs
Fart jokes! Yay! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Water Bob

Who doesn't like a good fart joke?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Honestly, what I saw in the half-hour my DVR taped was good enough to make me watch the show if it were broadcast on CBS.  I didn't like the appearance of the Klingons, but they still _seemed_ right overall.

So you could count me as "a fan, but..."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Water Bob said:


> Who doesn't like a good fart joke?




Fartacus?


----------



## CapnZapp

I note there's a new episode and all the thread wants to discuss is The Orville...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

cmad1977 said:


> It boils down to:
> Klingons look different! Yuck!
> Vs
> Fart jokes! Yay! k




Well close, but not quite, at least where I'm concerned. It's Klingons are different for no reason, look like they're wearing rubber masks and Regency chandeliers, and can't act through the make-up. No attempt was made to make the ships look period, when we were promised "Original Trek." The esthetic of the sets is decidedly Kelvin-verse, which I hated. Universe continuity has been broken in innumerable ways.

vs.

A ST:TNG esthetic with Trek-style stories, coupled with  a humorous dialogue.

I caught a few minutes of the fourth episode of Discovery, but couldn't watch it all at the time. I've PVRed it and will watch it tonight but, given the slice of it I saw, that will likely be the last time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Water Bob said:


> Who doesn't like a good fart joke?




I believe to be not above any form of "low-brow" humor, but I can't help but feeling that there joke timing isn't all that bad.
They just often don't really fit well into the story. Farscape (or maybe a more watched show, Stargate) did have a lot of humor, too, but it integrated better. 

I think that's something they really need to work on.


----------



## Ryujin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I believe to be not above any form of "low-brow" humor, but I can't help but feeling that there joke timing isn't all that bad.
> They just often don't really fit well into the story. Farscape (or maybe a more watched show, Stargate) did have a lot of humor, too, but it integrated better.
> 
> I think that's something they really need to work on.




I think that they'll eventually work out the timing. The 3rd and 4th episodes were noticeably better than the first two. And who doesn't like, "Could you open this jar of pickles for me?"


----------



## Morrus

CapnZapp said:


> I note there's a new episode and all the thread wants to discuss is The Orville...




Gimme chance! It's a day later on Netflix. I'll be watching it shortly.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ryujin said:


> the fourth episode of Discovery



There are four episodes of the Orville and three of Discovery. 



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I believe to be not above any form of "low-brow" humor, but I can't help but feeling that there joke timing isn't all that bad.






Ryujin said:


> The 3rd and 4th episodes were noticeably better than the first two.




There's a thread for the Orville, y'know...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

Okay, so with ep 3 things are getting a bit more clear. Random observations:



SPOILERS 

* Last ep ended on the promise of showing the "seedy underbelly" of the Federation. A prison mine? How will she escape? Will she meet someone she'll bring with her...

...and then it took a whole ten seconds to do away with all that promise... 

Of course I realize she would reach the Discovery this ep, but I did hope "let it not be she's personally picked by the captain, let it not be she's personally picked by the captain"... and then they went all she's personally picked by the captain...

* the captain might have made his "not evil" speech at the end... but he's evil, alright...

* isn't this story overdone? I must say the "we're at war, let's make moral compromise" is "edgy Trek", and I wonder if MacFarlane isn't onto something - that what we want is classic idealistic optimistic Trek...

* not sure I like distrust between crew members. Sure it's realistic, but that doesn't mean I like it. Cast intros were either hostile or stupidly naive. That makes a good first impression much harder.

* the male friendship / partners were incredibly weak-sauce. We got two seconds of fuzzy avatar head and then the meatblender to help us feel the tech officer's loss...

* please don't say they're aware we want brightly lit sets, and went ahead and made up a story reason why they won't give it to us?

* is it just me or is it blindingly obvious that the super-weapon won't work and can't be allowed to work? Why not ditch that stupid story and focus on something they might actually pull off. Isn't Trek about us sharing into the hopefulness of the crew?

In summary: good sci-fi action but not necessarily a better Trek experience than the maligned movies...

...in stark contrast to that other show, which gets a decidedly better audience approval rate. Go figure.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

CapnZapp said:


> There are four episodes of the Orville and three of Discovery.




Sorry, meant 3rd, but had just finished typing 4th for The Orville.



CapnZapp said:


> Okay, so with ep 3 things are getting a bit more clear. Random observations:
> 
> 
> 
> SPOILERS
> 
> * Last ep ended on the promise of showing the "seedy underbelly" of the Federation. A prison mine? How will she escape? Will she meet someone she'll bring with her...
> 
> ...and then it took a whole ten seconds to do away with all that promise...
> 
> Of course I realize she would reach the Discovery this ep, but I did hope "let it not be she's personally picked by the captain, let it not be she's personally picked by the captain"... and then they went all she's personally picked by the captain...
> 
> * the captain might have made his "not evil" speech at the end... but he's evil, alright...
> 
> * isn't this story overdone? I must say the "we're at war, let's make moral compromise" is "edgy Trek", and I wonder if MacFarlane isn't onto something - that what we want is classic idealistic optimistic Trek...
> 
> * not sure I like distrust between crew members. Sure it's realistic, but that doesn't mean I like it. Cast intros were either hostile or stupidly naive. That makes a good first impression much harder.
> 
> * the male friendship / partners were incredibly weak-sauce. We got two seconds of fuzzy avatar head and then the meatblender to help us feel the tech officer's loss...
> 
> * please don't say they're aware we want brightly lit sets, and went ahead and made up a story reason why they won't give it to us?
> 
> * is it just me or is it blindingly obvious that the super-weapon won't work and can't be allowed to work? Why not ditch that stupid story and focus on something they might actually pull off. Isn't Trek about us sharing into the hopefulness of the crew?
> 
> In summary: good sci-fi action but not necessarily a better Trek experience than the maligned movies...
> 
> ...in stark contrast to that other show, which gets a decidedly better audience approval rate. Go figure.
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




Interesting that I got the feel of much of that, from just the few minutes I saw of last night's episode. After seeing the first two episodes something was tugging at the back of my mind, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Because I've been a Trekkie (-er?) since the show first came on the air, back in the '60s, I gave the premiere episodes another chance over the weekend. (The Canadian SciFi network SPACE has been pushing it hard and showed them two or three more times over the weekend). With that second viewing it finally struck me what had been bothering me about them; The Federation doesn't shoot first BUT they are fully willing to commit a war crime in order to end a fight.


----------



## Morrus

Watched it!

Interesting episode. This is really the first episode. The previous two were just a prologue.

I liked the focus on shipboard life, on normal crew not just the command crew, the feel of the ship  (it felt like a real, busy, operational vessel). 

Special effects were gorgeous. I know some people aren’t so keen on the tech looking prettier than TOS, but TOS tech looks silly these days. At some point, you have to just accept the franchise can’t stick with 1960s prop and set design forever. 

The plot? Not so sure. There are space slides which let you transport a person or a ship anywhere in the universe? And they’re connected to some kind of space dinosaur they keep in a cage? I didn’t quite get that. Maybe I should watch it again.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> And they’re connected to some kind of space dinosaur they keep in a cage? I didn’t quite get that. Maybe I should watch it again.



I guess any excuses works.


----------



## MarkB

Morrus said:


> The plot? Not so sure. There are space slides which let you transport a person or a ship anywhere in the universe? And they’re connected to some kind of space dinosaur they keep in a cage? I didn’t quite get that. Maybe I should watch it again.




I wasn't quite sure from the way it was shown whether Burnham was actually being transported all over the cosmos, or just shown a slide-show of 'memories' from places the spores had been.

On the other hand, if personal transportation is possible, then one adverse side-effect of such an experiment going awry might be the inadvertent transportation of some creature from elsewhere into the ship.


----------



## Hussar

I'm not entirely sure I liked the 3rd ep.  Some good, bad and very bad.

The Good: 

Yup, I agree with [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION],  this show is freaking GORGEOUS.  And, it's probably the hardest SF version of Trek to date.  I kinda like that they're giving it a more hard SF look.  Yup, the sets are too damn dark.  Grr.  Hopefully that will shift later on.  

Michael is a badass.  I do love the scene where she kicks the crap out of the convicts.  Although, that being said, she's appearing to be a LOT more emotional and a lot less Vulcan in this episode.  Guess it makes sense.  Just a big shift in how I saw the character.

The interplay between Saru and Michael.  That's a great dynamic.  You can tell Saru truly respects Michael but, also doesn't trust her and blames her for the death of the Captain.  I realy look forward to seeing how this plays out.

"Did he just shush us?"  is probably the best line I've heard in a long, long time.

The Bad:

Ok, why did we have the prison transport scene?  Three throwaway characters for Michael to put the slippers to?  

Curly Haired Barklay - come on.  Massive allergies and some pretty serious personal issues gets to be a Star Fleet officer?  Gimme a break.  Think about it - why wouldn't that have been something during her initial training and medical workup?  Seriously, do we really need awkward socially inept geek character?  Ah well, at least they didn't make her a kid.

The Ugly:

The captain is a bad guy?  Really?  We're going to go there?  

And, exactly why did they blow up an entire star ship?  Umm, that's a pretty expensive piece of equipment there and you folks just turned it into ash because ... reasons?  How about funerals for the crew?  Next of kin?  And, why the hell does the captain have a Predator esque trophy room of alien bits?  

-----

Although, if you think about it, this could tie into the new Trek movies.  How did Khan transport from planet to planet?  Well, maybe this will explain that.  And possibly explain why we don't do it.  Of course, the whole accident thing turning you inside out might be a clue.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Although, if you think about it, this could tie into the new Trek movies.  How did Khan transport from planet to planet?  Well, maybe this will explain that.  And possibly explain why we don't do it.  Of course, the whole accident thing turning you inside out might be a clue.




Given that Discovery is not (to my knowledge) set in the Kelvin timeline, a direct correlation is unlikely. And the explanation from the movies is perfectly sufficient: It's an advanced application of Transporter technology based upon future knowledge, that is still highly classified.


----------



## Hand of Evil

Hussar said:


> And, exactly why did they blow up an entire star ship?



Because that is what they do these days in Star Trek.


----------



## Ryujin

Hand of Evil said:


> Because that is what they do these days in Star Trek.




The difference here is that they didn't blow up the ship that they were on.


----------



## CapnZapp

When are they gonna learn adding major new pieces of technology (or empires, or races) in a PREQUEL doesn't work? 

Stupid body horror tech aside, this idea won't work, on any level:

In-universe, since we haven't heard about stupidly powerful galaxy-wide personal transport. 

As a show, since this capability would negate the very premises Trek is built on: why have ships going anywhere if man could just zip there?

And as televised entertainment, when we KNOW the tech is gonna fail eventually, and to do so in such a fashion it is never spoken of again.

The best thing they could do at this point is to have a nice little story arc, and then kill off the tech and the captain in two episodes, so Saru can assume command, and we can go back to this being a Star Trek show.

---

I do see the appeal of exploring the morality of using a new cool but "edgy" tech to win a war.

But couldn't they have used a Trek tech that later would be clearly established? It would have been so much more satisfying if the experimental tech in question was something later shows had perfected.

Rather than some mumbo jumbo bio soup thing that is clearly too powerful for this show... You would have something not easily dismissed: where we in the audience go "could this actually work...?"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> Well close, but not quite, at least where I'm concerned. It's Klingons are different for no reason, look like they're wearing rubber masks and Regency chandeliers, and can't act through the make-up. No attempt was made to make the ships look period, when we were promised "Original Trek." The esthetic of the sets is decidedly Kelvin-verse, which I hated. Universe continuity has been broken in innumerable ways.
> vs.
> A ST:TNG esthetic with Trek-style stories, coupled with  a humorous dialogue.



That's my take-away. The Klingons had so much crap in their mouths they could barely talk but had to recite lengthy passages of Klingon text. So even though they used the classic Klingon language it sounded different.
It's not that they couldn't have tweaked the Klingon make-up and costuming. Done an update. But that only needed a 5 in effort. Or a 4. And they went to 11. 

I haven't seen the third episode yet. It's on the PVR but my wife - a TNG fan - did a hard pass after seeing the Klingon make-up on the trailer. I pushed her to watch the pilot episodes, but she was not wowed. And I only have so much time alone to watch TV without her. Really, that's limited to stuff I can watch with my son or stuff on Netflix I can watch on the treadmill at the gym. It will be weeks before I can catch up on Discovery. 


The Orville was silly and clearly meant to have wacky comedy stylings (rather than Stargate or other Trek shows where the comedy was more grounded. More... high comedy). But it also managed some very classic Trek-style high concept one-off episodes and did them fairly effectively. In contrast, Discovery managed to have three pilots over three episodes and is only just getting started. And two of the three were a prolonged story on how the Federation and Klingon Empire started a war. 

I like the concept of a show dealing with how Starfleet fights a war. The conflict between a nation of explorers and scientists trying to wage a war. That's neat, and wasn't touched on much in DS9. But it works best when you've already established the norm. How Starfleet was and the peaceful exploration aspect hasn't been seen in a decade. And I'm kinda gagging for happy optimistic television and Trek at the moment...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

If I understand correctly, the "crap in their mouth" might not be the only thing that is causing it to sound differently - they are also working harder to not just use Klingon words, but also get the grammar right. Apparently that wasn't much focused on in earlier shows, and it's indeed relatively rare to actually hear full Klingon dialog there.


----------



## Ryujin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If I understand correctly, the "crap in their mouth" might not be the only thing that is causing it to sound differently - they are also working harder to not just use Klingon words, but also get the grammar right. Apparently that wasn't much focused on in earlier shows, and it's indeed relatively rare to actually hear full Klingon dialog there.




No, there's definitely some obstruction of proper speech going on. You can hear the lisp and slush that comes from having your mouth constrained. That's in addition to the monotone delivery.


----------



## Jester David

Question for people who have seen episode 3: 

Do you think it should have been the pilot. With the events of the previous two episodes instead revealed via flashbacks?
Would that be better or worse as a show? Or too _Lost_/_Arrow_?


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> Question for people who have seen episode 3:
> 
> Do you think it should have been the pilot. With the events of the previous two episodes instead revealed via flashbacks?
> Would that be better or worse as a show? Or too _Lost_/_Arrow_?




I can’t stand flashbacks. 

I think it’s just fine as it is.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> Question for people who have seen episode 3:
> 
> Do you think it should have been the pilot. With the events of the previous two episodes instead revealed via flashbacks?
> Would that be better or worse as a show? Or too _Lost_/_Arrow_?




I doubt that would have been as effective. I think we needed to see how far Michael fell in order to appreciate where she is at the start of episode 3.

And we needed to see what the Federation are up against in order to appreciate Discovery's mission more as a matter of desperation than simply blind ambition.


----------



## Hussar

Besides, with the two part pilot, we got some FANTASTIC stuff.  A seriously cool stand alone story.  Sure, that meant that Ep 3 was a bit... err... slow?  Because now they have to introduce the characters, instead of focusing on the plot like they could in the Pilot.  I mean, did anyone other than Saru, the captain and Michael even have names in the Pilot?  Did anyone on the bridge have names?  I'm sure they did, but, since they aren't one Discovery, they certainly aren't worth much screen time.

And, it does make the redemption arc storyline a lot more immediate.  Instead of the constant back and forth of basically trying to tell two stories at the same time, in the vein of Arrow or Lost, now you have a nice straightline continuity.  Actually, I find it rather refreshing to be honest.  Pretty much every TV show now uses flashbacks to tell two stories at the same time.  This does make Discovery stand out a bit.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> Did anyone on the bridge have names?



Ensign Daft Punk?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

CapnZapp said:


> Ensign Daft Punk?




And they referred to the guy from Bespin by name.


----------



## Morrus

Episode 4. Here we go!


----------



## Morrus

Well.

It’s a tardigrade.

Klingons eat people.

Birds of Prey!


----------



## MarkB

As cool names for science fictional propulsion systems go, "spore drive" ranks pretty low, somewhere below Farscape's Hench Drive. I also can't really get on board with the whole concept of there being a galaxy-spanning network of fungus that serves as a means of instant transportation.

Since we don't end up with a setting where warp drive and transporters have been replaced with mushrooms, I'm guessing Lorca's crew are going to wind up breaking the mycellium network in some fashion by the end of the series.


----------



## Morrus

MarkB said:


> As cool names for science fictional propulsion systems go, "spore drive" ranks pretty low, somewhere below Farscape's Hench Drive. I also can't really get on board with the whole concept of there being a galaxy-spanning network of fungus that serves as a means of instant transportation.
> 
> Since we don't end up with a setting where warp drive and transporters have been replaced with mushrooms, I'm guessing Lorca's crew are going to wind up breaking the mycellium network in some fashion by the end of the series.




Either that, or the tardigrades are limited. If they're needed to navigate, they could be a limiting factor.


----------



## MarkB

Morrus said:


> Either that, or the tardigrades are limited. If they're needed to navigate, they could be a limiting factor.




Alternatively - if the tardigrades are a lifeform adapted to feeding from and navigating the mycellium network, maybe it's just one tiny example of a vast, extremely hostile ecosystem. After all, this is a herbivorous creature that is only hostile in self-defense, and yet it has claws capable of ripping through hullmetal and a hide that can shrug off phaser fire. If the tardigrade had to evolve those levels of defense mechanisms, what does the apex predator in this ecosystem look like?


----------



## Morrus

MarkB said:


> Alternatively - if the tardigrades are a lifeform adapted to feeding from and navigating the mycellium network, maybe it's just one tiny example of a vast, extremely hostile ecosystem. After all, this is a herbivorous creature that is only hostile in self-defense, and yet it has claws capable of ripping through hullmetal and a hide that can shrug off phaser fire. If the tardigrade had to evolve those levels of defense mechanisms, what does the apex predator in this ecosystem look like?




I think they're just riffing off the (real) tardigrade's famous ability to survive just about anywhere. Its one of the most resilient species in the real world and can withstand almost anything.


----------



## Deset Gled

Jester David said:


> Question for people who have seen episode 3:
> 
> Do you think it should have been the pilot. With the events of the previous two episodes instead revealed via flashbacks?
> Would that be better or worse as a show? Or too _Lost_/_Arrow_?




IMNSHO the previous two episodes could have been condensed to one, and episode three would have been better as an episode 2.  The most obvious stuff to cut was everything told from the Klingon point of view.  That method of storytelling is does not fit in with past Trek (our POV matches the crew, it is not omniscient), and those parts of the story could have been told better by later doing an entire episode shown from the Klingon POV or a history episode.

Also, to be quite frank, I don't care for the long, serialized plot of Klingon war.  I prefer my Star Trek to be episodic, and I like it to be based on exploration and science.  Spending the first three episodes on the same war drama does not appeal to me.

But, in the end, the biggest benefit of doing a web based show rather than a broadcast show is that its easier for the audience to experience a season as a single piece.  The studio doesn't have to worry as much about the ratings of each individual episode, and they can assume more story retention between episodes.  So I should probably just be quiet and judge the season as a whole rather than complaining.


----------



## Deset Gled

MarkB said:


> As cool names for science fictional propulsion systems go, "spore drive" ranks pretty low, somewhere below Farscape's Hench Drive. I also can't really get on board with the whole concept of there being a galaxy-spanning network of fungus that serves as a means of instant transportation.
> 
> Since we don't end up with a setting where warp drive and transporters have been replaced with mushrooms, I'm guessing Lorca's crew are going to wind up breaking the mycellium network in some fashion by the end of the series.




Aside from the problems mentioned above, "instantaneous" transport doesn't appeal to me because we've seen it before.  TNG encountered an ancient "lost" tech that could transport farther an faster than transporters, and Voyager found another one in the delta quadrant.  And that's just the ones I remembered while watching the Discovery episode.  I'm sure there are more.  It never sticks; it can't stick; it's boring.


----------



## Ryujin

Jump drive fungus with truffle-snuffling Tarti-pigs? Better and better.


----------



## Hussar

Personally, I think the fact that they are torturing a living being to use the spore drive is probably going to be the larger issue.  Particularly since the Tardigrade's are shown to be pretty darn intelligent (it has all the star charts in its brain!) and I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that aspect is the reason the spore drive is abandoned.  The whole enslavement of an intelligent race thing would make a pretty good reason for Star Fleet not to use it.

That or Michael mutinies one more time, destroys the spore drive and makes sure no one else can figure it out somehow.

That or they go really dark and using the spore drive kills every tardigrade somehow.  Federation genocide FTW.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Personally, I think the fact that they are torturing a living being to use the spore drive is probably going to be the larger issue.  Particularly since the Tardigrade's are shown to be pretty darn intelligent (it has all the star charts in its brain!) and I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that aspect is the reason the spore drive is abandoned.  The whole enslavement of an intelligent race thing would make a pretty good reason for Star Fleet not to use it.




Starfleet, yes. But it wouldn't bother the Klingons, Romulans or Cardassians.

In any case, the beast is just serving as an organic supercomputer. Eliminating it from the equation wouldn't result in the whole project being scrapped - merely placed on the back-burner until computing technology improved to the point where regular ships' computers could handle the task.


----------



## Hussar

MarkB said:


> Starfleet, yes. But it wouldn't bother the Klingons, Romulans or Cardassians.
> 
> In any case, the beast is just serving as an organic supercomputer. Eliminating it from the equation wouldn't result in the whole project being scrapped - merely placed on the back-burner until computing technology improved to the point where regular ships' computers could handle the task.




Well, fair enough, I'm obviously not privy to any insider information.

But, I'm going to stand by my prediction.  This is going to get very strongly tied into the Prime Directive, which, at least in the show, doesn't exist yet - it's General Order 1.  I wonder if they will play up the fact that there are some differences between them.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> Well, fair enough, I'm obviously not privy to any insider information.
> 
> But, I'm going to stand by my prediction.  This is going to get very strongly tied into the Prime Directive, which, at least in the show, doesn't exist yet - it's General Order 1.  I wonder if they will play up the fact that there are some differences between them.




I'm failing to remember exactly when, but the "Prime Directive" has been referred to as "General Order One" before "Discovery." I'm thinking that it was in TOS, but can't find a reference. Maybe it was "A Private Little War"?


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> Well, fair enough, I'm obviously not privy to any insider information.
> 
> But, I'm going to stand by my prediction.  This is going to get very strongly tied into the Prime Directive, which, at least in the show, doesn't exist yet - it's General Order 1.  I wonder if they will play up the fact that there are some differences between them.



It's the same rule. General Order 1 is the official name. Prime Directive is effectively slang.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ryujin said:


> Jump drive fungus with truffle-snuffling Tarti-pigs? Better and better.



Sigh

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

MarkB said:


> As cool names for science fictional propulsion systems go, "spore drive" ranks pretty low, somewhere below Farscape's Hench Drive. I also can't really get on board with the whole concept of there being a galaxy-spanning network of fungus that serves as a means of instant transportation.
> 
> Since we don't end up with a setting where warp drive and transporters have been replaced with mushrooms, I'm guessing Lorca's crew are going to wind up breaking the mycellium network in some fashion by the end of the series.



Which is monumentally disappointing. 

Just like the Zanthi or whatever they were called in Enterprise.

Note to every prequel writer: stay the frak away from completely new tech, or races, or events.

The very fact we haven't heard about them before means the storyline will always end in a wet whimper. Why couldn't they have written a positive optimistic story about how one of Treks existing trademark techs came about to be? The ship having adventure to create transports, phasers, photon torpedoes, tricorders?

Together with the underwhelming music intro, the bafflingly inept Klingon costumes, the is-the-captain-maybe-evil thing, and no bridge crew working together, it's almost time to abandon this series.

And what was it about killing off the cool security chief?!? Please tell me they had to write out the character, and not that they had the chief go full retard just to make the "make friends, not war" point! :-( :-( :-( 

The hippie gaia tech makes me retch. The casual way logic is thrown out the window makes me think of the films (and not in a good way).

This last ep isn't winning me over.

In stark contrast, I'm looking forward to the next Orville very much.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Mallus

FYI... "tardi-pig" has replaced "Ensign Daft Punk" as my favorite piece of Discovery-based snark. 

The 4th episode was uneven, but the end half (third?) was outright thrilling. Loved Lorca's manipulative-yet-truthful ship-wide broadcast and the fantastic bit at the end with Georgiou's holo-will. Are Lorca and Discovery the beginnings of Section 31, i.e. is it named *for* his ship? 

Discovery is an odd mix of obvious and unpredictable - I honestly don't know what's coming next (and can't wait to find out). It does bears the marks of its troubled development, but the result is far more compelling than I expected. Potentially unpopular opinion: so far this is easily the strongest first season of a Star Trek series since TOS.


----------



## MarkB

CapnZapp said:


> Note to every prequel writer: stay the frak away from completely new tech, or races, or events.




Personally, my "note to every prequel writer" would be "stop writing prequels - look to the future, not to nostalgia."

Still, I'm still enjoying this series. It feels like it knows where it's going, and I'm interested to find out.


----------



## Mallus

CapnZapp said:


> Why couldn't they have written a positive optimistic story about how one of Treks existing trademark techs came about to be? The ship having adventure to create transports, phasers, photon torpedoes, tricorders?



It would be challenging to write positive, optimistic stories about the genesis of phasers & photon torpedos. They're weapons of mass destruction (the ship-mounted versions, at least). 



> The hippie gaia tech makes me retch.



There's precedent for that sort of organic technology, though: the giant space bacteria, Species 867-5309 (sp) and Fluid Space, etc. I also kinda liked that way spore-demo recalled the Iconian gates, as if to suggest they shared a common underlying technology.  



> The casual way logic is thrown out the window makes me think of the films (and not in a good way).



I didn't like Angry Tory Foster dropping the containment field, but thinking back the issue was the direction; scene's too short. We see the bio-monitors dropping & hear the computer state the knockout protocol worked, but the action moved too fast not to seem reckless & illogical.   



> In stark contrast, I'm looking forward to the next Orville very much.



It's surprisingly good, isn't it? Better than Seth McFarlane's direct-from-video-to-video sequel to ST:TNG has any right being (and I like Seth).


----------



## Hussar

Mallus said:


> FYI... "tardi-pig" has replaced "Ensign Daft Punk" as my favorite piece of Discovery-based snark.
> 
> The 4th episode was uneven, but the end half (third?) was outright thrilling. Loved Lorca's manipulative-yet-truthful ship-wide broadcast and the fantastic bit at the end with Georgiou's holo-will. Are Lorca and Discovery the beginnings of Section 31, i.e. is it named *for* his ship?
> 
> Discovery is an odd mix of obvious and unpredictable - I honestly don't know what's coming next (and can't wait to find out). It does bears the marks of its troubled development, but the result is far more compelling than I expected. Potentially unpopular opinion: so far this is easily the strongest first season of a Star Trek series since TOS.




That I would very much agree with.  Certainly best first season.  Although, to be fair, that's a REALLY low bar.  

And, pretty much everything [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] hates, I love.


----------



## CapnZapp

Mallus said:


> Loved Lorca's manipulative-yet-truthful ship-wide broadcast



A good example of going against everything we love about Trek. Simple manipulative bullying.

That doesn't mean I think it's outright bad, it just moves the captain closer to the "evil" position, and it reinforces my growing belief that I need to resign myself to the show being much more of generic action sci-fi than actual Star Trek, just like the films.

Discovery isn't an outright bad sci-fi show (even though the ugly writing that was the XOs stupid death pushes it), but it doesn't come close to pushing the correct Trek buttons for me.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

MarkB said:


> Personally, my "note to every prequel writer" would be "stop writing prequels



Ain't it true! 



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

Mallus said:


> There's precedent.



I am well aware Star Trek has had its share of the silly and the stupid before.

That doesn't justify having it again, though...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> And, pretty much everything [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] hates, I love.



Assuming you want a reply since you both quote and mention:

As I said much of what I "hate" is from a Trek perspective. 

Certain things is just plain bad (death of XO) but what sci-fi show is perfect? 

Other aspects are fine - for a sci-fi show in general. Such as egotistical manipulative crew members. A "dark" theme. Or a focus on a single protagonist. 

So as long as you don't specifically like how Discovery is taking a crap on everything Star Trek stands/used to stand for, I don't have anything especially interesting to add.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> A good example of going against everything we love about Trek. Simple manipulative bullying.
> 
> That doesn't mean I think it's outright bad, it just moves the captain closer to the "evil" position, and it reinforces my growing belief that I need to resign myself to the show being much more of generic action sci-fi than actual Star Trek, just like the films.
> 
> Discovery isn't an outright bad sci-fi show (even though the ugly writing that was the XOs stupid death pushes it), but it doesn't come close to pushing the correct Trek buttons for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




I take it you're very, very much in the Roddenberry camp of "no conflict in the crew"?

To me, that makes for an unbelievably boring TV show.  I actually took the time to rewatch all the Star Trek series from TOS to Voyager (skipped Enterprise, heh) before Discovery came out.  Watching those shows after a very long hiatus has made me realize that a very, very large swath of the ST series were not to my taste.  Endless board meetings around tables does not make for interesting viewing for me.  There's an awful lot of dross out there in the Tv shows. 

Having flawed characters makes the series so much more enjoyable for me.  Is it "taking a crap" on all things Star Trek?  Meh, don't care.  Could not care in the slightest about tradition.  Never did.  It's just not even remotely a consideration for me when judging something.


----------



## Morrus

It’s tone is Wrath of Khan not TNG. As WoK is my favourite Trek film, and my go-to for what I consider to be Trek, it’s working for me.  Wrath of Khan is totally different to TOS is totally different to The Voyage Home (my second favourite Trek) is totally different to DS9 is totally different to TMP.

Trek is different things to different people. I love WoK and TVH, which are a dark sci-fi military/naval drama and a (then) light-hearted contemporary comedy, respectively. Both utterly different to each other. 

I didn't get into Voyager, and didn’t think DS9 was nearly as good as most seem to. Discovery is better than either of those things, IMO. And I found Enterprise to be pretty weak.


----------



## MarkB

CapnZapp said:


> Assuming you want a reply since you both quote and mention:
> 
> As I said much of what I "hate" is from a Trek perspective.
> 
> Certain things is just plain bad (death of XO) but what sci-fi show is perfect?
> 
> Other aspects are fine - for a sci-fi show in general. Such as egotistical manipulative crew members. A "dark" theme. Or a focus on a single protagonist.
> 
> So as long as you don't specifically like how Discovery is taking a crap on everything Star Trek stands/used to stand for, I don't have anything especially interesting to add.




Um, have you seen the original series lately? Pretty much every single guest-star member of Starfleet were egotists who would have made the _Discovery_'s captain and crew look like paragons of virtue and competence by comparison. And this is the series that popularised the concept of "redshirts". Killing someone off to illustrate the wrong approach was pretty much its go-to move.


----------



## Mallus

Hussar said:


> Although, to be fair, that's a REALLY low bar.



Yeah... I wouldn't want to limbo under it, that's for sure. 

One of these days I need to revisit the first season of DS9. My hazy memory of it is it was kinda interesting, but mostly dull, until they began the long lead up the the Dominion War.


----------



## Mallus

MarkB said:


> Pretty much every single guest-star member of Starfleet were egotists who would have made the _Discovery_'s captain and crew look like paragons of virtue and competence by comparison.



Paging Dr. Richard Daystrom... 

Paging Captain Ron Tracy...

Paging Doctor Roger Corby... 

Paging evil shrink guy from "The Dagger of the Mind"...

And so on. Many mistakes were made in the early days of the Federation.


----------



## Mallus

CapnZapp said:


> A good example of going against everything we love about Trek. Simple manipulative bullying.



I agree that's one way to read the scene.

On the other hand, it's also Lorca *motivating* his crew to accomplish a very Federation-like goal: saving unarmed colonists under attack. And he doesn't berate or threaten the entire crew (well, just Stamets), all he does is play the colonists desperate pleas for help; he makes it clear what's at stake. 

I won't call it subtle, but I do think it works, and in part because the way you read it is also valid.

edit: what do you think of Captain Georgiou's will-soliloquy? To me that's quintessential idealist Trek.


----------



## MarkB

Mallus said:


> One of these days I need to revisit the first season of DS9. My hazy memory of it is it was kinda interesting, but mostly dull, until they began the long lead up the the Dominion War.




The two-part pilot is very good as pilot episodes go, and really sets the themes the series would thrive on in later seasons. Aside from that, there are maybe a couple of gems, but it's very uneven - it took them the better part of two seasons to really get away from the episodic nature of previous shows and start telling larger storylines.


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> Paging Dr. Richard Daystrom...
> 
> Paging Captain Ron Tracy...
> 
> Paging Doctor Roger Corby...
> 
> Paging evil shrink guy from "The Dagger of the Mind"...
> 
> And so on. Many mistakes were made in the early days of the Federation.




All of whom were shown as aberrations and dealt with as such.


----------



## Mallus

Ryujin said:


> All of whom were shown as aberrations and dealt with as such.



They were aberrations that popped up every two or three weeks! And in Daystrom's case, enough of his reputation remained after the M-5 incident that he still got an institute named after him. 

I think the thing to remember is we're still in Act 1. This is going to play out over the course of entire season, not a single hour episode. I'm fairly sure Lorca will be dealt with in a way the honors the idealistic spirit of Star Trek by the end. I'd put 20 quatloos on it!


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> They were aberrations that popped up every two or three weeks! And in Daystrom's case, enough of his reputation remained after the M-5 incident that he still got an institute named after him.
> 
> I think the thing to remember is we're still in Act 1. This is going to play out over the course of entire season, not a single hour episode. I'm fairly sure Lorca will be dealt with in a way the honors the idealistic spirit of Star Trek by the end. I'd put 20 quatloos on it!




Three seasons of TOS and you name 4; some of them not Starfleet. I'd say that's not a very bad record.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> I take it you're very, very much in the Roddenberry camp of "no conflict in the crew"?
> 
> To me, that makes for an unbelievably boring TV show.  I actually took the time to rewatch all the Star Trek series from TOS to Voyager (skipped Enterprise, heh) before Discovery came out.  Watching those shows after a very long hiatus has made me realize that a very, very large swath of the ST series were not to my taste.  Endless board meetings around tables does not make for interesting viewing for me.  There's an awful lot of dross out there in the Tv shows.
> 
> Having flawed characters makes the series so much more enjoyable for me.  Is it "taking a crap" on all things Star Trek?  Meh, don't care.  Could not care in the slightest about tradition.  Never did.  It's just not even remotely a consideration for me when judging something.



Thank you for enabling me to put an appropriate value on your continued comments.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## MarkB

Ryujin said:


> Three seasons of TOS and you name 4; some of them not Starfleet. I'd say that's not a very bad record.




Where did anyone say that it was all the examples available in three seasons? For that matter, can you name more than four major guest-star Starfleet characters in those three seasons who weren't either power-hungry or delusional or incompetent?


----------



## CapnZapp

MarkB said:


> Um, have you seen the original series lately? Pretty much every single guest-star member of Starfleet were egotists who would have made the _Discovery_'s captain and crew look like paragons of virtue and competence by comparison. And this is the series that popularised the concept of "redshirts". Killing someone off to illustrate the wrong approach was pretty much its go-to move.



If what you're trying to say is you believe Captain Orca is such a guest-star that's excellent. 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## CapnZapp

Mallus said:


> I agree that's one way to read the scene.
> 
> On the other hand, it's also Lorca *motivating* his crew to accomplish a very Federation-like goal: saving unarmed colonists under attack. And he doesn't berate or threaten the entire crew (well, just Stamets), all he does is play the colonists desperate pleas for help; he makes it clear what's at stake.
> 
> I won't call it subtle, but I do think it works, and in part because the way you read it is also valid.




It's good you don't deny the difference: yes, he's motivating them, but the crucial thing is HOW and who he hurts by his choice of motivational delivery.

I never said he didn't succeed in his motivational attempt. I wasn't critiquing his success rate.


> edit: what do you think of Captain Georgiou's will-soliloquy? To me that's quintessential idealist Trek.



Yeah, except she's dead and he ain't. I see your point but it's not a strong one ;-) 

Quintessential idealist Trek isn't just about dying by your ideals, it's also winning by your ideals.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

MarkB said:


> Where did anyone say that it was all the examples available in three seasons? For that matter, can you name more than four major guest-star Starfleet characters in those three seasons who weren't either power-hungry or delusional or incompetent?




Christopher Pike (The Managerie)
The Illusion of Commodore Mendez (The Managerie)
The tribunal members at Kirk's trial, specifically Portmaster Stone (Court Marshal)
Areel Shaw (Court Marshal)

Being power hungry, incompetent, or in some way mentally altered doesn't break the Roddenberry Rule.


----------



## Mallus

Ryujin said:


> Three seasons of TOS and you name 4; some of them not Starfleet. I'd say that's not a very bad record.



I named 4 off the top of my head while simultaneously dealing with an issue at work! And I'm still kicking myself for missing Kodos the Executioner, who was a Federation colonial governor, right? Should I continue?


----------



## Mallus

CapnZapp said:


> It's good you don't deny the difference: yes, he's motivating them, but the crucial thing is HOW and who he hurts by his choice of motivational delivery.



Let's break this down:

Lorca yells at Stamets in a manner that would not be out of character for James T. Kirk.

He then plays the undoctored distress calls from the mining colony under attack, without commentary, on ship-wide comms. 

Admittedly, it's not Picard reciting something from Henry IV or Kirk delivering an off-the-cuff speech in Shatnerambic pentameter, but calling those acts bullying seem... well, wrong. Lorca is appealing to his crew's very Federation-y desire to do their duty to protect lives. 

I'm curious why you don't place more emphasis on the colonists in jeopardy. You seem more interested in Lorca being mean to his crew. Also, aren't they like in the middle of a war? 



> Yeah, except she's dead and he ain't. I see your point but it's not a strong one ;-)



Captain Georgiou isn't the main character. She's part of the protagonist's motivation. Also, the good angel sitting on the shoulder of her unitard. So the fact she's dead is irrelevant.  



> Quintessential idealist Trek isn't just about dying by your ideals, it's also winning by your ideals.



I think Burnham will "win" by the end of the season by embracing/validating Georgiou's idealism. Like I said, I'd bet a fistful of quatloos on it! (or a few quatloos more).


----------



## CapnZapp

Mallus said:


> I think the thing to remember is we're still in Act 1. This is going to play out over the course of entire season, not a single hour episode. I'm fairly sure Lorca will be dealt with in a way the honors the idealistic spirit of Star Trek by the end. I'd put 20 quatloos on it!



If anyone is still watching at that point...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> I named 4 off the top of my head while simultaneously dealing with an issue at work! And I'm still kicking myself for missing Kodos the Executioner, who was a Federation colonial governor, right? Should I continue?




You may consider this a nit-pick but Rodenberry's Rule was about Starfleet, not the Federation.


----------



## trappedslider

maybe they should have just reaired TOS using the blu-ray release  (with commentary similar to that found on the releases of the movies and some episodes of the tv show).....


----------



## Mallus

Ryujin said:


> You may consider this a nit-pick but Rodenberry's Rule was about Starfleet, not the Federation.



What would a fan debate about Trek be without nit-picking? .

But yeah, I don't think this particular one is helpful. Starfleet is the embodiment of the Federation's principles and it's actions are authorized by the Federation Council. The shows themselves conflate the two all the time. And elements of the "Roddenberry Rule" are clearly meant to apply to the overall society. 

Speaking of the Roddenberry Rule, I see it as applying most to ST:TNG's first season, which is universally considered the weakest (and most dramatically inert and/or silly). I find it least in TOS. 

The Roddenberry Rule really strikes me as something that solidified & became dogmatic in the years *between* TOS and TNG, to the detriment of TNG's first season. TNG becomes much more interesting when it backs away from it; cf. episodes like "The Enemy" and "The Most Toys".

Worf refusing to allow the transfusion to save the Romulan prisoner vs. Picard's refusal to order him to do so is interesting, it feels like a real test of the Federations principles in legitimate conflict. 

Data trying to execute Kivas Fajo and then kinda lying about it maybe not be a ringing endorsement of Starfleet values, but it feels like a meaningful comment on what a quest to be a real boy entails.


----------



## Morrus

CapnZapp said:


> If anyone is still watching at that point...




I will be.


----------



## Mallus

CapnZapp said:


> If anyone is still watching at that point...



Me too!


----------



## Morrus

Interesting interview with the producers I read last night. Will have to find it again.

They say it’s not called “Discovery” accidentally. That the Starfleet we know isn’t really there yet, and this is the story of how we get to the Starfleet of TOS.


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> What would a fan debate about Trek be without nit-picking? .
> 
> But yeah, I don't think this particular one is helpful. Starfleet is the embodiment of the Federation's principles and it's actions are authorized by the Federation Council. The shows themselves conflate the two all the time. And elements of the "Roddenberry Rule" are clearly meant to apply to the overall society.
> 
> Speaking of the Roddenberry Rule, I see it as applying most to ST:TNG's first season, which is universally considered the weakest (and most dramatically inert and/or silly). I find it least in TOS.
> 
> The Roddenberry Rule really strikes me as something that solidified & became dogmatic in the years *between* TOS and TNG, to the detriment of TNG's first season. TNG becomes much more interesting when it backs away from it; cf. episodes like "The Enemy" and "The Most Toys".
> 
> Worf refusing to allow the transfusion to save the Romulan prisoner vs. Picard's refusal to order him to do so is interesting, it feels like a real test of the Federations principles in legitimate conflict.
> 
> Data trying to execute Kivas Fajo and then kinda lying about it maybe not be a ringing endorsement of Starfleet values, but it feels like a meaningful comment on what a quest to be a real boy entails.




The Federation is politicians and bureaucrats, whereas Starfleet is supposed to be the best of the best. The Roddenberry Rule was more of a guideline for TOS, becoming a more hard and fast rule by NG. I figure that they really started deviating from it after Gene's death.


----------



## Hussar

There's an interesting parallel that hasn't been mentioned yet between Lorca's manipulations of the crew by playing the distress call and Michael's manipulation of Saru to discover that the Tartiwhatever isn't a predator.

I don't remember her exact line, but Saru's reaction is pitch perfect - he calls her out for manipulating him and not respecting him and her response is basically, well, you might have said no.

Michael and Lorca are far closer in mind set than it might appear at first glance.


----------



## Hussar

Ryujin said:


> The Federation is politicians and bureaucrats, whereas Starfleet is supposed to be the best of the best. The Roddenberry Rule was more of a guideline for TOS, becoming a more hard and fast rule by NG. I figure that they really started deviating from it after Gene's death.




I remember watching a few documentaries about Star Trek, and the Roddenberry rule is called out, pretty much universally, as an extremely bad idea and directly responsible for some of the absolutely worst Trek episodes out there.  The notion that your crew HAS to all work together in harmony means that there's no drama.  

Who the heck wants to watch that?  And, as the first three seasons of TNG prove, no one.  Their viewership in the first three seasons goes straight down the toilet.  It isn't until late in season 3, when they finally reject this Roddenberry Rule that things actually get interesting again.

Gimme flawed, realistic characters every time.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> I remember watching a few documentaries about Star Trek, and the Roddenberry rule is called out, pretty much universally, as an extremely bad idea and directly responsible for some of the absolutely worst Trek episodes out there.  The notion that your crew HAS to all work together in harmony means that there's no drama.
> 
> Who the heck wants to watch that?  And, as the first three seasons of TNG prove, no one.  Their viewership in the first three seasons goes straight down the toilet.  It isn't until late in season 3, when they finally reject this Roddenberry Rule that things actually get interesting again.
> 
> Gimme flawed, realistic characters every time.




Maybe so. Maybe not. All that I know for sure, is that I'm done with Discovery.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> Maybe so. Maybe not. All that I know for sure, is that I'm done with Discovery.




I thought you were done with it two weeks ago!


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> I thought you were done with it two weeks ago!




Haven't watched it since.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> I remember watching a few documentaries about Star Trek, and the Roddenberry rule is called out, pretty much universally, as an extremely bad idea and directly responsible for some of the absolutely worst Trek episodes out there.  The notion that your crew HAS to all work together in harmony means that there's no drama.
> 
> Who the heck wants to watch that?  And, as the first three seasons of TNG prove, no one.  Their viewership in the first three seasons goes straight down the toilet.  It isn't until late in season 3, when they finally reject this Roddenberry Rule that things actually get interesting again.
> 
> Gimme flawed, realistic characters every time.



Your argument makes no sense. If that's what you want you have literally every other show in existence to choose from.

It's the distinctly Trek qualities that set Trek apart. 

Doing away with those would be a huge mistake. Let's hope Discovery is just setting up the current amoral characters for a brutal fall.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> Your argument makes no sense. If that's what you want you have literally every other show in existence to choose from.
> 
> It's the distinctly Trek qualities that set Trek apart.
> 
> Doing away with those would be a huge mistake. Let's hope Discovery is just setting up the current amoral characters for a brutal fall.
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




I'd argue differently.  The most iconic Trek episodes are the ones where they ejected the Roddenberry Box.  Going back to TOS, you have The Galileo Seven.  In TNG, we have The Enemy where Worf refuses to give a blood transfusion to a Romulan.  DS9 was full of episodes where the crew actively opposed each other - whether it was Odo or Kira or Basheer going off and doing his own thing in opposition to the other characters.  Voyager had the conflicts between the Maquis crew and the Voyager crew, plus all the interplay between Seven and the Captain.

I watched Star Trek in spite of the Roddenberry Box, not because of it.


----------



## Ryujin

The bi-weekly mutinies on Voyager are a bit of a running gag.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> The bi-weekly mutinies on Voyager are a bit of a running gag.




Sounds like they're going to need a bigger brig.


----------



## Ryujin

Airlocks save space.


----------



## Jester David

I value a middle ground in terms of the Roddenberry Rule. Too much adherence stifles drama. But it's still a utopian show and you don't want cheap drama based on secrets, misunderstandings, or personal biases. 

Conflict should be driven by people who both believe they're right, and both have a point and reason for their beliefs. Both sides should have merit without seeming cheap or forced. That drives some of the best Trek moral quandaries. 
Instead of a rule it should be a firm guideline. You can break it, but you need to justify it every time and the reasons need to be worthwhile. 

The darker shows like DS9 worked because it came after five years of TNG. And it built to the darkness and conflicted and flawed characters. Trek had earned the right to look behind the gilded shine of utopia. 

I don't need cheap, forced CW drama in my Star Trek, with characters at each other's throats and pushed to be at odds with each other for the flimsiest of story reasons. They're the crew of a starship, not attractive twenty-somethings in a hospital setting forming love parallelograms and fighting!


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> I don't need cheap, forced CW drama in my Star Trek, with characters at each other's throats and pushed to be at odds with each other for the flimsiest of story reasons. They're the crew of a starship, not attractive twenty-somethings in a hospital setting forming love parallelograms and fighting!




Exactly. It's that sort of thing that resulted in me dropping the DC TV shows; who is sleeping with who this week, whose ulterior motives are being revealed ('cause they all have them), etc..


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> Airlocks save space.




Maybe that's how the Klingons' "dead people armor" started.  

"Attempted mutiny?  30 days on the hull!!!"

"But sir, there is only enough..."

"SILENCE!!!  Or do you wish to join him?"

"Shushing, sir."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Another thought about those coffins...

I can't help but imagine Quentin Tarentino seeing that scene and thinking about a _Pulp Fiction_esque take on that practice's origins.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my shipyard that said "Dead Klingon Storage"? "

"No. I didn't."

"You know WHY you didn't see that sign?"

"Why?"

"'Cause it ain't there, 'cause storing dead Klingons ain't my ******* business, that's why,"


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> /snip
> 
> "Shushing, sir."




"Did he just shush me" had to be the most hilarious line I've ever seen in Star Trek, from Episode 3.  It was just so freaking funny.

And, i agree that we don't want to devolve into melodrama here.  Fair enough.  But, that doesn't seem to be the case as of yet.  Lorca's beliefs are grounded and pretty darn believable.  They really are at war.  And, in the face of extinction, which is a real possibility if you're at war with the Klingons, any alternative can seem justifiable.  And Michael's drama as well seems pretty believable to me.  The notion that logic leads down a bad path and the need for redemption.

Heck, the only character that doesn't seem to be terribly flawed is Saru.  But, even his, "This is a bad place, we should run away" approach in the pilot was against what Star Fleet stands for.  Then you have the conflict between the scientists and the captain.  Just really good thought provoking stuff.

Which, to me, is what Star Trek is all about.


----------



## CapnZapp

Jester David said:


> I value a middle ground in terms of the Roddenberry Rule. Too much adherence stifles drama. But it's still a utopian show and you don't want cheap drama based on secrets, misunderstandings, or personal biases.
> 
> Conflict should be driven by people who both believe they're right, and both have a point and reason for their beliefs. Both sides should have merit without seeming cheap or forced. That drives some of the best Trek moral quandaries.
> Instead of a rule it should be a firm guideline. You can break it, but you need to justify it every time and the reasons need to be worthwhile.
> 
> The darker shows like DS9 worked because it came after five years of TNG. And it built to the darkness and conflicted and flawed characters. Trek had earned the right to look behind the gilded shine of utopia.
> 
> I don't need cheap, forced CW drama in my Star Trek, with characters at each other's throats and pushed to be at odds with each other for the flimsiest of story reasons. They're the crew of a starship, not attractive twenty-somethings in a hospital setting forming love parallelograms and fighting!



Exactly this.

Thank you. 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Hussar

But, again, is the drama "cheap and forced"?  Doesn't seem so to me.  These are pretty believable characters so far.  Granted, we haven't had much time to really dig into the characters, but, nothing seems "cheap and forced" yet.


----------



## Morrus

OK, next episode - here we go! This show is definitely the one I’m most excited for each week (since Game of Thrones ended). There aren’t any others I look forward to like this at present.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> But, again, is the drama "cheap and forced"?  Doesn't seem so to me.  These are pretty believable characters so far.  Granted, we haven't had much time to really dig into the characters, but, nothing seems "cheap and forced" yet.



I have no idea. I've only seen the first two episodes. 

The first had a good example as both Michael and her captain were correct: the Klingons would respond best to a show of strength but Starfleet doesn't fire first. Both sides have merit and neither side is obviously wrong, and it comes down to a judgement call.
There's some good conflict and that's a solid way of driving tension throughout an episode.
What followed was pretty silly and that conflict was resolved fairly quickly. 

Having not seen episodes 3-5, I'm not sure if there's similar conflict where both sides have equal merit, and one isn't a strawman designed to create tension or one side is dependant on deception or a lack of trust.


----------



## Morrus

Wow. Best episode yet! Plus Mudd!

So they don’t have a tardigrade any more but they do have its DNA. And a human can take its place.

I did notice they called the Klingon ship a D7 and first, and then a Bird of Prey later. Those are two different types of ship. We didn’t really get a good look at it.

Felt very Trekky with the moral quandary. Lorca is still very pragmatic though. Klingon prison is brutal!

This show is getting better and better. It has its flaws, for sure, but overall it’s a must-see for me.


----------



## Hussar

Yup, agree with Morrus on this.  Very solid episode.  Nice introduction of Mudd, and IIRC, we'll be seeing more of him.  "I loved a woman too much " indeed.  Holy crap, I just futzed about on the Memory Alpha wiki to read up a bit more about Mudd.  His page is already updated with this episode's information.  Damn, someone was on the ball.

Yeah, solid episode.  The characters continue to grow into themselves.  

Morrus, wasn't the D7 what captured Lorca, but, the Prison ship is a different one?  That was my understanding.  Granted, they had Klingon Raiders when escaping, and that's the first I've seen those.  Cool.


----------



## Jester David

Okay, @_*Hussar*_ asked about forced drama.
I watched the first 20 minutes of episode 3 and saw little but. 

Everyone blames Michael for starting the war. Which is BS because she was in the brig when the Klingons attacked. And they had a pretty damn good idea of the motive: that the enemy captain viewed himself as the "new Klingon messiah". As they used those exact words. 
It strains credulity. 

Plus, calling the first mutineer in Starfleet seems like a stretch. 
It's amusing as the crew of the NX-01 Enterprise committed mutiny a half-dozen times. The captain just forgave them, while captain Yeoh forgot to give the pardon before beaming over like in every other Trek show.

Then we have the fellow prisoners, who seem very much like modern criminals in a world without want or need or hunger. So why is one so gleeful at killing Andorians?
And the Federation sending them to work hard labor instead of rehabilitating sounds pretty 19th Century and not very Utopian 23rd Century. 
And immediately on the Discovery the head of security calls them "garbage" and "animals" in the span of a couple minutes. Very enlightened there. 

The prisoners start a fight with Michael, trying to kill her in a room full of military officers. Why? Because reasons. 
And the startfleet officer seeing the fight about to start is motioned to sit down and potentially let someone be hurt or killed. 

The final scene I saw involves Saru telling Michael he thinks she's dangerous. Why? Again, no reason. Drama! And then blames her for letting their captain be killed in an even 2-on-2 fight with Klingons. Could he *really* have done better? If he was so damn concerned, why didn't he join them on the away mission?


----------



## Morrus

I think people see what they want to see. If you're hatewatching a show, you're going to see everything negatively.


----------



## Jester David

Thinking on the first two episodes (now that I've started the third) I'm vaguely reminded of the first season of the rebooted _Doctor Who_. That season seemed to take pains to answer previously unanswered questions and look at the assumed tropes of the show in new ways.
Why does the Doctor travel with companions? How come they never questioned the craziness of running off with someone they just met? What happens when they return home, probably to the wrong time? What happens when you deliberately change the past? What does everyone speak English? What happens if the Doctor took a bad companion? What happens if a companion tried to take advantage of what they saw? Why does no one call the Doctor on the lives left in his wake? What happens if the Doctor has to actually talk to the villain he's defeated and condemned to death? What happens if, after the Doctor swans off, things aren't restored and made right? 

This is taking a much less dense approach to "what if-ing" _Star Trek_.
_Discovery_ is taking the common episode theme where the crew mutinies for the right reason, saves the day, and is redeemed and all charges dropped and then mashing it with one of those episodes where there's the threat of a war, and the crew enact some bold yet dangerous plan that will conveniently end the war. 
And then it's having things not work out well. It's the darkest timeline. The save-the-day plan fails and the officer isn't forgiven of their crime, and the war starts despite everyone's efforts. 
(In many ways it's what would happen in a RPG Trek game where the PCs have a great plan, and go to enact it and then roll balls the entire climax, causing the entire campaign to change gears.)

It'd be interesting if the rest of the series dealt with such tropes, twisting expectations on Trek and flipping the result of expected stories.


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> Everyone blames Michael for starting the war. Which is BS because she was in the brig when the Klingons attacked.



We -- the audience -- know she was in the brig. What does that have to do with the public version of the story? We can see from everyone else's reaction the official story is highly unfavorable to Burnham.



> It strains credulity.



That the popular, publicly-known version of events differ from the actual truth? Since you won't be watching more of Discovery, might I recommend Ken Burn's recent Vietnam documentary?



> Plus, calling the first mutineer in Starfleet seems like a stretch.



That's her *reputation*. It may not, in fact, be strictly, literally true (I mean, truly fictionally true). 



> Then we have the fellow prisoners, who seem very much like modern criminals in a world without want or need or hunger.



Modern criminals like Cyrano Jones and Harcourt Fenton Mudd III? Also, the TOS-era Federation is a bit less uniformly utopic than TNG-era and beyond. Note the importance of the new space-grain the tribbles used as Tribble Chow.  



> And the Federation sending them to work hard labor instead of rehabilitating sounds pretty 19th Century and not very Utopian 23rd Century.



That was put in the specific context of needing dilithium miners as part of the war effort, wasn't it? Besides, Federation rehabilitation wasn't all it was cracked up to be; cf. "The Dagger of the Mind", "Whom Gods Destroy".  



> And immediately on the Discovery the head of security calls them "garbage" and "animals" in the span of a couple minutes. Very enlightened there.



Angry Tory Foster was not a nice person. But really, completely in-line with TOS-era characters. Or real people, for that matter. 



> The prisoners start a fight with Michael, trying to kill her in a room full of military officers. Why? Because reasons.



Well the proximate reason was they blamed Burhman for the war. And, no one was stopping them... 



> And the startfleet officer seeing the fight about to start is motioned to sit down and potentially let someone be hurt or killed.



Lorca was testing Burnham. That's made explicit by the end of the episode. 



> The final scene I saw involves Saru telling Michael he thinks she's dangerous. Why? Again, no reason.



Saru feels betrayed by a friend, or at least a colleague he once had a friendly rivalry & good working relationship with (note the ease of their interaction in the pilot). He's trying to be hurtful. Also, it is fair to say Burnham's trouble -- but so was JTK in his day...


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> I think people see what they want to see. If you're hatewatching a show, you're going to see everything negatively.



I wasn't impressed by the first two but I didn't hate. (My wife did. Which is why I can't watch at home.)

I was just unimpressed by the sheer amount of constant negativity in the first half (or third?) of the episode. Especially after *just* posting about the Roddenberry rule. 
The timing was entirely coincidental. I literally just found out this morning that the Canadian sci-if channel has an iOS app that does streaming, so I could watch at the gym on the treadmill. 

So far, this episode has had four things: people being being a dick to Michael for little reason; _Lost_ style mysteries (black badges. OooOOOooo. Black alert. Crazy gravity. Saru being hesitant to confirm the ship is a science vessel.); Michael being all moody, depressed, and generally unsympathetic; and tribble noises. 
And darkly lit shots. As I'm watching on an iPad (in a brightly lit room) and trying not to kill my battery for the day I'm conservative with my power. And when it hits those darkly moody scenes I can't see squat. 

The glory shot of the Discovery when the shuttle gets moved inside was cool. The music is nice. While I wish the uniforms had more of a nod to the original series, the metallic highlights are cool and look eye catching. (Ranks remain impossible to see in the screen.)

Maybe the second half is pure awesome. I dunno. I'll find out Wednesday I guess...


----------



## Jester David

Mallus said:


> That the popular, publicly-known version of events differ from the actual truth? Since you won't be watching more of Discovery, might I recommend Ken Burn's recent Vietnam documentary?



Only halfway through the episode and I dislike leaving things unfinished. Haven't decided if I'll be watching more. I'll see how it wraps up and *maybe* give it one more. Sometimes shows do take some time. 
(I was hard on the _Battestar Galactica_ reboot TV movie but the series really changed my mind.)

Sure, it makes sense that there would be rumours and misinformation regarding the "first mutineer on Starfleet" being tried and imprisoned immediately after the war with the Klingons broke out. 
But that's not how it was presented on the screen. It's justifying events on the show. The audience shouldn't be required to invent a backstory for a TV show to make sense or characters motives to seem reasonable. 

And you'd think Starfleet would be pretty quick to jump in and point out that not only did the Klingons fire first but also attacked the admiralty during a ceasefire. They really wouldn't one of their officers - even a disgraced one - being thought of as starting the war. That makes them look bad. 



Mallus said:


> Modern criminals like Cyrano Jones and Harcourt Fenton Mudd III? Also, the TOS-era Federation is a bit less utopic than TNG-era and beyond. Witness the importance of the new space-grain the tribbles used as Tribble Chow.



Opportunist con men are a far cry from a boasting murderer gleefully recounting violence on Andorians. And not remote with a phaser. He know their temperature: hands-on violence was implied. 

And it doesn't get a pass because it's a prequel. _Enterprise_ was a prequel as well, and while it still had some growing human ugliness (anti-alien racism) it presented Earth as being free of hunger and poverty and war. This is a full century after that.



Mallus said:


> That was put in the specific context of needing dilithium miners as part of the war effort, wasn't it. Besides, Federation rehabilitation wasn't all it was cracked up to be; cf. "The Dagger of the Mind", "Whom Gods Destroy".



Six months into the war and they're already resorting to slave labour?

The quoted episodes prove my point. In both, they emphasise the Federation's focus on rehabilitation and associate mental illness with remaining criminal behaviour. In _Dagger of the Mind_ a new treatment fails causing a story. The whole point of that story is that the Federation and humanity wanted to help criminals and get them back in society. Meanwhile, _Whom Gods Destroy_ posits the singular asylum for the largely incurable, whose occupants are a dozen or so residents. 



Mallus said:


> Well the proximate reason was they blamed Burhman for the war.



Which only one of them cared about.
But, seriously, it was trying to commit first degree murder in a room effectively full of police officers. It's probably the stupidest thing one could do if one ever hopes to get out of jail. 
"Grrr… because of you I'm going to mine rocks on an asteroid! So Imma gonna kill you in front of two dozen armed witnesses so I can spend three times as long in the mines!"



Mallus said:


> Lorca was testing Burnham. That's made explicit by the end of the episode.



Great test. 
One, how did he know the prisoners would start anything? Two, how did he know they wouldn't just shiv her in the back? Or grab a phaser? Vulcan martial arts don't do much to an energy beam.

"Whoops, the amoral criminals didn't announce their attack and now she's dead. I guess she failed the test."



Mallus said:


> Angry Tory Foster was not a nice person. But really, completely in-line with TOS-era characters. Or real people, for that matter.





Mallus said:


> Saru feels betrayed by a friend, or at least a colleague he once had a friendly rivalry & good working relationship with (note the ease of their interaction in the pilot). He's trying to be hurtful.



Which is kinda the damn point!
Roddenberry envisioned a better future. Where people were good and did the right thing, even when it was hard. When people had moved beyond the pettiness and hate that rules so much of our lives. _Star Trek_ was about a better future. A hopeful future. One where humanity not only managed to survive the horrors of the Cold War but moved to the stars. 

So far this isn't that. It's literally the opposite, with people being mean and spiteful with no redeeming qualities.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I really would keep watch on that Tribble in Lorca's office now, that escape was too easy. (Unfortunately, easy escapes like that are a staple in Star Trek, so it's difficult to say if it wasn't just Starfleet's finest at work here.)



> Sure, it makes sense that there would be rumours and misinformation regarding the "first mutineer on Starfleet" being tried and imprisoned immediately after the war with the Klingons broke out.
> But that's not how it was presented on the screen. It's justifying events on the show. The audience shouldn't be required to invent a backstory for a TV show to make sense or characters motives to seem reasonable.



If you heard "American Officer convicted for mutiny aboard the USS General Ford in the Pacific Sea. Incidents between the General Ford and the Chinese navy, we're now officially at war with China", would you assume, "Oh, I guess this officer was just trying to stop a war"?

No, you would think there is probably not just a random correlalation, but assume a cause & effect. And the truth is that in the Battle of the Binary Stars, we could definitely say there wasn't. As viewers, we have access to the Klingon point of view, and we can figure: "Nah, probably nothing could stop the war." But even that isn't actually true. Just because T'Kuvma wanted to start a war doesn't mean the other houses would automatically follow him into it - they might decide that he's overestimating the Federation threat or their policies, and if they had simply opened fire, maybe they would have really stopped. Or maybe it would just another way to confirm their danger. Who knows. We also don't know what would have happened if Burnham would have stayed on the Starfleet doctrine and not incapacitate her Captain for a minute, and instead discussed constructively what to do.

What Starfleet however can actually be certain about is that Micheal Burnham violated Starfleet rules, attacked a superior officer, and commited munity. That's definitly something she can be convicted on, and there is no sign of extenuating circumstances like illegal orders given to her, or she saved someone's life.

And what everyone in Starfleet and in the Federation knows is that a Starfleet officer mutineered, during a delicate diplomatic situation, and the situation escalated into a full scale war. It just doesn't look good, and if something like this happened in the real world, you can bet people would put a blame on Micheal Burnham. But don't forget, it's not just Burnham that gets the blame. We see with civilians like Harry Mudd, that Starfleet also gets a blame. But of course within Starfleet, Starfleet doesn't blame itself, because they didn't want a war either. Everyone involved gets some of the blame, but the mutineer is the one most suspicious.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> Okay, @_*Hussar*_ asked about forced drama.
> I watched the first 20 minutes of episode 3 and saw little but.
> 
> Everyone blames Michael for starting the war. Which is BS because she was in the brig when the Klingons attacked. And they had a pretty damn good idea of the motive: that the enemy captain viewed himself as the "new Klingon messiah". As they used those exact words.
> It strains credulity.



Burnham did land on a klingon holy relic and then fight and kill a klingon warrior. She then advocated an act of aggression against the klingons and attempted to carry it out, in contravention of both Starfleet regulations and direct orders, assaulting a superior officer in the process. Last of all, she boarded a klingon vessel and killed their captain, who was also their religious figurehead.

Did she start the war? No. Would it really "strain credulity" to think that she did, after hearing those events third-hand? Definitely not.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> She then advocated an act of aggression against the klingons and attempted to carry it out, in contravention of both Starfleet regulations and direct orders, assaulting a superior officer in the process.



The Klingons had zero way of knowing that. 



MarkB said:


> Last of all, she boarded a klingon vessel and killed their captain, who was also their religious figurehead.



The War had already started then. And her captain approved that plan.

So, really, they're just blaming her for landing on an unknown artifact rather than doing a flyby. 

Conversely, the Klingons destroyed a Federation beacon to draw in a Starfleet ship, were hidden in Federation space, called reinforcements that arrived before Starfleet, shot first, accepted a ceasefire and immediately attacked again. 
It's pretty damn clear they stated the war.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> The Klingons had zero way of knowing that.
> 
> 
> The War had already started then. And her captain approved that plan.
> 
> So, really, they're just blaming her for landing on an unknown artifact rather than doing a flyby.
> 
> Conversely, the Klingons destroyed a Federation beacon to draw in a Starfleet ship, were hidden in Federation space, called reinforcements that arrived before Starfleet, shot first, accepted a ceasefire and immediately attacked again.
> It's pretty damn clear they stated the war.




Pretty damn clear if you actually watched the episode and saw how it played out. Not if you heard about those specific actions through news reporting or hearsay.

Like I said, she didn't start the war, but it's hardly a ridiculous mental leap for someone hearing about those events to think that she did.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ouch, the amount of mumbo-jumbo is making my head hurt

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Morrus

Interesting personal episode this time. I really like James Frain as Sarek. He’s always felt part Vulca anyway!

I assume Lorca’s not going to lose his ship now the admiral has been taken prisoner.

References to Spock, the Enterprise, and Constitution Class Ships. I do hope we see one soon!


----------



## Morrus

Discovery just got renewed for a second season.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Awesome!

_Lethe_ was also a great episode.


----------



## trappedslider

Looks it Season Two will happen despite the naysayers http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...overy-renewed-season-2-cbs-all-access-1051003


----------



## Morrus

Is there an echo in here?


----------



## trappedslider

Not like you can't merge threads or lock them with a link or other some such moderator actions...


----------



## Morrus

Why would I lock the thread?


----------



## Hussar

Play nicely children.  

Loved the last episode.  Fantastic storyline.  And, the idea of a Star Fleet captain going off the ranch isn't too far fetched.  It's just that we've always seen it from the other side of the desk, so to speak.  Very cool story.

And, as a nice touch, the reaction of Lorca to the Science Chief (whose name escapes me at the moment) was priceless.  Wow, someone gets mind controlled in Star Trek and someone else actually notices right off the bat.  Cool.  

And Lorca is some stone cold nasty.  We're talking Game of Thrones level stuff here.  Nice.  

Prediction:  This all comes to a head by the end of the season and Michael becomes captain.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Prediction:  This all comes to a head by the end of the season and Michael becomes captain.




I'm actually kind-of rooting for Saru to get the next shot at the captain's chair. He did well during his temporary command last episode, and I'm enjoying his unusual mindset.


----------



## Water Bob

It's really not fair that places outside the US can watch the show on Netflix while we here in the US have to subscribed to a totally new services.

That really irks me.


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> It's really not fair that places outside the US can watch the show on Netflix while we here in the US have to subscribed to a totally new services.
> 
> That really irks me.




Oh, god, are we *still* talking about this?


----------



## CapnZapp

Morrus said:


> Oh, god, are we *still* talking about this?



I guess it's much less of an issue for us Europeans. (I wouldn't say we're talking about it, just them. )

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> Oh, god, are we *still* talking about this?





Says one of them with easy access to the show.


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> Says one of them with easy access to the show.




Welcome to what if feels like to not be an American. This is the norm for all but a small percentage of the world. Please allow those watching this show to discuss it; a courtesy we allow you for most every other show.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> Welcome to what if feels like to not be an American. This is the norm for all but a small percentage of the world. Please allow those watching this show to discuss it; a courtesy we allow you for most every other show.




I've got no problem with you discussing it.  Where'd you get the idea that I had a problem with that?

In fact, I've been avoiding reading most of the Discover discussions for fear of spoilers as I do intend to watch the show somehow, someday.  My plan right now is to binge it and pay for one month once the season ends.


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> I've got no problem with you discussing it.  Where'd you get the idea that I had a problem with that?
> 
> In fact, I've been avoiding reading most of the Discover discussions for fear of spoilers as I do intend to watch the show somehow, someday.  My plan right now is to binge it and pay for one month once the season ends.




Honestly, we care about as much about your local broadcast of Star Trek is as you care about when our local broadcast of The Walking Dead is. The difference is we don’t whine about it.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> Honestly, we care about as much about your local broadcast of Star Trek is as you care about when our local broadcast of The Walking Dead is. The difference is we don’t whine about it.




That's a pretty snarky, crappy thing to say.  Are you trying to be a jerk and upset me?


----------



## Morrus

Water Bob said:


> That's a pretty snarky, crappy thing to say.  Are you trying to be a jerk and upset me?




I’m trying to persuade people to stop threadcrapping about their local broadcasts of a show everybody else is trying to talk about. Because everybody has been showing you that exact courtesy for years. Let’s not set a really unfortunate precedent.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> I’m trying to persuade people to stop threadcrapping about their local broadcasts of a show everybody else is trying to talk about. Because everybody has been showing you that exact courtesy for years. Let’s not set a really unfortunate precedent.




You should say that, then, instead of going the negative route. It doesn't provoke the reaction that you're looking for.  From my POV, I was participating in this thread, and then you threw out the fighting words unprovoked.


----------



## CapnZapp

Discovery is a US show, not available to the general US population. Of course that is bound to come up, and indeed it has done so at EVERY place that hosts a discussion about it: AV Club, the Verge, rpg.net etc etc. Just like those places, this is predominantly visited by Americans...

The fact us Europeans has labored under similar circumstances for... well, ever really, and that this might be a very rare turning of the tables is probably not something we should expect Americans to just soak up silently...  



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Water Bob

CapnZapp said:


> Discovery is a US show, not available to the general US population.




That's a good point.  I wouldn't feel the anger if it were a British show.  I'd feel like, "Well, dem's the breaks."

Instead, I feel like I'm seeing the ugly side of Capitalism.


----------



## Hussar

I'm curious about something.  On Netflix Japan (which is where I live), ST Discovery is presented as a Netflix Original.  CBS is barely mentioned.  Just at the tail end of the credits.  So, which is it?  Is it a CBS show or a Netflix show?


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> I'm curious about something.  On Netflix Japan (which is where I live), ST Discovery is presented as a Netflix Original.  CBS is barely mentioned.  Just at the tail end of the credits.  So, which is it?  Is it a CBS show or a Netflix show?




Says that here, too.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> I'm curious about something.  On Netflix Japan (which is where I live), ST Discovery is presented as a Netflix Original.  CBS is barely mentioned.  Just at the tail end of the credits.  So, which is it?  Is it a CBS show or a Netflix show?




It's produced by CBS, funded by NetFlix.


----------



## Morrus

It’s like when “Rome” gets called “HBO’s Rome” in the US, when it was made by the BBC and an Italian studio. It’s about funding, distribution rights, and credit agreements. I guess that was part of the agreement between CBS and Netflix.


----------



## Hussar

Ryujin said:


> It's produced by CBS, funded by NetFlix.




Ok, fair enough.  Then considering that Netflix is pretty international, and produces LOTS of region specific shows, can we really claim that this is an American TV show?  This was created, at least in part, for Netflix's global market, rather than simply something that's for the US first and then trickle out to everyone else.

I mean, it's not really a big shock to see Michael Yeoh in the trailer.  They're certainly taking a stab at trying to break into Asian markets. Which also goes a long way towards explaining the different looks of the show.  Sure, they're drawing on Trek fans, but, they are trying to expand further.  And, for most of the non-US audience, Star Trek means the last three movies.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> Ok, fair enough.  Then considering that Netflix is pretty international, and produces LOTS of region specific shows, can we really claim that this is an American TV show?  This was created, at least in part, for Netflix's global market, rather than simply something that's for the US first and then trickle out to everyone else.
> 
> I mean, it's not really a big shock to see Michael Yeoh in the trailer.  They're certainly taking a stab at trying to break into Asian markets. Which also goes a long way towards explaining the different looks of the show.  Sure, they're drawing on Trek fans, but, they are trying to expand further.  And, for most of the non-US audience, Star Trek means the last three movies.




Except, of course, for what happens to Michel Yeoh's character.

I believe that NetFlix gets first run after CBS has completed season 1.


----------



## Water Bob

Morrus said:


> It’s like when “Rome” gets called “HBO’s Rome” in the US, when it was made by the BBC and an Italian studio. It’s about funding, distribution rights, and credit agreements. I guess that was part of the agreement between CBS and Netflix.




Rome was flat out awesome.  Great show.


----------



## Morrus

Interesting time loop episode! And Mudd again.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

"Netflix Original" does not mean they produced it, but it might mean they have some kind of exclusive deal for the show. It is definitely CBS that is making Star Trek Discovery.

I really liked the last episode. It was more of a stand-alone episode, except they still allowed character development to hapen, and it showed how well the whole crew can work together.

It was a bit ... darker than most time loop stories I've seen (In the TNG episode, both ships explode, but there is no one that tries to get anyone killed in the episode), maybe a bit closer to 12:01 (a little known movie I think) then Groundhog Day. 

The end for Mudd kinda ties into what we know about him from his TOS appearances, it was maybe uncharacteristically "friendly" for what he did and what he knows now. (Headcanon/Fanwank: I think the crew might have needed to get rid of him quickly without the risk of triggering any surprises Mudd could have left behind, since had control of the ship computer basically. Very convenient that Stella's Dad was so close by, though.)

I think in the final iteration of the loop, no one actually died, so that means, the whole encounter was basically harmless to the crew. 

And the guy playing Harry Mudd is really doing a fine job.

Also, another space animal added to Star Trek. Very nice.
Lorca called it a fish, but considering Saru's comment about its (lack of) mating habits, isn't it more a Space Panda?


----------



## Morrus

Is that it now until January?


----------



## MarkB

Morrus said:


> Is that it now until January?




Next episode is the mid season finale.


----------



## Morrus

MarkB said:


> Next episode is the mid season finale.




Oh, cool! I thought it was just 8 this year. How many are there at the beginning of next year then?


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> Oh, cool! I thought it was just 8 this year. How many are there at the beginning of next year then?




They've announced 15 episodes for season 1.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> They've announced 15 episodes for season 1.




So it's 9 this year, and 6 in Jan/Feb. Cool. That two-month wait will be a killer!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

We'll manage. Somehow. I hope.


----------



## Morrus

Wow. That final episode was awesome. I wasn’t so keen on last week, but this one more than made up for it. Plus they’re using the universal translators to have the Klingon actors talk English, which will please some people. 

So they’ve teleported somewhere but the don’t know where. And there’s lots of Klingon debris there. And it looks the spore drive is dead for now. 

I do with that bloke Burnham likes (I forget his name) would sort out his beard. He really needs to trim that higher up the neck!


----------



## MarkB

Yes, this episode definitely made up for last week's rather lacklustre set-up. Very much a mid-season finale, and very much Star Trek through and through, with the crew going against Starfleet orders in order to save a species and defeat a stronger opponent by executing a daring and unorthodox plan.

The ending was maybe telegraphed a little too much - Stamets's "just one more jump" was pretty much the narrative equivalent of the soldier who pulls out pictures of his wife and kids before heading out on "just one last mission". I'm a little concerned about the direction they're taking Ash's character - it seems to match with certain fandom speculations that I was really hoping weren't on the mark - but I'm definitely looking forward to the continuation of the season in January.


----------



## Water Bob

David Mack, whom I think is an excellent Trek writer, has written a new adventure for Discovery:


Star Trek Discovery - Desperate Hours


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

MarkB said:


> Yes, this episode definitely made up for last week's rather lacklustre set-up. Very much a mid-season finale, and very much Star Trek through and through, with the crew going against Starfleet orders in order to save a species and defeat a stronger opponent by executing a daring and unorthodox plan.
> 
> The ending was maybe telegraphed a little too much - Stamets's "just one more jump" was pretty much the narrative equivalent of the soldier who pulls out pictures of his wife and kids before heading out on "just one last mission". I'm a little concerned about the direction they're taking Ash's character - it seems to match with certain fandom speculations that I was really hoping weren't on the mark - but I'm definitely looking forward to the continuation of the season in January.




True. But then, if you looked at the runtime of the episode, you knew something was still going to happen anyway.

The thing I am not sure about is whether the anti-cloaking algorithm is now unavailable to the Federation until the Discovery can get back, because they suggested it would take several hours for the algorithm to be transmitted (whether it would take that long to transmit, reach them, or to be refined for fleet-wide use and where that happens seemed unclear. But considering zero-delay visual subspace communication, I figure the refinement of the algorithm for fleet-wide use must be what takes so long...)


----------



## CapnZapp

As a bubblegum action series, it works. (It actually more than works, with that budget it's spectacular)

It's just that everything Trek about it just makes my head hurt.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## MarkB

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> True. But then, if you looked at the runtime of the episode, you knew something was still going to happen anyway.
> 
> The thing I am not sure about is whether the anti-cloaking algorithm is now unavailable to the Federation until the Discovery can get back, because they suggested it would take several hours for the algorithm to be transmitted (whether it would take that long to transmit, reach them, or to be refined for fleet-wide use and where that happens seemed unclear. But considering zero-delay visual subspace communication, I figure the refinement of the algorithm for fleet-wide use must be what takes so long...)




It may simply be that they didn't want to risk transmitting the data over an open channel - not when they can instantly arrive to deliver it in person.


----------



## Hussar

I simply presumed that several hours had passed before they made the final jump.  After all, there had been enough time to offer Lorca a medal and for him to suggest giving it to the doctor.  I thought that time had just passed in the interim.  It's not like the show runs in real time.

But, I love how they are tying up loose ends.  Why didn't Klingons have cloaking at the beginning of TOS?  Well, they did, but, Star Fleet figured out how to break the cloaking and it isn't until the Romulans get involved with their superior cloak that cloaking becomes a thing again.  

Why aren't they using the spore drive?  Well, either you enslave and murder a sentient species like the Tardigrade, or it kills your pilot/drives him insane/possibly does all sorts of bad things.  Oh, and if that doctor dies, pretty much everyone who actually knows how to make and maintain a spore drive is dead.  But, you can pretty easily see it coming why spore drives are a bad idea.

And I love how they expanded Lorca's character.  He is a Star Fleet Captain in the old tradition, but, the war and his pretty deep psychological issues make him look like he is just a war monster.  The back and forth about using the Spore Drive to explore was fantastic.

I look forward to a second half of the season looking a lot like traditional Trek with lots of exploration and whatnot as they try to get home.

On a side note, I do think it's very interesting that they've now made going home for pretty much every main character a very bad thing.  Lorca will be courtmartialed and certainly removed of command, Michael goes back to jail, the doctor, if he survives, becomes a lab rat, his husband will lose his position because of the genetic manipulation that the doctor did.  About the only character that actually has a reason to go home is Saru.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> On a side note, I do think it's very interesting that they've now made going home for pretty much every main character a very bad thing.  Lorca will be courtmartialed and certainly removed of command, Michael goes back to jail, the doctor, if he survives, becomes a lab rat, his husband will lose his position because of the genetic manipulation that the doctor did.  About the only character that actually has a reason to go home is Saru.



Tilly's got great reason to go home. After the rest of them meet their various fates, she'll be able to just waltz in and take over as Captain.


----------



## MarkB

And it's back.

Interesting take on a Mirror Universe episode, though I'm hoping we see more of the actual universe next episode. Aside from the last part, it was very much a slow, expositional introduction to the concept, very different to the usual 'thrown in at the deep end' fare. I'm not sure that approach really did them any favours.

On the other hand, it did at least give them all time to get into character, and into costume. 'Captain Killy' was definitely a highlight, and I hope we see more of her, though I fear for the original universe if the mirror-Discovery under her command is running loose there. If they take too long to get back, she may have conquered both the Federation and the Klingons by the time they return.

Still not a fan of the direction they took Ash's character - both too obvious a twist and too convoluted in practice. Also, seriously, how stupid was the doctor? He discovers that Ash appears to have been surgically altered and personality-overwritten by Klingons, and his next step is to have a quiet word with him in private? It's a damn shame he was killed, but that's seriously Darwin Award behaviour there.


----------



## Kaodi

I am getting a bit concerned that they are taking a Game of Thrones approach to this series. At this rate for all we known "Captain Killy" is also going to end up "Captain Killed" . First the old chief of security, now the doctor. Not to mention the chief scientist has gone off the deep end, perhaps permanently.


----------



## Mallus

I think Dr. Culber will be fine. He’s in sickbay, Stamets is there, if not exactly _present_, so through some combination of technology, the power of love, and perhaps even mycelium-powered timey-whimeyness Culber will be saved. 

So Lorca might not be the Federation’s shadiest Captain - he might a fairly noble guy from the Terran Empire? I am intrigued by this.

Ash, though? Over-complicated. Though I like the actor.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I think there is one argument against Lorca being from the Mirror Universe - it required Burnham's intervention to stop him from speaking to the Captain of the other ship. Of course, he could just have trusted her to figure out quickly enough.

But beware, just because he's a "rebel" against the Terran Empire doesn't mean that Mirror Lorca was a good person - he might just have wanted to become Emperor himself.


----------



## CapnZapp

I had forgotten about this mess of a show. 

Mirror Universe - yawn. No surprise there. And a poor idea for a show that's so shady and edgy already. 

Tyler. Snooze. Stop trying to make his story interesting. We called Voq months ago.

Re: the death of progressive characters (women, gay men etc) - I guess they get a pass on that assuming you're not really dead if you die in the mirror universe.

I'm seriously considering to skip actually watching this from now on, just reading the reviews while I wait for the next season of Orville, which turned out to be much better than one could hope.

(Though not nearly as awesome as USS Callister, which went right into my top list of Trek episodes _ever_!  )


----------



## Ryujin

CapnZapp said:


> (Though not nearly as awesome as USS Callister, which went right into my top list of Trek episodes _ever_!  )




I sort of wonder if Captain Daley, as someone who doesn't get the altruistic nature of The Federation, isn't one of the writers on "Discovery"


----------



## Morrus

Loved this episode. Discovery is getting better and better. Still looks as gorgeous as ever. This one was directed by Will Riker!

I have this weird hunch that 'our' Lorca might be the mirror Lorca. Not sure; just a feeling.

[Ah, just noticed you guys already said that!]

We already figured that Tyler is Voq; I'm curious as to whether he took a 'real' Tyler's place? Presumably there's a service record and such.

I'd love to actually see a Constitution-class starship in this series. I'm sure we will at some point.

Agonizer booths. Not fun!

The elevator fight was *really* well done. Trek is notions for its rubbishy fight scenes, but this one was extremely well choreographed, acted and shot.


----------



## Mallus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think there is one argument against Lorca being from the Mirror Universe - it required Burnham's intervention to stop him from speaking to the Captain of the other ship. Of course, he could just have trusted her to figure out quickly enough.



Agreed. Lorca being a Mirror Universe native is ambiguous, at best. However, if we get a flashback of him shaving off his goatee in the next episode... 



> But beware, just because he's a "rebel" against the Terran Empire doesn't mean that Mirror Lorca was a good person - he might just have wanted to become Emperor himself.



True. I'm mainly going by Lorca's characterization by this point. We never see him as gonzo ruthless as a typical Terran Empire inhabitant. He's not space-racist against non-humans. He's *almost* acceptable as a wartime Starfleet captain with PTSD. But yeah, it could all be a pure-villain long-con. I'm hoping it's not though. Less interesting that way.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know, it never occurred to me that Tyler is Voq.  Cool.  Like the idea.  And it fits in nicely with the notion of human looking Klingons. 

But, where are you guys getting the idea that Lorca is a mirror universe Lorca?

Not entirely thrilled that they're dipping into the mirror universe already.  I would have rather seen that a while later once the characters were a bit more developed.  Love the call back to DS9 though.  The fact that they're referencing the wrong Defiant is a nice Easter Egg for fans.  Bit timey wimey though.  At least they explicitly talk about it during the ep saying that there might be some sort of time distortion going on.


----------



## Jester David

Caught up over December (in part so I could do a species write-up for the Kelpien and a couple Discovery ships for _Star Trek Adventures_). 
In general, this episode was solid. I actually rather enjoyed it from start to finish.

People actually communicated and interacted like colleges. There wasn't forced animosity and conflict. When there was interpersonal drama—such as between Lorca and Dr. Culber—this wasn't forced and seemed natural, and Lorca responded in a believable, calming manner. While it does introduce the CW trademarked drama-through-secrets with Tyler having his personal issues, but his reluctance to talk can at least be explained by Voq blocking him from remembering.
And there was humour. Which is such a great tension breaker. And the bits with Tilly were gold. Again, because they're doing stuff with a character we actually care about and like.

And continuity! An acknowledgement of stuff that has come before but not just as an Easter Egg on a desk 



Hussar said:


> Y'know, it never occurred to me that Tyler is Voq.  Cool.  Like the idea.  And it fits in nicely with the notion of human looking Klingons.



There are some meta-clues based on the actor. 
But the fact that Voq was in every episode until Tyler appeared, and Voq hasn't been seen since (after last being told he would need to sacrifice _everything _for his revenge), really suggests Voq went under the knife.



Hussar said:


> But, where are you guys getting the idea that Lorca is a mirror universe Lorca?



The Mirror Universe was teased very early, so people have been guessing for a while. The thought is that Lorca is such a tool, he must be from the Mirror Universe. Because, otherwise how would someone so dark be a captain?



Hussar said:


> Not entirely thrilled that they're dipping into the mirror universe already.  I would have rather seen that a while later once the characters were a bit more developed.  Love the call back to DS9 though.  The fact that they're referencing the wrong Defiant is a nice Easter Egg for fans.  Bit timey wimey though.  At least they explicitly talk about it during the ep saying that there might be some sort of time distortion going on.



It's actually a nod to the _Star Trek: Enterprise_ episodes set in the Mirror Universe, which itself ties into _The Tholian Web_. It's some pretty hefty continuity and almost a deep cut, given how few people watched _Enterprise_ in its final season. But it's an example of using canon well, as you don't need to know _why _the ship is there to understand the episode and they explain enough really quickly. And even if someone just watched _The Tholian Web_, they'd be able to mentally bridge the gap. 


I just hope _Discovery_ can keep up the quality for the rest of the season. 

It'd also be nice if the actually stopped and did some philosophising. If they looked at the Terran Empire and said "this is not what we want Starfleet to become." If this leads Lorca to some personal growth. I'd be nice  if _Discovery_ actually embraced and explored the thematic aspects of the show rather than just acknowledging they exist in a off-hand line of dialog and then letting them drop. Even _Battlestar Galactica_, as grimdark as it was, stopped and allowed Adama to give a speech about what was right and wrong.

And I also hope they don't just completely end up fridging Culper.  (Not that I want the Spore Drive to also be able to raise the dead... but I expect that's what will happen.) Not every show needs to have a high death count. And especially not this early when it's not exactly rolling in expendable characters. It was shocking to kill support characters a decade or two ago, but now it's just rote. (That's why _Game of Thrones_ upped the ante and killed the ostensible protagonist.) The shock death hasn't been shocking for years and I'd love to have them subvert it with a twist that he survived, was placed on life support, and is slowly recovering. 
(I called Tyler killing someone to prove his heel turn. At the time I said it'd be Tilly to cement his betrayal of Burnham and allow her to work up the emotion to kill her lover. Which could still happen. But it'd be nice to be wrong.)

Oh... and it'd also be nice if the Faceless Emperor is actually revealed and doesn't end up another teased mystery that goes nowhere. Like the Black Badges...


----------



## Mallus

Hussar said:


> But, where are you guys getting the idea that Lorca is a mirror universe Lorca?



It's couple of things, taken together. 

The most important is a quick shot of Lorca overriding the coordinates from a panel on the conn just before the spore drive jump that lands them in the Mirror Universe. For whatever reason, Lorca wanted the Discovery there. 

The second most is his admiral-with-benefits saying directly to him: "You're a different man". 

Then it's bunch of little details; Lorca general ruthlessness, sleeping with a weapon under the pillow, several offhand remarks regarding the spore drive and access to other universes, his weird eye-thing (maybe), coupled with the delayed reflection of Stamets in that one episode that kicked off the speculation about the Mirror Universe.

There's nothing definitive. But Lorca as potentially being from the Mirror Universe was hinted at. Could easily be misdirection, though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

It seemed they didn't show Lorca's display of the presumably changed coordinates in the preview of this episode, so it might indicate that this is a red herring, or at least not immediately relevant. 

Notice how he asked what happened to his Mirror versions s ship, and it was also lost - maybe his real aim is to rescue his crew, or at least an alternate universe version of it? But that alternate universe was not Mirror Universe.

As an argument for the Mirror Verse Lorca theory - they suggest that every captain in the Mirror Universe has a security guy loyal to him or her - maybe that was who the deceased security chief was for Mirror Lorca? 

However, overall I tend to think that unless Lorca made the Mirror/Prime jump during the destruction of his ship, that he's either from the Prime universe or at least some very similar universe. His relationship to Cornwell suggests they knew each other well, and it seems unlikely that experiences with Mirror Cornwell would be so similar that he could just pick off where they last were. Even if the details of their relationship are officially documented, improvising a long-standing intimidate relationship based on that sounds... difficult.


----------



## Hussar

Heh.  Just did a bit of background reading and learned that there are two ships named "Defiant" in Star Trek.  Oops.  They're referring to the Tholian Web one.  My bad.  

And, funnily enough, I did watch all the Enterprise episodes, but, had completely forgotten this one.  Again, oops.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> Heh.  Just did a bit of background reading and learned that there are two ships named "Defiant" in Star Trek.  Oops.  They're referring to the Tholian Web one.  My bad.
> 
> And, funnily enough, I did watch all the Enterprise episodes, but, had completely forgotten this one.  Again, oops.




There are like half a dozen named Enterprise!


----------



## Jester David

Two more species were teased a few days ago, who appeared in the most recent episode

*Andorian*



*Tellarite*


The Andorian is a great example of how to update make-up. It retains all the major features and iconic elements and adds a few small flourishes, such as the extra texturing to the jawline and eyebrows and is instantly recognisable as an Andorian whether you've seen them in _The Original Series_ or _Star Trek: Enterprise_. 

The Tellarite... if I wasn't told that was a Tellarite, I wouldn't have known. The nose is kinda sorta porcine. But the balder head and scragglier beard are unimpressive. The addition of cheek tusks seem unnecessary. It's looks like how someone would design a Tellarite if they never saw a picture of them and just read a description.


----------



## Ryujin

The Andorian does look quite good. The Tellarite, however, looks more like an updated Klingon to me than does the actual current Klingons.


----------



## MarkB

Jester David said:


> *Tellarite*
> View attachment 93005
> 
> The Tellarite... if I wasn't told that was a Tellarite, I wouldn't have known. The nose is kinda sorta porcine. But the balder head and scragglier beard are unimpressive. The addition of cheek tusks seem unnecessary. It's looks like how someone would design a Tellarite if they never saw a picture of them and just read a description.




Actually, aside from the tusks and the scraggly hair (the latter of which is well within the range of variance amongst human hair), the design is almost identical to Tellarites as seen in Star Trek Enterprise.


----------



## Ryujin

A little more tusky. Like wild boar tusky.


----------



## Staffan

And we got to see the Emperor! I must say, I did not see that coming...

I've genuinely turned a leaf on this series. I was skeptical at first, and didn't like the new Klingon design (I still don't - they should either be near-human or have an updated version of their TNG-era look) or the warlike nature of Lorca. But the last few episodes before the break, followed by these two Mirrorverse episodes? Yeah, I'm down for that.


----------



## Morrus

Wow. What an episode!

So, the Lorca theories were all correct. He's the evil Mirror Universe Lorca. 

I'm hoping we get to see the USS Defiant next week.


----------



## Kaodi

Stamets question about God makes me think that maybe the Mirror Universe should be taken as compelling evidence that in Star Trek God(s) exists. There is no other plausible explanation for how all the people in a universe could act one way and yet have exact copies of all the people in a parallel universe where people act differently.


----------



## Morrus

Kaodi said:


> Stamets question about God makes me think that maybe the Mirror Universe should be taken as compelling evidence that in Star Trek God(s) exists. There is no other plausible explanation for how all the people in a universe could act one way and yet have exact copies of all the people in a parallel universe where people act differently.




There's no plausible explanation for tons of stuff in Star Trek! They made that comment manually as a throwaway joke, essentially not commenting on or offering any kind of answer to the question at all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I kinda hoped the Lorca theories would be wrong, since it kinda undermines the appeal of the character (though it might at least help some fans sleep easier over Discovery?).
Worse, however, it could mean that Isaacs doesn't stick around.


----------



## MarkB

Morrus said:


> Wow. What an episode!
> 
> So, the Lorca theories were all correct. He's the evil Mirror Universe Lorca.
> 
> I'm hoping we get to see the USS Defiant next week.




I can't think of a good reason why the _Defiant_ would still be operational. It's over a hundred years old at this point, even if it wasn't completely stripped down and reverse-engineered. At best, it's mothballed somewhere as a trophy.

Either way, it's not a particularly noteworthy vessel in either universe at this point in the timeline. The Mirror Universe has caught up technologically, and back in the prime universe there have been Constitution-class vessels in service for several years now.


----------



## Morrus

How’s the Defiant a hundred years old?


----------



## Aexalon

Morrus said:


> How’s the Defiant a hundred years old?




Because while the Tholian Web incident in which the USS Defiant switched universes was in 2268, the ship ended up in 2155 in the Mirror Universe, 113 years into the past. It was there found by Captain Archer of the ISS Enterprise, and soon after fell into the hands of Hoshi Sato, who successfully leveraged the ship's superior technology in her bid to become Empress of the Terran Empire.

Now, in 2256 the USS Discovery wound up in the Mirror Universe without any timeshift that we're aware of, meaning that the Defiant they're looking for has been in the Mirror Universe for about 101 years.


----------



## Morrus

Aexalon said:


> Because while the Tholian Web incident in which the USS Defiant switched universes was in 2268, the ship ended up in 2155 in the Mirror Universe, 113 years into the past.




Ah, OK. I didn't remember the time travel bit!


----------



## Jester David

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I kinda hoped the Lorca theories would be wrong, since it kinda undermines the appeal of the character (though it might at least help some fans sleep easier over Discovery?).
> Worse, however, it could mean that Isaacs doesn't stick around.



I have mixed feelings about it.

It does mean that a Starfleet officer did not leave a civilian to be tortured. Which is glorious. That was a reprehensible act that was far, far beyond the pale. That action would have been dark for a Colonial Officer in _Battlestar Galactica_...

But it also really strips away the complexity from the character. Lorca is no longer the tortured survivor of a Klingon attack suffering from PTSD and a survivor's guilt who is being driven to win the war. Instead... he's just evil. 

It also means Lorca is unlikely to learn a lesson. He's not going to have to face the consequences of his actions and the cost of winning the war. He's not going to be held accountable for betraying an Admiral, or forced to question defeating the Klingons at the risk of losing what the Federation stands for. 
The entire morality that _*should*_ have been the spine of _Discovery_ suddenly falls flat. Because instead he was just eeeeevil. 
Without the morality, what's the point of the show? It's just empty spectacle. 


It does emphasise Alex Kurtzman's weaknesses as a writer (and showrunner). He tried to pull a Shyamalan twist in _Into Darkness_, which everyone saw coming. So he lied and said "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Khan. And now again he really, really wants there to be a twist in the series. Which many views saw coming a mile away, and the entire time was all "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Voq/Tyler and Mirror Lorca. 
He really wants this show to be his _Game of Thrones_ with surprise deaths and unexpected twists, but it's "shocks" are all so cliche the only surprising bit was the look of the Klingons... To say nothing of the poorly handled fridging of one-half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek.


----------



## CapnZapp

Jester David said:


> I have mixed feelings about it.
> 
> It does mean that a Starfleet officer did not leave a civilian to be tortured. Which is glorious. That was a reprehensible act that was far, far beyond the pale. That action would have been dark for a Colonial Officer in _Battlestar Galactica_...
> 
> But it also really strips away the complexity from the character. Lorca is no longer the tortured survivor of a Klingon attack suffering from PTSD and a survivor's guilt who is being driven to win the war. Instead... he's just evil.
> 
> It also means Lorca is unlikely to learn a lesson. He's not going to have to face the consequences of his actions and the cost of winning the war. He's not going to be held accountable for betraying an Admiral, or forced to question defeating the Klingons at the risk of losing what the Federation stands for.
> The entire morality that _*should*_ have been the spine of _Discovery_ suddenly falls flat. Because instead he was just eeeeevil.
> Without the morality, what's the point of the show? It's just empty spectacle.
> 
> 
> It does emphasise Alex Kurtzman's weaknesses as a writer (and showrunner). He tried to pull a Shyamalan twist in _Into Darkness_, which everyone saw coming. So he lied and said "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Khan. And now again he really, really wants there to be a twist in the series. Which many views saw coming a mile away, and the entire time was all "nuh-uh" and tried to deflect away from Voq/Tyler and Mirror Lorca.
> He really wants this show to be his _Game of Thrones_ with surprise deaths and unexpected twists, but it's "shocks" are all so cliche the only surprising bit was the look of the Klingons... To say nothing of the poorly handled fridging of one-half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek.



Agreed.

I've given up on this show.

Might return for a season 2 where the ship finally gets a proper bridge crew that trusts each other, works together, and where problems are solved by cooperation and optimism.

You know, like Star Trek.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Morrus

CapnZapp said:


> I've given up on this show.




The thread thanks you.


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> But it also really strips away the complexity from the character. Lorca is no longer the tortured survivor of a Klingon attack suffering from PTSD and a survivor's guilt who is being driven to win the war. Instead... he's just evil.



I'm disappointed by this turn, too. I wanted Lorca to be either a Starfleet officer gone over-the-edge because of the war and PTSD, or as a Mirror Universe's version of an idealist captain, which happens to be indistinguishable from a Prime Universe officer gone over-the-edge. Looks like he's neither. However...  



> It also means Lorca is unlikely to learn a lesson. He's not going to have to face the consequences of his actions and the cost of winning the war. He's not going to be held accountable for betraying an Admiral, or forced to question defeating the Klingons at the risk of losing what the Federation stands for.
> The entire morality that _*should*_ have been the spine of _Discovery_ suddenly falls flat. Because instead he was just eeeeevil.
> Without the morality, what's the point of the show? It's just empty spectacle.



... This is all true, _if_ you view Lorca as one of the protagonists. But since it looks like he's merely the villain, then his arc (and his interiority) becomes less relevant. Discovery is not his story; it's Burnham's and Saru's and Stamets's and Tilly's, etc. All the Prime Universe Starfleet officers who went along with Lorca's actions. They're the ones who'll learn the lessons. The drama and morality hang on them and how they deal the Lorca reveal. I think we see this is where the show's going in the trailer for this week's ep., with Saru saying something to the effect of "Now we take Discovery back!". 

Lorca's the _plot_, somewhat disguised by the fact he's prolly the best and most charismatic actor on the show. 



> It does emphasise Alex Kurtzman's weaknesses as a writer (and showrunner). He tried to pull a Shyamalan twist in _Into Darkness_, which everyone saw coming.



Let me say (again) I really wish Fuller would have stuck around. I think he could have pulled a lot of what the creative team attempted to do in a more satisfying manner. Or at least a more coherent one. 

I'm still in, though. Discovery still surprises me in a way I didn't expect, and I'm not talking about the big twists, here, more the overall structure of the show & it's themes. It's exciting!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Mallus said:


> I'm disappointed by this turn, too. I wanted Lorca to be either a Starfleet officer gone over-the-edge because of the war and PTSD, or as a Mirror Universe's version of an idealist captain, which happens to be indistinguishable from a Prime Universe officer gone over-the-edge. Looks like he's neither. However...
> 
> 
> ... This is all true, _if_ you view Lorca as one of the protagonists. But since it looks like he's merely the villain, then his arc (and his interiority) becomes less relevant. Discovery is not his story; it's Burnham's and Saru's and Stamets's and Tilly's, etc. All the Prime Universe Starfleet officers who went along with Lorca's actions. They're the ones who'll learn the lessons. The drama and morality hang on them and how they deal the Lorca reveal. I think we see this is where the show's going in the trailer for this week's ep., with Saru
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> saying something to the effect of "Now we take Discovery back!".
> 
> 
> 
> Lorca's the _plot_, somewhat disguised by the fact he's prolly the best and most charismatic actor on the show.
> 
> 
> Let me say (again) I really wish Fuller would have stuck around. I think he could have pulled a lot of what the creative team attempted to do in a more satisfying manner. Or at least a more coherent one.
> 
> I'm still in, though. Discovery still surprises me in a way I didn't expect, and I'm not talking about the big twists, here, more the overall structure of the show & it's themes. It's exciting!




I am not sure what was agreed on in the thread, but I recommend avoiding putting content from trailers and previews outside spoiler blocks. 

One thing to consider is that the Empress of the Terran EMpire isn't really a trustworthy person either. So maybe it's a fight of two evils, but maybe one of them really is the lesser, and it doesn't have to be Georgiu.

I think story-wise it can really go either way.

Burnham is naturally inclined to trust Georgiu because of her experiences with the Prime one - and betraying her will feel extra difficult, because she betrayed her once already and she deeply regrets that. But maybe that is really what she has to do (either to succeed in her mission, or because it is the morally better option).  
But of course, Burnham also has betrayed her Captain for the wrong reasons, so betraying her new Captain - Lorca - might be a way to finally do it for the right reasons. 

Either way, I always figured that at the end of the season, she would have to commit a mutiny again, but his time, it would be the right thing to do.


----------



## Jester David

Mallus said:


> I This is all true, if you view Lorca as one of the protagonists. But since it looks like he's merely the villain, then his arc becomes less relevant. Discovery is not his story; it's Burnham's and Saru's and Stamets's and Tilly's, etc. All the Prime Universe Starfleet officers who went along with Lorca's actions. They're the ones who'll learn the lessons. The drama and morality hang on them and how they deal the Lorca reveal.
> I think we see this is where the show's going in the trailer for this week's ep., with Saru saying something to the effect of "Now we take Discovery back!".



Burnham was always *the* protagonist, but I was hoping the rest of the cast might be important in ways other than plot elements. Anyone not related to Burnham's character arc is a cypher and lucky to even have a name… 
Saru and Tilly are really only there to add drama to Burnham. Saru to serve as the "path not taken" while Tilly draws her out of her self-imposed exile. 
I've also said repeatedly, Tilly's role in the story is to be bonded to and die at Tyler/Loq's hands in order to drive Burnham to move past her affection and kill him. (Likely with last words related to "at least I got to be Captain… for a little while…") I'm now expanding that prediction to alternatively include Lorca. And Stamet is also likely fated to die so the secrets of the Spore Drive are lost.


Mallus said:


> ILet me say (again) I really wish Fuller would have stuck around. I think he could have pulled a lot of what the creative team attempted to do in a more satisfying manner. Or at least a more coherent one.



Agreed. I'm sad he was fired. 
He was also pushing for stuff like uniforms closer to TOS and the like. So under his leadership, I imagine things like Klingons might look a little more like Klingons as well, removing the visual dislike of the show for many fans…
(Of course, he also wanted the show to be an anthology series, with each season set in a different era. That would have been lovely, albeit likely expensive. We're left to only imagine the adventures of the Discovery-A in 2275, Discovery-B in 2300, and the Discovery-C in 2325…)


Mallus said:


> I'm still in, though. Discovery still surprises me in a way I didn't expect, and I'm not talking about the big twists, here, more the overall structure of the show & it's themes. It's exciting!



I am curious (morbidly curious?) and uncertain where things are going. The two story structure of the season has been… different. They could do anything. Maybe they'll end with the prime universe Lorca being rescued or Saru being captain. Maybe Burnham's attempts sacrifice grants her a reprieve from prison. Or something completely different. 
Really… I wouldn't be surprised if it just ends and doesn't really give us much resolution or denouement.


----------



## MarkB

Well, that was... breathtaking. An incredibly action-packed episode which gave several of the main cast a chance to shine. Fight sequences really well done, fast pacing, and some nice character moments for Michael and Emperor Phillipa.

Lorca was something of a disappointment, seemingly reverting to more-or-less standard villain mode as soon as his identity was confirmed, but he served well enough in that capacity. They did seem to renege on the apparent Stamets body-swap that was suggested in the previous episode, which is a little puzzling, but made up for by the direction his story took in this episode.


----------



## CapnZapp

> So when I say Star Trek: Discovery is like fan fiction, what I mean is: It’s a show that uses the tropes of an established franchise without any real understanding of how those tropes work; and it’s written without the craft or patience necessary to tell a story that means something outside of our recognition of those tropes.



https://www.avclub.com/star-trek-discovery-is-exciting-but-not-much-else-1822501041


----------



## MarkB

CapnZapp said:


> https://www.avclub.com/star-trek-discovery-is-exciting-but-not-much-else-1822501041




Someone agrees with you. Congratulations.


----------



## Morrus

So is it just one episode left?

They're 9 months in the future and the Klingons have won the war. So I'm guessing some time travel is coming.


----------



## tomBitonti

Morrus said:


> So is it just one episode left?
> 
> They're 9 months in the future and the Klingons have won the war. So I'm guessing some time travel is coming.




That would be my guess.  Wouldn't be Trek without time travel, after all.

I was mostly OK with the episode, but it escalated the stakes a bit beyond my comfort level.  The death of all life in all manifolds of the multi-verse?  That is way to big of a potential impact.  And unnecessary ... they could have limited the effect to our region of both galaxies and it would have been big enough.

And it seemed to rush through the dark side story all too quickly.  They basically crippled the Terran Empire in just a couple of episodes, including the deaths of major parallel characters.  It was all too quick for me.

I half expected the guy who interfaces with the network to be pulled into the network as a consequence of the last jump.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Aexalon

Morrus said:


> So is it just one episode left?



Two more:
[SBLOCK]s01e14 The War Without, The War Within
s01e15 Will You Take My Hand?[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Hussar

tomBitonti said:


> That would be my guess.  Wouldn't be Trek without time travel, after all.
> 
> I was mostly OK with the episode, but it escalated the stakes a bit beyond my comfort level.  The death of all life in all manifolds of the multi-verse?  That is way to big of a potential impact.  And unnecessary ... they could have limited the effect to our region of both galaxies and it would have been big enough.
> 
> And it seemed to rush through the dark side story all too quickly.  They basically crippled the Terran Empire in just a couple of episodes, including the deaths of major parallel characters.  It was all too quick for me.
> 
> I half expected the guy who interfaces with the network to be pulled into the network as a consequence of the last jump.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I wonder if the "rushed" feeling isn't due to the fact that this is a lot shorter of a season than we're used to.  It's only 15 (?) episodes as opposed to 22-25 from previous series.  Which does cut down a lot of the side stuff that we saw in earlier Trek.  

I know people have complained about how we haven't spent much time on other characters, but, again, when your season is 10 hours shorter than what we had before, you really can't spend a lot of time on other characters.  

I wonder if they'll go to a full length season in the future if the show proves successful for ABC.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Well, that was... breathtaking. An incredibly action-packed episode which gave several of the main cast a chance to shine. Fight sequences really well done, fast pacing, and some nice character moments for Michael and Emperor Phillipa.



I was quite happy we got to have the small moments from the bridge crew, who up until now have effectively been extras.

Hopefully in the second season they can expand them out and give them each an episode to shine. Maybe even personalities and backstories...



Morrus said:


> They're 9 months in the future and the Klingons have won the war. So I'm guessing some time travel is coming.





tomBitonti said:


> That would be my guess.  Wouldn't be Trek without time travel, after all.



I found that annoying.

They teased immediately that the spore network could propel people through time by shunting them into future for a needless cliffhanger. Because despite Discovery almost single-handedly winning the war twice before, apparently they need to do so again. 
We know the Klingons aren't going to win. That's a given. Prequel and all. The stakes aren't really there. But aside from that, teasing that they jumped ahead nine months strips some of the drama away as the obvious "reset button" solution is sitting right there. 

How they can win is still a mystery. The Klingons were winning already until the Discovery stepped in with the jump drive. Then cloaking turned the tide back to Starfleet. Then Discovery managed to bypass the cloaking, but itself vanished. The Federation was now doubly screwed. So the war was lost again. 
Now we need to have them spend an episode getting back in time and another where they win the war. 
This assumes they didn't share the way to overcome the cloak with Starfleet before being sucked into the Mirror Universe. Which I believe was mentioned on the show. Despite, apparently, sending the critically injured Admiral to a starbase in a shuttle. (If they were close enough for a shuttle to seem viable as an emergency vehicle, why did they need a spore drive jump?) Which begs the question, why they didn't transmit the data, or send it with the Admiral?

But even if they do jump back in time (and I imagine getting enough spores to do so will be the trick and the focus of the next episode or so) and share the cloak nullifying tech, the Klingons were still winning the war without that. Hopefully the show remembers to explain this and doesn't just have the spore-less Discovery bringing the secrets of revealing cloaked ships as the war winning move. 



tomBitonti said:


> I was mostly OK with the episode, but it escalated the stakes a bit beyond my comfort level.  The death of all life in all manifolds of the multi-verse?  That is way to big of a potential impact.  And unnecessary ... they could have limited the effect to our region of both galaxies and it would have been big enough.



Ahhh the spore network's mystical BS. My least favourite bit about Discovery. 
Really, just having the spore network itself die would have been enough drama. It would trap them in another universe and cause the deaths of an entire galactic ecosystem. That *should* be enough. 



tomBitonti said:


> And it seemed to rush through the dark side story all too quickly.  They basically crippled the Terran Empire in just a couple of episodes, including the deaths of major parallel characters.  It was all too quick for me.





Hussar said:


> I wonder if the "rushed" feeling isn't due to the fact that this is a lot shorter of a season than we're used to.  It's only 15 (?) episodes as opposed to 22-25 from previous series.  Which does cut down a lot of the side stuff that we saw in earlier Trek.
> 
> I know people have complained about how we haven't spent much time on other characters, but, again, when your season is 10 hours shorter than what we had before, you really can't spend a lot of time on other characters.
> 
> I wonder if they'll go to a full length season in the future if the show proves successful for ABC.



I think the "rushed" feel has as much to do with the crazy epic scope. This whole season has been two giant stories that could have been unpacked into full seasons or multi-season arcs. Discovery's use of the spore drive to turn the tide of the war largely happens between episodes. The Klingon's turning it back with cloaking devices again happens between episodes. They told the story of a year-long war in five episodes. That could have been the entire season (or even series) with smaller side stories as tonal breaks and various exciting missions.
Jumping to the Mirror Universe for four episodes is another pretty giant storyarc that, again, takes a previously seen element of the series (the Terran Empire) and turns up the scope to 11. We see the Emperor and they die. There's a mass revolution. The entire politics of the universe is upended. 

I think if they had another 5 to 8 or so episodes... we'd just see yet another big plot. I don't think they would have paused to unpack things. Honestly... I wonder if things wouldn't have been better had they focused entirely on Klingons this season and saved the Mirror Universe for season 2...



tomBitonti said:


> I half expected the guy who interfaces with the network to be pulled into the network as a consequence of the last jump.



They're probably saving that for when they jump to the past. 

After all, they need some way of removing the Spore Drive from the story now that they've removed the problems of it torturing tardigrades to death, and the mental side effects were really being caused by the corruption of the network by Mirror Stamets.


----------



## tomBitonti

Jester David said:


> I think if they had another 5 to 8 or so episodes... we'd just see yet another big plot. I don't think they would have paused to unpack things. Honestly... I wonder if things wouldn't have been better had they focused entirely on Klingons this season and saved the Mirror Universe for season 2...




Additional text omitted.  I was just thinking the same thing.  The Mirror Universe story line seems to fit better as a followup to the war with the Kingons.

Or, they could have had the Mirror Universe be a smaller story element: Having them chase Lorca to the Empress, who defeats him then sends them back would have been a fine one episode plot.  Or they could do that, but it would be a tease for Season 2.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## MarkB

Personally, I'm predicting no time-travel solution to this problem. Nor a strictly military one. This is going to revolve around Ash / Voq and the nature of Klingon culture.


----------



## Bagpuss

Jester David said:


> We know the Klingons aren't going to win. That's a given. Prequel and all.




They have established multiple parallel universes/timelines who to know they don't decide this one is a different one than the either of the other Star Treks?


----------



## Jester David

Bagpuss said:


> They have established multiple parallel universes/timelines who to know they don't decide this one is a different one than the either of the other Star Treks?




They absolutely could. But one of the selling features of the series was that it was in the Prime timeline of the past TV shows.


----------



## Staffan

Jester David said:


> Jumping to the Mirror Universe for four episodes is another pretty giant storyarc that, again, takes a previously seen element of the series (the Terran Empire) and turns up the scope to 11. We see the Emperor and they die. There's a mass revolution. The entire politics of the universe is upended.




I get the feeling that coups are not exactly uncommon in the Terran Empire. Emperors come and go, but the Empire remains. We know from previous encounters with the Terrans that assassination is a common method of advancing, and we even see the guy now commanding the Shengzhou trying to assassinate Burnham in order to keep his command.

Well, until Mirror!Spock has a chat with Prime!Kirk and convinces the Empire that they're on a bad path, which leads to them getting conquered by the Klingons and Cardassians. It's possible that the aftermath of this coup provided the opportunity for Mirror!Spock to seize power.

That said, four episodes in a row is more than any previous series has spent on the Mirror Universe. TOS only had the one episode. DS9 had five, but they all took place in different seasons, and Enterprise had a two-parter that was pretty much self-contained.


----------



## Jester David

Interesting episode. And MarkB might be right in that a solution other than time travel might be involved. 

Given we have seen Qo'nos on TNG and DS9 we should know that they're not going to scourge the planet. But that still assumes they're uncomfortable making major breaks from canon. I am hopefully that this is just setting up Burnham and Saru drawing a line in the sand between dying like Starfleet rather than living like the Terran Empire. 

It still seems odd to have the Klingons act so... non-Klingon. Killing civilians and suicide runs don't seem very honourable. 

Honestly, I just enjoyed the parallels/ subversions in this past episode. Sarek being advised to do something extreme and non-Starfleet, Saru being the decisive captain, a Starfleet officer being isolated in the mess, etc. 
Which does suggest that things are going to continue with the full circle next episode, with Burnham betraying and disobeying her captain but this time to maintain the principles of Starfleet. And thus redeeming herself.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> Interesting episode. And MarkB might be right in that a solution other than time travel might be involved.
> 
> Given we have seen Qo'nos on TNG and DS9 we should know that they're not going to scourge the planet. But that still assumes they're uncomfortable making major breaks from canon. I am hopefully that this is just setting up Burnham and Saru drawing a line in the sand between dying like Starfleet rather than living like the Terran Empire.
> 
> It still seems odd to have the Klingons act so... non-Klingon. Killing civilians and suicide runs don't seem very honourable.
> 
> Honestly, I just enjoyed the parallels/ subversions in this past episode. Sarek being advised to do something extreme and non-Starfleet, Saru being the decisive captain, a Starfleet officer being isolated in the mess, etc.
> Which does suggest that things are going to continue with the full circle next episode, with Burnham betraying and disobeying her captain but this time to maintain the principles of Starfleet. And thus redeeming herself.




In TOS, which this is supposed to be a prelude to, the Klingons were far from an honourable species. They were the stand-ins for the fears held regarding the Soviet Union (the Romulans for the People's Republic of China) and their characterization was coloured by that. The 'honourable Klingon' didn't appear until TNG. So, based on the feelings about the Klingon Empire 'at the time', they're acting quite Klingon.


----------



## Mallus

Meant to reply to this earlier. Oops.



Jester David said:


> Burnham was always *the* protagonist, but I was hoping the rest of the cast might be important in ways other than plot elements. Anyone not related to Burnham's character arc is a cypher and lucky to even have a name…



It certainly looked this way for a while, but I think the show's moved past being Burnham's story exclusively. Tilly and Saru clearly have their own story arcs, and even the semi-nameless bridge crew have gotten some lines. Why their names have even been spoken aloud! (and not determinable solely from the credits - which was a problem). 



> I've also said repeatedly, Tilly's role in the story is to be bonded to and die at Tyler/Loq's hands in order to drive Burnham to move past her affection and kill him. (Likely with last words related to "at least I got to be Captain… for a little while…") I'm now expanding that prediction to alternatively include Lorca. And Stamet is also likely fated to die so the secrets of the Spore Drive are lost.



I'm pretty confident Tilly, Saru, and Stamets will be around for season 2. I'm not sure they would have survived Fuller original design for Discovery - i.e. the anthology series -- but I doubt they're going anywhere now. Well, maybe one of them will go out in a blaze of cheap, overwritten drama. Admittedly, that's been a persistent issue.



> (Of course, he also wanted the show to be an anthology series, with each season set in a different era. That would have been lovely, albeit likely expensive. We're left to only imagine the adventures of the Discovery-A in 2275, Discovery-B in 2300, and the Discovery-C in 2325…)



I would have loved to see his version of the show. But I can see how that structure would have raised the show's cost from "a big gamble" to "inarguably prohibitive". Each season being a commentary and expansion of a different era of Trek, complete with its one theme/set of themes could have been fantastic. 

Another persistent problem with the Discovery we actually got is it has no answer to the question: why is it a prequel to TOS? Absent the original plan for the series, there really isn't one. 



> I am curious (morbidly curious?) and uncertain where things are going.



That's what keeps me interested. Despite the missteps and bad plotting/writing, I am legitimately surprised by something pretty much every episode. I didn't expect from a Trek show. Case in point, I was somewhat disappointed by the final episode in the Mirror Universe, but I didn't see Burnham saving/kidnapping Empress Georgiou coming - prolly should have, but didn't. 

As for this week's ep., I found it much better. Saru makes a good captain. Tilly's response to Ash in the mess hall was so, so Starfleet, and Burnham's scene with Ash looked like it was going to be a trainwreck, until it became something else. Nuanced, graceful, topical even. Believable, despite the gonzo sci-fi setup. 

And I didn't see Mirror Georgiou being trotted out in a Starfleet uniform, complete with absurd cover story, either. While I admit that also probably counts as cheap, plot-y drama, it totally worked for me - I think because the episode really sold the Federation's desperation. The actress playing the admiral did a great job. Almost coming unglued, but not quite (if this were TOS she would have wolfed down a generous helping of scenery).


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> It still seems odd to have the Klingons act so... non-Klingon. Killing civilians and suicide runs don't seem very honourable.



This is one of the ways -- intentionally or not, though I'm pretty sure it is, mostly -- Star Trek (including but not limited to Discovery) winds up being realistic. 

There is a large gap between the stated Klingon _identity_ and their _actions_. In other words, like every other group, their cultural/historical narrative is at least partially a lie they tell themselves (and others). Frequently disproven by the actual historical record.    

TNG makes this pretty clear. A lot of what we hear about Klingons comes from Worf, the guy raised by human parents in the Federation. An idealized, at best second-hand version of who they are. Contrast that with the machinations surrounding the Klingon succession, the Duras sisters, the Khitomer cover-up, etc. The audience sees the Klingon relationship to honor is... complicated.


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> In TOS, which this is supposed to be a prelude to, the Klingons were far from an honourable species. They were the stand-ins for the fears held regarding the Soviet Union (the Romulans for the People's Republic of China) and their characterization was coloured by that. The 'honourable Klingon' didn't appear until TNG. So, based on the feelings about the Klingon Empire 'at the time', they're acting quite Klingon.



TOS also looked like humans in blackface. If they're meant to be identical to TOS Klingons, shouldn't they also look like them?

Plus, it's set after Enterprise, which retained the honourable Klingons seen in TNG (and hinted at in Search for Spock).


Being set before TOS isn't a free licence to change details. Klingons in TOS didn't really have a culture. They were just bland generic evil. TNG made them a rounded species. A fan favourite beloved by many. 


Discovery is also freely taking other elements of TNG Klingons. Like the logo, the great houses, batleth, the home planet of Qon'os, etc. It's picking and choosing the lore it wants to keep. Which I strongly dislike. 

At least when Disney decided to make more Star Wars films and didn't want to be saddled with extra continuity they had the balls to come out and admit they were declaring the EU non-canon. If Paramount doesn't want to have to deal with Trek lore beyond the Original Series they need to cowboy up and just declare TNG onward non-canon.


----------



## Ryujin

Jester David said:


> TOS also looked like humans in blackface. If they're meant to be identical to TOS Klingons, shouldn't they also look like them?
> 
> Plus, it's set after Enterprise, which retained the honourable Klingons seen in TNG (and hinted at in Search for Spock).
> 
> 
> Being set before TOS isn't a free licence to change details. Klingons in TOS didn't really have a culture. They were just bland generic evil. TNG made them a rounded species. A fan favourite beloved by many.
> 
> 
> Discovery is also freely taking other elements of TNG Klingons. Like the logo, the great houses, batleth, the home planet of Qon'os, etc. It's picking and choosing the lore it wants to keep. Which I strongly dislike.
> 
> At least when Disney decided to make more Star Wars films and didn't want to be saddled with extra continuity they had the balls to come out and admit they were declaring the EU non-canon. If Paramount doesn't want to have to deal with Trek lore beyond the Original Series they need to cowboy up and just declare TNG onward non-canon.




I'm trying to limit my contributions to this thread to things that don't tear "Discovery" a new one, as I don't like it and am no longer watching it


----------



## Morrus

I still love this show. It's the show I look forward to most each week; I wake up on Monday mornings excited for it. I'm going to really miss it when it ends.


----------



## Jester David

Ryujin said:


> I'm trying to limit my contributions to this thread to things that don't tear "Discovery" a new one, as I don't like it and am no longer watching it



I almost stopped. 
Really, the sole reason I kept watching was out of a morbid desire to see how it ends and to generate content for the Star Trek Adventures RPG on the Continuing Mission fan site.




Mallus said:


> I would have loved to see his version of the show. But I can see how that structure would have raised the show's cost from "a big gamble" to "inarguably prohibitive". Each season being a commentary and expansion of a different era of Trek, complete with its one theme/set of themes could have been fantastic.



Given the budget given to the show it wouldn't have been impossible. It wouldn't look as good (i.e. movie quality like the current series, but it would have been decent. 
But having to continually recast and lose the character momentum would be tricky. 




Mallus said:


> Another persistent problem with the Discovery we actually got is it has no answer to the question: why is it a prequel to TOS? Absent the original plan for the series, there really isn't one.



Nostalgia. 
I think they assumption was that the Kirk era was the most well known and most popular era of Trek. It allowed them to namedrop familiar characters, like Sarek and Spock. And, presumably, required the least audience familiarity. 
(Although, honestly, I think TNG and that era is arguably just as popular and well known.)


It makes me miss Roddenberry, who was pretty insistent TNG introduce new aliens rather than just coast with old favourites. 


They could just have easily positioned the story in 2130 and said it was 25 years before TOS. Or placed it in 2300-2350 and had it between the TOS films and TNG. 
Instead of Klingons it could have featured the gorn or tholians and still had a classic enemy feel without stepping on established lore. Or a brand new enemy, which would make it more suspenseful over the idea of Starfleet potentially scourging the planet. But they *really* wanted to milk that nostalgia. 




Mallus said:


> That's what keeps me interested. Despite the missteps and bad plotting/writing, I am legitimately surprised by something pretty much every episode. I didn't expect from a Trek show. Case in point, I was somewhat disappointed by the final episode in the Mirror Universe, but I didn't see Burnham saving/kidnapping Empress Georgiou coming - prolly should have, but didn't.



It's surprising, but they're very rarely good surprises. Most often they're surprises in a “WTF are they thinking?” vein. Like saving the emperor. 


There's predictive text TNG scripts out there, and I never have any idea where they're going either. But I don't think they're good.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I still understand the desire for prequels. The audience needs to bring less insight knowledge about the setting, even if the authors might still need to keep its in mind, lest zealous fans accuse them of violating canon. And it's also the time where the Federation still seems really vulnerable. 

Voyager basically single-highhandedly crippled the Borg, and before that, the Dominion was stopped, even at great cost and with some interference of god-like aliens. 

That means the Federation has gotten really strong and is a total powerhouse in the galaxy. 
Sure, you can let another new alien come by and say "and these guys are even tougher than the last ones". But it seems that's just like a form of power creep and something you've done before. 
And it also kinda feels like it's invalidating the past successes. 
That seems to be what the Star Wars sequels did. "Oh yeah, the Empire was destroyed, but we have the First Order now, and they have a super-weapon that's even more destructive than the one the Death Star had, and they also have a superpowerful Dark Sider.) MAybe fitting for a setting with a "Summon Bigger Fish" spell.


Ultimately, nothing that happened in Discovery so far really contradicts canon. It expands on it. We absolutely don't know if there was a war against the Klingons before or not. We don't really know how far their conflicts went, or how dangerous the Klingons were. And we know the Klingons didn't seem very honorable in TOS, and that there were divisions along house lines and internal strife.

And while the war seemed to have been grand, the losses overall are not that extreme - the colonies being destroyed seem to have only populations in a few thousands apparently. Starfleet and the Klingon Forces are not massive, we're nowhere close to the Dominion War levels of warfare. The Battle of the Binary Stars still seems to be the biggest fight they had. 
And that would seem consistent with canon as well.


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> But having to continually recast and lose the character momentum would be tricky.



Yeah, the anthology format would have made casting much harder. Plus, there would have been pressure to keep any fan-favorite/breakout characters for more than one season. 



> Nostalgia.
> I think they assumption was that the Kirk era was the most well known and most popular era of Trek. It allowed them to namedrop familiar characters, like Sarek and Spock. And, presumably, required the least audience familiarity.
> (Although, honestly, I think TNG and that era is arguably just as popular and well known.)



I'd say in 2018, more people are nostalgic for TNG-era Trek (cf. The Orville). I say this as someone who grew up w/TOS. I still believe the driving factor was Fuller's desire to tell a story about a battle for the Federation's soul prior to the Age of Kirk. Which helped lay the foundation for not only TOS-era Trek, but for the more-utopic and unitard-forward TNG period.  

Though I may think that because I don't feel much nostalgia in Discovery. For every callback and nod there are deliberate attempts at being "things you've never seen in Star Trek before". 



> Instead of Klingons it could have featured the gorn or tholians and still had a classic enemy feel without stepping on established lore.



I don't think they're stepping on established lore too badly, but honestly I'd be fine with it if they were. I'm not looking for the creative team to "honor Star Trek". I want them to use whatever bits of the canon they find interesting and make something new. And hopefully good. But if making good art were easy everyone would do it.



> Most often they're surprises in a “WTF are they thinking?” vein. Like saving the emperor.



I loved that. It was so stupid. And human. If you're going to indulge in the more operatic aspects of space opera, you could do worse than have a protagonist kidnap-save their evil doppleganger mother figure from a parallel universe.  



> There's predictive text TNG scripts out there, and I never have any idea where they're going either.



Well, I think Discovery is better written than something spit out by a neural network or a Markov Chain generator or some such. I'll stand by an earlier assessment; unevenness aside, it's the strongest first season of a Star Trek series since the 1966-67 television season.


----------



## Morrus

Plus anthologies mean you can’t reuse sets, which is a major cost.


----------



## MarkB

Mallus said:


> This is one of the ways -- intentionally or not, though I'm pretty sure it is, mostly -- Star Trek (including but not limited to Discovery) winds up being realistic.
> 
> There is a large gap between the stated Klingon _identity_ and their _actions_. In other words, like every other group, their cultural/historical narrative is at least partially a lie they tell themselves (and others). Frequently disproven by the actual historical record.
> 
> TNG makes this pretty clear. A lot of what we hear about Klingons comes from Worf, the guy raised by human parents in the Federation. An idealized, at best second-hand version of who they are. Contrast that with the machinations surrounding the Klingon succession, the Duras sisters, the Khitomer cover-up, etc. The audience sees the Klingon relationship to honor is... complicated.




Indeed, and DS9 took this to it's logical conclusion, showing that the contradiction between the race's sense of personal honour and their empire's foundation of cover-ups and face saving was tearing them apart culturally. It looked like they were back on a better path by the end of the series, but they've always had that disconnect between honour and glory - between personal integrity and public reputation. This era was just a time in their history where glory was the driving force.


----------



## Hussar

There's another issue to think of as well.

This is the first Trek meant for an international audience.  

Even ST:Enterprise came out before streaming was a thing.  There was no Netflix.  There was no on-demand video back then.  Star Trek, in all its incarnations was an American show meant for American audiences.  Sure, everyone else could watch too, but, the bread and butter (as far as the network was concerned) was the local market.

And, frankly, Star Trek was never all that popular.  It has its strong following, but, it's not like it was dominating prime time network TV at pretty much any point.

But, now, STiscovery is being broadcast pretty much everywhere.  In multiple languages at the same time.  I get my version, in Japanese if I want it, at exactly the same time as everyone else.  

I'd argue that because of that, adherence to canon that very, very few of the audience is even aware of (how many Japanese viewers do you think watched TOS?), they can get away with being a lot more fast and loose with earlier canon.  The newer viewers don't really have any connection to that old canon.  So, for them, THIS is what Klingons look like (and trying to present Klingons in blackface is pretty much going to insult the hell out of a lot of potential audience).

People tend to forget that Star Trek Beyond did the best of any Star Trek movie in China.  It actually did very, very well.  For those viewers, Kirk is Chris Pine and Star Trek has lots of action and explosions.  To then turn around and in the premier season of the new Trek show go back to "endless meetings in board rooms" style TNG Trek would be the fastest way to lose that potential audience.


----------



## Kaodi

I, for one, am loving this turn with former Emperor Georgiou becoming Captain Georgiou. It makes sense in a desperate situation to induct her into Starfleet, even if under a kind of false pretense. She is evil to the core, but having been the leader of an extremely (successful) militaristic empire probably means that she even when constrained by Starfleet morality she is by far the strongest military commander available to them. And, story wise, it essentially allows them to continue Lorca's mean bastard captain plot with the contrivance out in the open and without actually having to forgive Lorca.

And, Christ, who was _NOT_ disappointed when Michelle Yeoh died in episode 2 and we thought that was all we were going to see of her?


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> I'd argue that because of that, adherence to canon that very, very few of the audience is even aware of (how many Japanese viewers do you think watched TOS?), they can get away with being a lot more fast and loose with earlier canon.  The newer viewers don't really have any connection to that old canon.  So, for them, THIS is what Klingons look like (and trying to present Klingons in blackface is pretty much going to insult the hell out of a lot of potential audience).



That just means they should avoid heavy use of canon. 
That doesn't mean they should flagrantly contradict it. You can do a canon lite show that introduces concepts and skirts around the past, that creates new things rather than abusing the old. 

And Discovery a pretty poor example of something that is canon lite. It references _Enterprise_ twice. It brings in Klingons without introducing them, expecting you to care. It does the same thing for Vulcans. It name drops Sarek and Spock and Harry Mudd and the Defiant. It casually introduces concepts like mirror universes with little explanation, expecting people to know. 
Heck, it doesn't even explain things like Starfleet, the Federation, transporters, warp drive, the prime directive, etc. 

If the intent was a new show for new audiences they could have done soooooo much better. 
But, that wasn't their intent. It was for Star Trek fans first, but the creator's just didn't care enough to really nail the lore. 

(Which makes sense. The primary audience should be the fans. You can't dump them in favour of a potential audience of new fans, because that's not a guarantee of viewership.)



Hussar said:


> People tend to forget that Star Trek Beyond did the best of any Star Trek movie in China.  It actually did very, very well.  For those viewers, Kirk is Chris Pine and Star Trek has lots of action and explosions.  To then turn around and in the premier season of the new Trek show go back to "endless meetings in board rooms" style TNG Trek would be the fastest way to lose that potential audience.



_Star Trek Beyond_ was also funded by the Chinese megacorp Alibaba, via their film division Alibada Pictures. They likely advertised more locally to get a better return on their investment.


----------



## Hussar

Fair enough. But that also means that lots of people saw it. So they don’t have to explain a lot of these things because the movies already covered them. 

I guess I just think that fan doesn’t necessarily mean middle aged dude that grew up in the eighties watching TNG. 

It also doesn’t mean canon cop who judges a show based on how closely it adheres to what came before. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Hussar

One thing that always bugs me about the canon arguments is the tendency to cherry pick examples to support a criticism while ignoring any other examples.   Take the Klingons for example.  Yup, they changed the appearance of Klingons.  For the FOURTH time.  And, every time previously had no in world explanation and was entirely due to budget constraints of the time.  Klingons had blackface in the 60's because that's what they could afford.  Klingons went bumpy head during the Motion Picture because they had a lot more money to play with.  But, suddenly, changing Klingon appearance is a big issue?

Earlier was mentioned the idea that suicide kamikaze style attacks didn't seem very honorable.  Well, for one, there are numerous real world cultures that would disagree with that point.  Kamikaze attacks were seen as the "glorious death" by a lot of cultures in many points in history.  Hardly a stretch here.  But, also, let's not forget, this is the same Klingons that a couple of years later have no problem sending in spies to poison grain shipments to cause an entire colony to starve to death (Trouble with Tribbles).  It's not like it's out of character for the "honorable" Klingons to play pretty darn dirty in the show.

But, that brings me back to the issue of canon in Star Trek.  ST has ALWAYS played fast and loose with canon.  When the Ferengi were first introduced, a Ferengi Maurader was able to stand toe to toe with a Galaxy class star ship.  By the end of DS9, the Ferengi (with some pretty heavy appearance changes along the way) are a joke race that everyone laughs at behind their back.  

At what point do we step back and say that canon takes a back seat to good story telling?


----------



## Jester David

Unless you're counting Into Darkness, Klingons only changed once before, for the first movie. And STID has the same continuity allergy as Discovery and was another reality, so it doesn't *really* count. 

And while they changed Klingons once for budget, that reason doesn't apply now. Because the old movies _did_ have a budget. There was a lot of more alien aliens in those films, and Klingons were deliberately kept more human. The design could have been tweaked to match modern standards, but a complete redesign wasn't necassary. 
There was no excuse or justification beyond “because the could”. Which is a pretty crappy reason to make a change to the second or third most well known alien race in science fiction. 

But, of course, the budget reasons are irrelevant because the Klingon changes DID but the crap out of people. For decades. So much so they eventually devoted two episodes of _Enterprise_ to explaining it in-World. And the Klingon changes in Into Darkness was also a complaint, albeit a lesser one because of, well, everything else that movie did.
This change now is making the same mistake they did in the 1970s and 2011 and expecting a different reaction from the fans. 

It's not like the theoretical “new fans” will care any more about the less human Klingons. It's a change that is neutral for newcomers, and pisses of lots of old fans. 
What's the benefit?

Okay. You don't care about canon. You don't care if Star Trek follows it's legacy of thirty years of stories and acknowledges the stronger canon of the 1990s and 2000s. I get that. May I suggest you instead watch the reboot movies, as that's their deal. Or perhaps *any other television show ever made*. For those of us who like continuity and love the idea of a show with 30 years of history... there's not a lot of other options. Even _Doctor Who_ is a bad example, being more loose with continuity than 1960s Trek...

Trek continuity was an evolving thing in the ’80s and ‘90s. Yeah, it had hiccups and changes but it tried it’s best to respect the past. To build on what was established. 
Does canon need to take a step back to good storytelling? No. I don't think so. I think continuity is a tool. You can tell good stories and stick closely to canon as well. They’re not mutuality exclusive. It just requires a little research. 
Like writing a historical drama. You can bend history a little and fudge some small details when necassary. But if you tell a WWI drama with jet fighters against the zombie armies of the Nazis then you may be drifting from what happened. 

After all, Discovery is drifting pretty hard from canon and it hasn't automatically made the writing any better. Generally if someone isn't willing to put the work in to research, they're probably not going to put the work it to turn in a polished, solid script.


----------



## Jester David

Again, if they wanted to do a Star Trek show and not be bound by continuity they could have set it in the farther future after _Nemesis_.
Or in the 100 period between _Enterprise_ and TOS where nothing was firmly known. 
Or used the film timeline but gone ahead 20 or 30 years. 
Or used their own alternate reality as many exist. 
Or just declared certain things non-canon like Star Wars did when it was sold to Disney. 
Or just left it vague and allow views to decide for themselves if it was in the regular reality or not...

But they didn't. They explicitly sold the show as being part of the Prime Timeline. They used continuity as a selling point. 

It feels as much like any of the classic Treks as the new Battlestar Galactica did the original. Or _Arrow_ and _Flash_ feel like the comics. It feels like a bad adaptation, where a lot of the names are the same but continuity is really just easier eggs. “Hey, there's a Tribble on the desk, eh?” Or “hey, look” we showed a picture of a ship that kinda sorta looks like a Constitution ship.” But they're just there for dressing. It's a generic science fiction show dressed up like Star Trek. Just like the Orville is a Star Trek show dressed up like a generic science fiction show. 
If you can get over that hurdle and enjoy it, then fine. Good for you. But I really want more Star Trek that feels like goddamn Star Trek and not BSG or the Expanse. And I’m saddened I’m likely never going to get that again.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, if you think that Klingons only changed once, you haven't really watched Star Trek.  There are galleries out there devoted to the differences in appearance of Klingons across the shows and movies.

Look, I get not liking something.  Sure, no problem.  But, this just seems a really strange thing to worry about.  Star Trek canon has never been terribly tight.  There's canon holes all through the shows.  Appearance changes for no reason, conveniently "forgetting" past solutions that would invalidate plots, character changes, heck, ACTOR changes (Worf's son got played by what, four different actors, none of which look anything alike.)

To me, this latest plot is pretty classic Trek.  Do you remain true to the Federation or do you wipe out the Klingons.  Having the moral high ground is easy when it's not tested.  DS9 explored this really well in the Dominion war.  Do they commit genocide on the Founders or risk being over run by them?  Moral quandaries are pretty much part and parcel to Trek AFAIC.  

And, lastly, as far as the writing not being better?  Seriously?  I'll stand this season up against the first season of any Trek series.  I think nostalgia glasses have caused people to forget just how bad the first season of TOS, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise really were.  They were practically unwatchable.  I know because I just recently forced myself to rewatch them.  It's brutal.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> To me, this latest plot is pretty classic Trek.  Do you remain true to the Federation or do you wipe out the Klingons.  Having the moral high ground is easy when it's not tested.  DS9 explored this really well in the Dominion war.  Do they commit genocide on the Founders or risk being over run by them?  Moral quandaries are pretty much part and parcel to Trek AFAIC.



That's what the season _could_ have been about. That's what they hinted it was about. But so far that hasn't really been demonstrated in the show. That's something the views are adding that isn't really there. Reading between the lines...

In terms of the "message" of being scientists and explorers rather than warriors, the show has exclusively relied on tell and not show for that, occasionally just having some character interject that as a throw-away line rather than actively making it a thematic aspect of the series or showing Starfleet as being awkward at battle. They never have to choose between the science and a battle. 
The show really relies on telling. We're told the Klingons are winning the war the effects of that aren't really seen. Then we're told _Discovery_ has turned the tide, but we only see a couple fights. Then we're told the tide has turned back and the Klingons have expanded the cloaking technology.

And the season has actively worked against that message. Taking the Starfleet route led to war, while the untaken Vulcan route might have averted it. The war was almost won twice by _Discovery _(first with the jump drive and again by negating the cloak) because of the drive of an officer who was the opposite of what Starfleet stood for, being outright evil. Every single Starfleet-esque action taken in the Mirror Universe failed. The show punished them for those actions (saving the rebels, bonding with Mirror!Saru). And the most noble action committed by Burnham, when she saved the Empress, is likely going to bite her in the ass. 

Meanwhile the show is plagued by poor characterisation and sloppy writing. Mysteries like the black badges are introduced and then quickly forgotten. Burnham makes a peace offering of Georgiou's telescope to Saru, potentially restoring their friendship, and it isn't mentioned again and Saru's behaviour doesn't change. Fridging one half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek. Meanwhile, the writers continually rely on secrets to create cheap drama and conflict between the characters. And focusing heavily on the season long dum dum dummmmmm twists that the Internet saw coming a mile away.

Then you get to awkward episodes like the second Mudd episode, that really should have been a Stamets episode as he's the one who remembers the time jumps, but instead the structure of the show and focus on Burnham awkwardly make her the focus in an inorganic way 

No, the writing has not been good. 



Hussar said:


> And, lastly, as far as the writing not being better?  Seriously?  I'll stand this season up against the first season of any Trek series.  I think nostalgia glasses have caused people to forget just how bad the first season of TOS, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise really were.  They were practically unwatchable.  I know because I just recently forced myself to rewatch them.  It's brutal.



Then maybe you should also rewatch _Discovery _after it ends and see how it holds up during a second viewing, without being propped up with the uncertainty of what happens next. When you can just look at the writing and presentation of its ideas. 

First, that's a fallacious argument: Whataboutism. The successes and failures of the other shows are not an indication of success or failure here. Reminding people that TNG had a terrible first season doesn't make _Discovery_'s  singular season any better. 
And it overlooks the facts that TNG and DS9 and ENT all required production staffing changes to improve. They didn't just happen. Giving _Discovery _a pass means it isn't incentivized to improve or find a middle ground where they keep what people like about the show right now while correcting what people dislike.

And the "first season" thing really only applies to TNG. TOS had an excellent first season. It was arguably its best. _Enterprise _had a mediocre first season, but the second and third weren't much better. _Voyager_ also had a mediocre first season. And second season. And third season. The fourth was only *slightly* better. The rest were just... not bad. 
And even in its weakest first season, TNG did episodes like _Where No One has Gone Before_ that was full of imagination. Or delving into Picard's past with the PTSD-esque _The Battle_. While it's gory and doesn't go anywhere, there's some good suspense and tension in _Conspiracy_. And _Home Soil_ is a simple little bit of classic science fiction. 

_Discovery_ tries to do the extremely alien lifeform story in _Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum_, but as is standard for the show, the result feels poorly paced and crowded with the other stuff going on. And, of course, forces in a weird "twist" to explain Saru's behaviour.

DS9's first season was it's weakest, comparatively. But it was still very watchable with great moments. It's only "bad" because the rest were so much better. (And because its worst episode was right in the middle.) It's pilot, _Emissary_ is arguably the best Trek pilot. The first four episodes of DS9 are quite good, and the you get high concept episodes like _Battle Lines_ and the fantastic _Duet_.
The catch with DS9 is the first two seasons are really set-up. The Dominion is name-dropped in s2e07 and doesn't appear until the season 2 finale. They _really_ wanted to establish the players and setting before jumping into the war. 

And _Discovery _is in a weird situation, being plotted as a one-and-done season. The second season will almost be a re-pilot, as the whole premise of the show will shift as the war has ended and there's no looming Mirror Universe plot. So it's almost a second first season with a couple established characters. We'll see how that does in 2019.


----------



## CapnZapp

Kaodi said:


> And, Christ, who was _NOT_ disappointed when Michelle Yeoh died in episode 2 and we thought that was all we were going to see of her?



I will probably have to watch it now...


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## trappedslider

Using the doll show me where the show hurt you


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> That's what the season _could_ have been about. That's what they hinted it was about. But so far that hasn't really been demonstrated in the show. That's something the views are adding that isn't really there. Reading between the lines...
> 
> In terms of the "message" of being scientists and explorers rather than warriors, the show has exclusively relied on tell and not show for that, occasionally just having some character interject that as a throw-away line rather than actively making it a thematic aspect of the series or showing Starfleet as being awkward at battle. They never have to choose between the science and a battle.



They showed the conflict between science and battle when it came to the conflict between Lorca and Stamets, or the conflict about the use and fate of the Tardigrade.
They showed the conflict between battle and truth when it came to Stamet's treatmant and its fallout, how people were ordered to act against the rules to save them.



> The show really relies on telling. We're told the Klingons are winning the war the effects of that aren't really seen. Then we're told _Discovery_ has turned the tide, but we only see a couple fights. Then we're told the tide has turned back and the Klingons have expanded the cloaking technology.



I think they pretty clearly show the tide turning by example. The first succesful tactical use of the Discovery's spore drive turns a defeat potentially killing thousands to civilians into a victory. That makes it pretty clear what the Discovery can do for Starfleet.

And we also see the turn of the tide by example, when the Discovery is trying to save the Gagarin but fails because the Klingon ships cloak and decloak, making it harder to actaully protect their allied ship from enemy firepower.

And we see again what a change the Cloaking tech really meant when the Discovery blows up the Sarcaphogus ship.



> And the season has actively worked against that message. Taking the Starfleet route led to war, while the untaken Vulcan route might have averted it. The war was almost won twice by _Discovery _(first with the jump drive and again by negating the cloak) because of the drive of an officer who was the opposite of what Starfleet stood for, being outright evil. Every single Starfleet-esque action taken in the Mirror Universe failed. The show punished them for those actions (saving the rebels, bonding with Mirror!Saru). And the most noble action committed by Burnham, when she saved the Empress, is likely going to bite her in the ass.



Saving Sarek is a pretty much standard good-guys-would-do-this story and it works out well. 

They weren't punished for saving the rebels, nor was their punishment for bonding with Mirror!Saru. Saving the rebels might not have worked in the end (though if I was a rebel, I would try to ask for a longer delay than I atually needed, just to be on the safe side), but not because they were "good guys", but because the evil guys struck earlier. And Burnham still got a deeper insight into the Klingon mind out of it then she had before.
 Also, bonding with MIrror!Saru might have saved Burnham's life. (And in case you were confused and alluding to it- Burnham doesn't eat Mirror!Saru. How would Saru get aboard the Imperial ship from the Shenzou? He wasn't aboard Burnham's and Lorca's shuttle.)

And if you want to show good triumph over evil, you need to show how hard being good can be - the victory will come eventually, but it requires sacrifices and dealing with setback without sacrificing your ideals. If good was easy, everyone would be good. But being designed for a serialized format, the triumph of good can happen at the end of a season, not at the end of each episode.



> Meanwhile the show is plagued by poor characterisation and sloppy writing. Mysteries like the black badges are introduced and then quickly forgotten.



mysters like the black badges. Or just the mystery of the black badges, Full Stop?



> Burnham makes a peace offering of Georgiou's telescope to Saru, potentially restoring their friendship, and it isn't mentioned again and Saru's behaviour doesn't change.



I think Saru's behavior toward Burnham has changed considerably over the season.



> Fridging one half of the first openly gay couple in Star Trek. Meanwhile, the writers continually rely on secrets to create cheap drama and conflict between the characters. And focusing heavily on the season long dum dum dummmmmm twists that the Internet saw coming a mile away.



The Internet seeing a twist coming a mile away means that the twist was well executed, because it didn't come out of nowhere, but was well prepared, with carefully placed hints. The writers didn't pull that out of their collective's asses, they did put in the work to make it happen. 
I know a few viewers that didn't spend the time on reddit or other forums analyzing all the clues, and the twists still did surprise them - but not in the way that they felt they came out of nowhere. They just hadn't connected the dots (or noticed all the dots.)



> Then you get to awkward episodes like the second Mudd episode, that really should have been a Stamets episode as he's the one who remembers the time jumps, but instead the structure of the show and focus on Burnham awkwardly make her the focus in an inorganic way



Quite the contrary, this was a very refreshing way to tell the story, because usually (and there have been enough to use the term "usually"), the time loop episodes always focus on the looper, instead of the individuals caught unknowingly in the loop.



> First, that's a fallacious argument: Whataboutism.



No, it's not, because I think Discovery's first season is vastly superior to TNG's first season. 



> And the "first season" thing really only applies to TNG. TOS had an excellent first season. It was arguably its best..



First season TOS stood up pretty well IMO, too. They nailed the three main characters pretty well early on, I think.

But particularly TNG doesn't hold up so well. Discovery stands a lot better, with the main cast having found in their roles basically immediately, and the writers knowing how to interact with them.


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> But, of course, the budget reasons are irrelevant because the Klingon changes DID but the crap out of people. For decades.



It bugged _some_ people. Let's not forget that the redesign that began with ST:TMP and continued through TNG resulted in the "iconic" Klingons that _some_ people are kvetching about Discovery deviating from today. 



> This change now is making the same mistake they did in the 1970s and 2011 and expecting a different reaction from the fans.



Is it really a mistake to treat Star Trek as what it inarguably _is_? A work of fiction. Subject to reinterpretation and revision by each successive group of artists responsible for its production. 

I mean, I think this is clearly a case where arguing against the _results_ is warranted & justified. But arguing against the _process_ borders on ridiculous. Re: the Klingons, the franchise has already seen them move from greasepainted swarthy Space Mongols who are also vaguely Soviet stand-ins to the more alien "honor Klingons" whose roots -- I think -- lie in that great non-canon John M. Ford novel and then got fleshed out further by TNG (with the caveat most of those insights came from Worf, whose Klingon identity was the product of not being raised by them).   



> It's not like the theoretical “new fans” will care any more about the less human Klingons. It's a change that is neutral for newcomers, and pisses of lots of old fans.
> What's the benefit?



Where's the benefit of assuming all fans place the same importance on canon? Or at least "canon" as you're conceiving of it? 

I mean, I'm a longtime fan whose favorite Trek will always feature styrofoam rocks, Tempra alien skies, and the Trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. But canon will always represent a tangential pleasure of the franchise, something fun to argue about, test my (aging) memory, etc.


----------



## Jester David

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> .No, it's not, because I think Discovery's first season is vastly superior to TNG's first season.



Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean X is too. It doesn’t mean X is positive. 

“Being shot in the gut sucks!”
“But what about being shot in the face? That's so much worse.”

Beating the flayed horse of TNG's first season doesn't change the problems with _Discovery_. It's just a deflection. Hence, logical fallacy.


----------



## Water Bob

Well, I finally started the show.  I did the 7 day free trial, and I'm going to binge the season then cancel before the trial is up.

I LOVE THE SHOW!

I think it's awesome.  It will take its place along side the other great science fiction TV shows:  Babylon 5, Firefly, and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica.

The acting, on all counts, is grades above what is normally par for a Trek TV show.  There is not a single character that isn't done well.

I love the flawed Captain.  I love the hippy, red-haired chick that can't stop talking.  And, to my own surprise, I'm good with Michael being a name for a female character.  I accepted that a lot more easily than I thought I would.

I was even worried about the gay couple that was in the news about the show, but, again to my surprise, it's not "in your face to make a point and say LOOK AT ME" and done very well and realistically.  

I'm about half way through the season.  I'm about to watch show #7.

I love how the story intertwines with established canon, yet gives us something different.  That moment where Michael learns that Sarek chose Spock to go to the Vulcan Academy instead of her was just devastating.  I love the human experience--that's what Star Trek is all about.

The spore drive, too:  Man, that's a cool Trek idea.  I'm interested to see how they're going to make it not viable (because, obviously, Starfleet doesn't use it in the future).  Something is rotten in Denmark there.

And, the episodes with the spore drive and the creature, too.  That was a damn cool Trek moment when it was finally free and zipped on out the far reaches of the galaxy.  Incredible.

Although I'm not sold on the Toxic Avenger look of the Klingons, I do like how they're being portrayed.  The broken Houses.  The political fighting.  The "Choose Your Pain" did more to show the beasts as they are--ruthless--than anything I've seen about Klingons (and this includes the moment when Kirk's son got killed).  Yet, we also see that they have a deep, long, detailed culture, too.

I just think it is a bad-assed show.





That said, there are a couple of things I don't really like. As I said above, I'm not sold on the new Klingons. They don't look real, and they look like the Toxic Avenger who can't move his head on his neck. 

The Starfleet uniforms, too, look like what a steward or porter would wear on a Federation luxury starliner.

I don't like the rank hidden inside the Starfleet arrowhead. It's impossible to see, gold pips on a gold metal badge.

Just about everything else is damn cool.

And, I think the show has the best acting of any Star Trek show, ever, including the new movies. It's good stuff.


----------



## Mallus

Water Bob said:


> I love the hippy, red-haired chick that can't stop talking.



Tilly and Saru are my favorite parts of the show (edit: Burnham, too, but I like T/S more).



> ... a Federation luxury starliner.



You mean a Galaxy-class starship?


----------



## Water Bob

Man, Harcourt Fenton Mudd is definitely not like his alter self in the original show.  This is definitely not the same universe as TOS.  The original Mudd is a bumbling, sometimes lovable, rouge of questionable morals who is prone to fall backwards into trouble.  And, he hated his wife, Stella.

This Mudd is a James Bond criminal Mastermind.





But, I'll say this:  At least the show isn't giving us stuff that was worn out long ago with the other Trek shows, like the Borg, the Mirrior Universe, etc.

What we're getting is new, fresh, and in my case, addictive.


----------



## Hussar

Jester David said:


> Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean X is too. It doesn’t mean X is positive.
> 
> “Being shot in the gut sucks!”
> “But what about being shot in the face? That's so much worse.”
> 
> Beating the flayed horse of TNG's first season doesn't change the problems with _Discovery_. It's just a deflection. Hence, logical fallacy.




I think you're missing my point.

Every Star Trek series, with the possible exception of TOS, started weak and got a lot stronger as time went on.  Although in Enterprise's case, it took about four more seasons to get good.    But, the later seasons are almost always better than the first.

If Discovery stays true to that, then the next season is going to be fuggin' fantastic.

and:



> And if you want to show good triumph over evil, you need to show how hard being good can be - the victory will come eventually, but it requires sacrifices and dealing with setback without sacrificing your ideals. If good was easy, everyone would be good. But being designed for a serialized format, the triumph of good can happen at the end of a season, not at the end of each episode.




QFT.  This is exactly what I'm taking away from the show.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> I think you're missing my point.
> 
> Every Star Trek series, with the possible exception of TOS, started weak and got a lot stronger as time went on.  Although in Enterprise's case, it took about four more seasons to get good.    But, the later seasons are almost always better than the first.
> 
> If Discovery stays true to that, then the next season is going to be fuggin' fantastic.



Or it could be like Voyager and just stay the same in terms of quality. Or it could be like TOS and see a decline in quality. 
Or it could act like an independent and unrelated show and it's quality will be entirely unrelated to the quality of shows from 25 years ago... 

But, again, none of the shows improved on their own. In every case where there was a marked improvement (TNG, DS9, ENT) it occurred after a major staffing change (Michael Piller in TNG, Ira Steven Behr in DS9, and Manny Coto in ENT. Plus assorted producer changes.)
Is there any sign of staffing changes in _Discovery_? No. And the following season will likely more Kurtzman, since he doesn't even have the remains of Fuller's script to work off of.


----------



## Water Bob

In one episode, the computer is asked to list the most decorated Captains in Starfleet.

It lists...

Robert April (one of the original names for the character that became James T. Kirk)

Jonathan Archer  (From Enterprise)

Christopher Pike  (From TOS episode, The Menagerie)

Matthew Decker (Whom we see die in TOS episode, The Doomsday Machine.  Commordor Decker, father of Will Decker, Captain of the Enterprise who merged with V'Ger).

Philippa Georgiou (one of the Captains featured in Discovery).



What about Garth of Izar?  Wasn't he supposed to be Starfleet's most decorated Captain....ever?


----------



## Hussar

Jester David said:


> Or it could be like Voyager and just stay the same in terms of quality. Or it could be like TOS and see a decline in quality.
> Or it could act like an independent and unrelated show and it's quality will be entirely unrelated to the quality of shows from 25 years ago...
> 
> But, again, none of the shows improved on their own. In every case where there was a marked improvement (TNG, DS9, ENT) it occurred after a major staffing change (Michael Piller in TNG, Ira Steven Behr in DS9, and Manny Coto in ENT. Plus assorted producer changes.)
> Is there any sign of staffing changes in _Discovery_? No. And the following season will likely more Kurtzman, since he doesn't even have the remains of Fuller's script to work off of.




Actually, rewatching Voyager, it got a lot better in seasons 2-4 before really dying off in the last few seasons.

But, again, time will tell.  STisco is starting miles ahead of pretty much any other ST series.  Even if it just stays where it is, it will still be among the best Trek ever produced.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean X is too. It doesn’t mean X is positive.
> 
> “Being shot in the gut sucks!”
> “But what about being shot in the face? That's so much worse.”
> 
> Beating the flayed horse of TNG's first season doesn't change the problems with _Discovery_. It's just a deflection. Hence, logical fallacy.




Only if you forget that you're talking mostly to avid Trek viewers, who were convinced to stay avid Trek viewers by these shows, even if their latter seasons were often considered better than their earlier.

In short. Discovery is great. Directly compared to the first season of TNG, it's not even a contest. I have some doubts they can achieve the same degree of improvement as TNG did in its later seasons, but on the other hand, it doesn't need to.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Water Bob said:


> What about Garth of Izar?  Wasn't he supposed to be Starfleet's most decorated Captain....ever?



The question is - _when _did he become the most decorated Captain?

If most of his accomplishments were during the Klingon War (or even after), it might not have happened yet.


----------



## Water Bob

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The question is - _when _did he become the most decorated Captain?
> 
> If most of his accomplishments were during the Klingon War (or even after), it might not have happened yet.




IIRC, Kirk studied Garth at the Academy, which would place it before Discovery (and should be on the list).


----------



## Water Bob

I thought Discovery was set 10 years before TOS?  Discovery knows about the Defiant, which crossed over to...somewhere in the Tholian Web episode, which was a third season TOS episode.

That would put it 23 years into the future of the show.

The *Enterprise* show established that _Defiant_ crossed over into the Mirror Universe.  And that series took place 100 years before TOS.

Is this a timeline problem?

Or, is this the result of a time paradox?





And, the surgery that happened to Ash....could this be the beginnings, and the answer to, the human looking Klingons we see in TOS?


----------



## MarkB

Water Bob said:


> I thought Discovery was set 10 years before TOS?  Discovery knows about the Defiant, which crossed over to...somewhere in the Tholian Web episode, which was a third season TOS episode.
> 
> That would put it 23 years into the future of the show.
> 
> The *Enterprise* show established that _Defiant_ crossed over into the Mirror Universe.  And that series took place 100 years before TOS.
> 
> Is this a timeline problem?
> 
> Or, is this the result of a time paradox?




It was established in Enterprise that the Defiant went back in time a hundred years as part of its transition to the mirror universe. Discovery's crew learn about that event from the Rebel database they recovered.


----------



## Water Bob

MarkB said:


> It was established in Enterprise that the Defiant went back in time a hundred years as part of its transition to the mirror universe. Discovery's crew learn about that event from the Rebel database they recovered.




You're missing the point:  How does Discovery know that?  Kirk didn't, 23  years later.


----------



## MarkB

Water Bob said:


> You're missing the point:  How does Discovery know that?  Kirk didn't, 23  years later.




I did miss the point, but then I caught it and edited my comment 30 seconds later. Were you replying to the first version?


----------



## Water Bob

Yes.  I missed the part about Discovery learning from the data from the Mirror Universe.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah. It’s debatable that the Defiant was even commissioned by the time of Discovery. 

Does kinda suck though. I wonder if they’ll actually deal with the paradox or just leave it. Since they know about the Defiant, wouldn’t they mention it?  Thus preventing the Defiant from being captured in the Tholian web. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Yeah. It’s debatable that the Defiant was even commissioned by the time of Discovery.
> 
> Does kinda suck though. I wonder if they’ll actually deal with the paradox or just leave it. Since they know about the Defiant, wouldn’t they mention it?  Thus preventing the Defiant from being captured in the Tholian web.




Starfleet has strict rules about time paradoxes. They have an entire enforcement agency dedicated to investigating and punishing infringements of those rules.

Not that it wouldn't be a concern. Imagine, a few years down the line, one of Discovery's crew chatting with a close friend and hearing their excited news that they've been assigned to the Defiant. Kinda hard to balance regulations against sending a friend off to die.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

Can't wait for Season Finale in about 22 hours!


----------



## Water Bob

Watching the season finale.  Did any of you catch the ear monsters from Star Trek II frying in a skillet?

It was hard not to catch the Klingon urinating up against the wall...with two streams!


----------



## Water Bob

What a show!

I just finished the series finale!

THIS IS TRULY A GREAT SHOW!

GOOSEBUMPS!

WHAT AN ENDING!


----------



## Jester David

Nostalgia Button!!


----------



## Mallus

I'm only partially ashamed to admit I loved seeing the NCC 1701 at the end. 

So after 15 episodes we end (too quickly) with speeches, Styrofoam caves, and Federation values being reaffirmed in a subdued but also planet-saving fashion. That's Trek AF! (AFAIC)

I really enjoyed Orion Crime Town on Qo'noS. Those scenes did an impressive amount of work in addition to being very entertaining (esp. Tilly). "It's a home, too". Loved get hit over the head with that line. Please Star Trek, let subtlety be your undiscovered country.

I've also come to the conclusion Discovery is what you'd get if you hot-glued TNG and Farscape together. This is a compliment (mostly).


----------



## Morrus

Haven’t seen it yet (it’s in Netflix today, but haven’t had a spare moment). I hear the Enterprise he’s a cameo though. Can not wait to see it!


----------



## MarkB

Good ending. I kind-of wanted a last punch-up between Emperor Georgiou and Michael, but making her see reason was a greater victory in the end.

And yeah, neither a time-travel reset button nor a military solution, but instead one that hinged upon Ash/Voq, L'Rell, and Klingon psychology. I wonder whether that detonator is still around by the TNG era, somewhere amongst the Klingon High Chancellor's regalia as a final bargaining chip of arbitration.


----------



## Morrus

Dang. The Enterprise looked gorgeous!


----------



## Mallus

MarkB said:


> I wonder whether that detonator is still around by the TNG era, somewhere amongst the Klingon High Chancellor's regalia as a final bargaining chip of arbitration.



"Is that a ... Federation iPad in your Sash of Office?"
"Oh this? Yeah. Funny story..."


----------



## Water Bob




----------



## Jester David

Also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepravedBisexual


----------



## Hussar

Jester David said:


> Also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepravedBisexual




Jeez, talk about kicking at a football game.  Sheesh.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> Jeez, talk about kicking at a football game.  Sheesh.




Had their portrayal of LGBT individuals been, well, decent prior then Mirror!Georgiou's bisexuality wouldn't have stood out. But instead they killed/ fridged Culber. So having Mirror!Georgiou being so sexual was eye rolling bad. It's the kind of sex = evil BS that was barely acceptable with Intendant Kira back in 1994. Even Burnham was hit with the moralistic punishment, because shortly after sleeping with Tyler he went all crazy and tried to kill her. 
I've seen horror movies with fewer people punished for having sex.


----------



## Water Bob

I just read the novelization of Star Trek The Motion Picture, written by Gene Roddenberry, himself, an he explores the idea of Kirk and Spock being lovers.  They aren't, though Roddenberry says that some suspect them.  The idea is revealed in Kirk's thoughts (it's the the Admiral's preface, IIRC), and the way it's written, Kirk is not appalled by the idea.  He just prefers women.

This was written in the late 70's.


----------



## Hussar

Good grief.

Culber's death is a HUGE character building moment for pretty much every character.  It reverberates throughout the series.  What?  Because the character is gay we're not allowed to have anything bad happen to them now?  No, that's crap.  The character was killed, not because he was gay, but, because it was a major dramatic event for the show.  

I mean, I'm suprised [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] isn't more concerned with the earlier death of the tactical officer.  After all, they killed off the first female tactical officer in Star Trek.  Isn't that a big deal too?  And they certainly killed her off with a lot less fanfare than Culber's death.  

Why is killing off a love interest in a drama a bad thing?  It happens pretty darn often and it's pretty much par for the course and has been in drama for centuries.  Spinning this as an automatic negative and trying to imply that the character was killed because he was gay is a complete misreading of the work and deliberately misleading.

I mean, you're not even using the trope right.  The trope that you link to states that 



> f the said character was killed by a villain, this guarantees to become a motivation for a Revenge plot or an immediate Roaring Rampage of Revenge.




Yet, there's no revenge plot.  None.  Stamets isn't consumed by revenge or even anger really.  Sure, he doesn't like Voq/Ash, but, he doesn't actually do more than show some pretty understandable anger.

Again, look, I get that you don't like the show, but, sheesh, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find justifications.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> Good grief.
> 
> Culber's death is a HUGE character building moment for pretty much every character.  It reverberates throughout the series.  What?  Because the character is gay we're not allowed to have anything bad happen to them now?  No, that's crap.  The character was killed, not because he was gay, but, because it was a major dramatic event for the show.
> 
> I mean, I'm suprised [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] isn't more concerned with the earlier death of the tactical officer.  After all, they killed off the first female tactical officer in Star Trek.  Isn't that a big deal too?  And they certainly killed her off with a lot less fanfare than Culber's death.
> 
> Why is killing off a love interest in a drama a bad thing?  It happens pretty darn often and it's pretty much par for the course and has been in drama for centuries.  Spinning this as an automatic negative and trying to imply that the character was killed because he was gay is a complete misreading of the work and deliberately misleading.
> 
> I mean, you're not even using the trope right.  The trope that you link to states that
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there's no revenge plot.  None.  Stamets isn't consumed by revenge or even anger really.  Sure, he doesn't like Voq/Ash, but, he doesn't actually do more than show some pretty understandable anger.
> 
> Again, look, I get that you don't like the show, but, sheesh, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find justifications.



Culber was one of the first openly gay characters in Star Trek. (Tied with Stamets.) And they immediately killed him. So Stamets would feel bad. That's uncool. That is the definition of fridging: killing a loved one just to rouse emotion and cause drama. 
Again, the murder of queer characters is endemic to TV. It shouldn’t be done lightly. It's super loaded. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/30/queerbaiting-bury-your-gays-tv_a_23005000/
Killing Culber shows a lack of though and absence of judgment from the producers.

As a character moment, it was irrelevant to every other character. It didn't affect Tyler whose story would have worked identically with just the attempted murder of Burnham, which he seemed much more broken up over. And the narrative would have worked just as well had Tyler bludgeoned Culber into a coma from which he eventually awoke.

I'm not alone in this criticism. (Google “Discovery bury gays”) There was so much the show runners gave interviews on the death, saying it wasn't the end. Spoilers: it was. They lied. Just like they lied when they said they were going to explain the change of Klingons.

It was just cheap shock. 

Look, I get it, you like the show. But sheesh, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find defenses.


----------



## Hussar

Killing a love interest character isn't automatically fridging.  The point of fridging is that the character is killed in a particularly gruesome way in order to drive a revenge plotline.

Culber wasn't killed in any sort of gruesome way.  Terrible yes, but, not gruesome.  It's not like Voq went Hannibal Lechter on him.  He broke his neck because he wanted to silence the doctor and hide his Klingon background.  He had an in-character reason to kill Culber that had nothing to do with Stammets.  That, right there, makes it not fridging.  

And the scene with Ash in the mess hall after returning and his secret coming out had virtually nothing to do with Michael.  It was about showing empathy and mercy.  And it was about Culber.  After all, no one on Discovery knew that Ash had tried to kill Michael.  It was all hushed up.  So, yes, the death of Culber had ripples all through the show.  And it certainly wasn't "fridging", regardless of how you want to spin it.

I'd point out too that it wasn't done to make Stammets feel bad.  Stammets doesn't go all revengy on anyone.  He doesn't hate Klingons.  He probably does hate Ash, but, again, doesn't do anything about it.  It's a pretty believable reaction when Ash tries to apologize to Stammets.  

Meh, people are just looking for stuff to bitch about.  The season finale was about as solid of a Trek ending as you could possibly have.  Well done them.


----------



## Jester David

Revenge is just one aspect of the Women in Refrigerator trope. The TV tropes page even tacks an “if” to the start of the sentence: 
_If the said character was killed by a villain, this guarantees to become a motivation for a Revenge plot or an immediate Roaring Rampage of Revenge._
Tyler wasn't a villain.

Also, the origin of the trope comes from: “a list of fictional female characters who had been "killed, maimed or depowered", in particular in ways that treated the female character as merely a device to move a male character's story arc forward, rather than as a fully developed character in her own right”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators

Culber fills that role. His purpose in the show was to die. He was a doctor not to fill that role in the ship, but so he could be in that situation to be killed by Tyler. He was a disposable character created to serve as a motivator for Stamets.
And by choosing to also make that character gay, Culber is added to the loooooooong list of mistreated LGBTQ characters on television. 

It is a pretty huge flaw in the planning of the show, and the producers downplayed and dismissed the concerns of the fans and the LGBTQ community. That is not good.


----------



## Mallus

Jester David said:


> Killing Culber shows a lack of though and absence of judgment from the producers.






> There was so much the show runners gave interviews on the death, saying it wasn't the end. Spoilers: it was. They lied.






Jester David said:


> It is a pretty huge flaw in the planning of the show, and the producers downplayed and dismissed the concerns of the fans and the LGBTQ community.



A few things...

Aaron Harberts is one of Discovery's two showrunners. He is a married gay man. Bryan Fuller, who helped create and design the show is a gay man. Antony Rapp and Wilson Cruz, who play Stamets and Culber, are gay men. They are _part of_ the LGBTQ community. You can (and should, if that's your opinion!) criticize their work as seen on screen. But to accuse them of collectively "not thinking about" issues related to gay representation sure looks like baseless & unfair criticism to me. This carries the implication they are somehow outside the community they are obviously a part of. That's a particularly nasty --and personal-- line of attack that's getting all too common in our Hot Take media culture.   

As for their "lying"... we'll see what happens in season 2. As of yesterday Wilson Cruz was tweeting the story of Stamets & Culber isn't over. I see no reason to accuse an actor I've liked since My So-Called Life and don't know from Adam of lying. But hey, maybe it's the socially responsible thing to do!

Then there's simply evaluating the show outside the ready framework of a TVTropes page. There were two (or maybe three) romantic relationships in Disco season 1: Stamets/Culber and Burnham/Tyler (and kinda L'Rell/Voq). All of them were, to varying degrees, tragic. Of them, the most positive and simply sweet was Stamets/Culber. That should count for something (unless we reduce all criticism to a TVTropes entry or a meme). 

To be honest, I had problems with Culber's death, too. Mainly because I like Wilson Cruz. I admit I felt ambivalence because I'm aware "Bury Your Gays" is a thing. I don't think his death was handled poorly. But I found myself thinking "what will woke Twitter think of this?" and I'm not comfortable too with that, either. Admittedly, it's tricky. I think the best we can do is focus on the work, and not cast aspersions on the creative team.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Mallus said:


> I think the best we can do is focus on the work, and not cast aspersions on the creative team.




I think the _least_ we can do is not cast aspersions on the creative team...


----------



## Mallus

Michael Silverbane said:


> I think the _least_ we can do is not cast aspersions on the creative team...



Thanks for saying it better than me!


----------



## Jester David

*sigh*
It's not worth discussing this show anymore. The show could have Burnham kicking puppies for an hour and its fans would still defend it. It can do no wrong. There's literally no point to continuing the discussion.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> *sigh*
> It's not worth discussing this show anymore. The show could have Burnham kicking puppies for an hour and its fans would still defend it. It can do no wrong. There's literally no point to continuing the discussion.




That’s literally how those who like it feel. 

Internet = broken.


----------



## Derren

Pretty meh ending.
Too much pathos with the "We are the Federation" speech and that all Klingons bow to the one who holds the detonator (instead of killing her) is hard to swallow. The entire episode feels rushed too. A little less Orion town and a little more appearances of L'Rell could have helped, considering how important she became instead of going from being beaten up in her cell directly to empress.


----------



## trappedslider

Jester David said:


> *sigh*
> It's not worth discussing this show anymore. The show could have Burnham kicking puppies for an hour and its fans would still defend it. It can do no wrong. There's literally no point to continuing the discussion.




Using the spock doll please show me where the show hurt you


----------



## Hussar

Me, I'm still trying to figure out how the death of Culber is a motivation for Stammers.  Motivation to do what exactly?  

But, yeah, this is going nowhere.  For critics, Disco can do no right and for fans, it's hitting the right notes.  And, frankly, for both sides, it's simply down to personal preference, rather than any real substance of criticism.


----------



## Kaodi

I liked the episode well enough overall but I think the last scene was a little too canned. You get a distress signal (fine); it is from the Enterprise (fine-ish)! The Enterprise appears directly in front of you pointed right at you! (Uhhh, what the fork?)


----------



## CapnZapp

Jester David said:


> *sigh*
> It's not worth discussing this show anymore. The show could have Burnham kicking puppies for an hour and its fans would still defend it. It can do no wrong. There's literally no point to continuing the discussion.



I came to that conclusion maybe ten pages ago.

These peeps need this show to be the best, actual show be damned! 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## trappedslider

#notmystartrek lol


----------



## MarkB

CapnZapp said:


> I came to that conclusion maybe ten pages ago.
> 
> These peeps need this show to be the best, actual show be damned!
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




Whereas I feel like that's what most of the show's detractors feel. They needed it to be the best, most faithful, most canonical, most utterly indistinguishable from the original series, while still being new and original, and couldn't stand that it didn't perfectly match their expectations.

I'm just happy it was good.


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> I came to that conclusion maybe ten pages ago.
> 
> These peeps need this show to be the best, actual show be damned!
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app




Who says it needs to be best?  I like it.  I am not seeing the issues that you are pointing to, or, rather, the issues that are being pointed to are very much not issues for me.

IOW, [MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] hits it square on the head.  Like I said earlier, I get that people don't like the show.  And that's groovy.  There's stuff I haven't liked too.  Fair enough.  The difference is, I'm not jumping through hoop after hoop in order to justify my feelings.  I'm not misinterpreting tropes in order to "prove" how bad Disco is.  I'm not playing silly buggers cherry picking games to "prove" that they don't care about canon.

I'm not trying to prove anything.  I like the show.  That's the end of that conversation.


----------



## Morrus

Hussar said:


> Me, I'm still trying to figure out how the death of Culber is a motivation for Stammers.  Motivation to do what exactly?
> 
> But, yeah, this is going nowhere.  For critics, Disco can do no right and for fans, it's hitting the right notes.  And, frankly, for both sides, it's simply down to personal preference, rather than any real substance of criticism.




I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — on the internet you are allowed to love something or hate something, but nuance is strictly forbidden. Everything is ether the best thing ever or he worst thing ever.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — on the internet you are allowed to love something or hate something, but nuance is strictly forbidden. Everything is ether the best thing ever or he worst thing ever.



This is complete ridicilous and anyone that would think like that has no idea how the internet actually works and should go back to his stone tablets and chisels. 

Mustrum "Knows the internet like the back of his pocket" Ridcully


----------



## Morrus

Getting back to the actual show.



Its closing scene then shows the USS Enterprise and USS Discovery coming together before the end credits roll alongside the music from Star Trek: The Original Series.

Series executive producer and co-creator Alex Kurtzman has opened up about the big reveal, telling Variety: "The show is called 'Discovery'. It's not 'Enterprise'.

"So yes, the Enterprise will play a part of season 2 but it will absolutely not overshadow Discovery."

Kurtzman added: "And I think with Enterprise's arrival in the finale we recognise that the audience has a lot of questions about our synchronicity with the original series, which really means our synchronicity with canon.

"So the promise of the Enterprise holds the answers to a lot of those questions, including Spock's relationship with his half-sister who he's never mentioned. Which does not necessarily mean you're going to see Spock, just that we owe an answer to that question."

Star Trek: Discovery is definitely coming back for season two – though we don't have an air date just yet.

What we do know is that season two will feel more like traditional Trek.

"We have time to do things like more away missions, newer planets," said executive producer Aaron Harbert.

"These are stories that might fall a little bit more into a framework of allegory that people love to get from Trek."*Save**Save*
[FONT=&quot]*Save*[/FONT][FONT=&quot]*Save*[/FONT]​


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

What an empty Monday this was... 

When's the show coming back?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What an empty Monday this was...
> 
> When's the show coming back?




I know! 

2019, maybe?


----------



## Mallus

Sunday was doubly hard for me: no more Discovery or American-style football. At least the Eagles won the Super Bowl & Disco was renewed for another season.

Good thing Legion and the Expanse have new episodes this year.


----------



## Hussar

Sigh, I know the feeling.  Just binge watched the first season of Legion.  What a trip show.  Waiting on all sorts of shows now.  Bloody Japanese Netflix and Hulu are so far behind.  Grrr.  

At least I have stuff to look forward to.  Hey, when is the next Netflix Marvel series coming out?


----------



## Derren

Hussar said:


> At least I have stuff to look forward to.  Hey, when is the next Netflix Marvel series coming out?




March 8th. JJ2.


----------



## Jester David

Star Trek: Discovery Deleted Scene Confirms Huge Fan Theory for Season 2

https://www.inverse.com/article/427...organic&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=twitter


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> Star Trek: Discovery Deleted Scene Confirms Huge Fan Theory for Season 2




What’s the theory?


----------



## Jester David

Morrus said:


> What’s the theory?




That the black badges were Section 31. 
There's an imbedded video in the link that seems to show the original final scene, which they apparently replaced with the scene of the Enterprise.


----------



## Morrus

Jester David said:


> That the black badges were Section 31.
> There's an imbedded video in the link that seems to show the original final scene, which they apparently replaced with the scene of the Enterprise.




Can’t view it atm. But yeah, figured that was s31.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester David said:


> Star Trek: Discovery Deleted Scene Confirms Huge Fan Theory for Season 2
> 
> https://www.inverse.com/article/427...organic&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=twitter




I am skeptical by this development. 

Too many people make Section 31 in the uber-secret intelligence unit that makes no mistake, has no morals and saves the Federation from its own naivite. It undermines the Star Trek appeal.

But of course, there is a way to potray Section 31 much more critical, but whenever it comes to them, I worry the writers don't.


----------



## MarkB

Given that Section 31 is still active, and still completely clandestine, late into Star Trek DS9's run, how does the show effectively engage with them without changing that?

Maybe they won't. Maybe this scene was meant simply as an epilogue - a confirmation of Section 31's involvement in the Spore Drive project, and a way of tidying up Empress Georgiou's fate.

But yeah, I really hope _Discovery_ isn't just going to be working for them.


----------



## Jester David

MarkB said:


> Given that Section 31 is still active, and still completely clandestine, late into Star Trek DS9's run, how does the show effectively engage with them without changing that?
> 
> Maybe they won't. Maybe this scene was meant simply as an epilogue - a confirmation of Section 31's involvement in the Spore Drive project, and a way of tidying up Empress Georgiou's fate.
> 
> But yeah, I really hope _Discovery_ isn't just going to be working for them.



There's a few ways. But there's lots of room to tell Section 31 stories in _Star Trek_ without changing the organisation. Just having them denied or classified and unconfirmed. After all, a future President of the Earth discovered them and they managed not to be revealed. 

Two years ago, I would have _loved _the idea of a S31 anthology show working its way through the timeline and showing what it was up to during TOS, movies, and TNG.  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am skeptical by this development.
> 
> Too many people make Section 31 in the uber-secret intelligence unit that makes no mistake, has no morals and saves the Federation from its own naivite. It undermines the Star Trek appeal.
> 
> But of course, there is a way to potray Section 31 much more critical, but whenever it comes to them, I worry the writers don't.



Yeah... I'm concerned by how the showrunners who made _Star Trek: Discovery_ would handle Section 31. But I can't say anymore without commenting on _Discovery_ and discussions here and elsewhere have show it's impossible to voice any criticisms of the show without its fans attacking and disagreeing.


----------

