Star Trek: Discovery has premiered

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Redryhno:

Like I said, it's Pre-Kirk Klingon Federation relations. You see a Klingon ship, you either shoot or you hail. And hailing has a higher likelihood of your ship being blown apart because alot of Federation ships sorta needed you to be outnumbering most of the Empire's fleet because they were full-blown warships, not just exploratory vessels. And the Klingons weren't all that interested in much beyond their own agenda.

Except even in Enterprise they made a point to keep the peace as much as they possibly could, and to try every possible option, here it's straight to the action with no pace or depth to it. And if we're going to bring up the fleets, then that just raises the question of rendezvousing with the fleet some distance away to buy time?

Even Kirk was well-known for his hatred of the Klingons, enough so that the Sixth movie's plot was centered around it. And he was one of the more accepting of the Klingons joining the federation eventually.

Kirk was outlined from the start of VI to be in the wrong about his prejudices, and had to work to overcome them over the course of the film, the the films villains held the same ideas he had.

Right now, Discovery has just said "Yep, she's right in saying they're inherently violent!", before placing her in a scenario that requires Starfleet to overlook her clear neuroses to even let her near a ship again.

Redryhno:

Ninjamedic:

Redryhno:

Eh, to be fair, we're talking Pre-Kirk era Klingon Federation relations. It was sorta in line with alot of other captains.

Is it? we're just supposed to accept her motivation to fire first based on a hunch derived from frank bigotry, we get one short exchange about it and then she show turns around and says "Oh yeah, she's right, they're all like that."

Like I said, it's Pre-Kirk Klingon Federation relations. You see a Klingon ship, you either shoot or you hail. And hailing has a higher likelihood of your ship being blown apart because alot of Federation ships sorta needed you to be outnumbering most of the Empire's fleet because they were full-blown warships, not just exploratory vessels. And the Klingons weren't all that interested in much beyond their own agenda.

Racism is what drives alot of plots when it comes to Klingons and TOS. So no, it's not all that out of line. The exhange itself? More than a bit. But the actions themselves, not so much. Even Kirk was well-known for his hatred of the Klingons, enough so that the Sixth movie's plot was centered around it. And he was one of the more accepting of the Klingons joining the federation eventually.

My reaction to Michael and the Captain's "debate" and her subsequent attempt to take over the ship was "about time somebody with some intelligence took over." We're clearly supposed to find what Michael did wrong, but the fact is racism motivated or not she is 100% correct about the Klingons and as we're shown when both fleets show up she was correct in what should have been done. Klingons throughout Star Trek have consistently shown whenever they aren't allied with The Federation they are to a man little more than a bunch of psychotic warmongering jerkasses to whom diplomacy is useless the vast majority of the time. "Shoot first and ask questions later" should be Starfleet's default order when Klingons show up, the Admiral's order was totally idiotic and the Captain even more so for following it. This is especially true since her first officer went out of her way to find a trustworthy source on how to handle the Klingons and explain to the Captain exactly what they should do and why but got blown off because "Starfleet doesn't shoot first" as though that was a remotely intelligent or sane rationale.

Ninjamedic:
Your watering down of the shows to a handful of the memes and disregard for the ideas, concepts and themes of the work only works as an attempt to big Discovery up by pushing what came before it down.

I'm not going to say they're perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination, but there was a hell of a lot more to these shows that stuck around beyond what the lowest common denominator may or may not think.

No, I'm stating the facts which you aren't willing to admit are true because like a lot of so called fans you have these preconceived pop culture and nostalgia goggles formed notions about what Star Trek is supposed to be like regardless of how little it matches up to the actual reality of the franchise. This is not the only franchise where the viewer's ideas of how it works is mostly if not completely how the actual franchise has been in the past, most of the superhero movies coming out these days are getting the same response to some degree or another. Regardless, I'm not going to bother any further, I've already made my case and if you have any intention of being reasonable at all you'll admit it was correct.

Ninjamedic:

Redryhno:

Like I said, it's Pre-Kirk Klingon Federation relations. You see a Klingon ship, you either shoot or you hail. And hailing has a higher likelihood of your ship being blown apart because alot of Federation ships sorta needed you to be outnumbering most of the Empire's fleet because they were full-blown warships, not just exploratory vessels. And the Klingons weren't all that interested in much beyond their own agenda.

Except even in Enterprise they made a point to keep the peace as much as they possibly could, and to try every possible option, here it's straight to the action with no pace or depth to it. And if we're going to bring up the fleets, then that just raises the question of rendezvousing with the fleet some distance away to buy time?

Even Kirk was well-known for his hatred of the Klingons, enough so that the Sixth movie's plot was centered around it. And he was one of the more accepting of the Klingons joining the federation eventually.

Except Kirk was outlined from the start of VI to be in the wrong about his prejudices, and had to work to overcome them over the course of the film, the the films villains held the same ideas he had.

Right now, Discovery has just said "Yep, she's right in saying they're inherently violent!", before placing her in a scenario that requires Starfleet to overlook her clear neuroses to even let her near a ship again.

And isn't it made a point that the Klingons haven't been seen in like a century at the start of STD? A century after they were more regularly seen in Enterprise's point in time?

Fear of the unknown dude. People still have tiny fits about the actual KKK even if they really haven't been seen doing much of shit beyond airhorn, march in parades, and be accidently set on fire in movies, in about 40 years.

I'm not saying it was the right choice or that it was well-written, I'm saying it's not all that out of line.

Redryhno:
And Enterprise I heard was a terrible first season, followed by a breakout second, and led into a pretty decent setup at the end of season 3, before it got cancelled. Haven't ever had time to learn more about it.

Star Trek: Enterprise spent most of it's run-time retconning The Original Series.

Enterprise is the reason there are portable holo-emitters in Star Trek: Discovery (over 200 years before they were invented using Borg tech on Star Trek: Voyager) and it is the reason why every Klingon ship in Discovery has a cloaking device 20 years before the Romulans in the TOS episode Balance of Terror.

Star Trek: Enterprise is fairly terrible from a Trek perspective. It might have worked as a difference science fiction series.

I feel bad for the Klingons. First, they were Russian communists. Then they were Viking Samurai. Now they are the Thraddash. I guess it's just become the norm to re-write your Klingons every time you start a new Trek series.

immortalfrieza:
Regardless, I'm not going to bother any further, I've already made my case and if you have any intention of being reasonable at all you'll admit it was correct.

You could just shorten your paragraph down to this mate, and you were bothering to begin with?

Redryhno:

I'm not saying it was the right choice or that it was well-written, I'm saying it's not all that out of line.

My main axe to grind with this is that with nothing else being brought in over the two episodes, it just looks like they're going for action with nothing else to it, all that's happened to far is a list of contrivances to justify the situation.

trunkage:

Let's take an example that's currently happening where I live. We're voting/not-voting on Same Sex Marriage. Now anyone who votes for SSM must clearly be SJW (per your definition) as they are 'taking other people's rights away.' Freedom of Speech and Religion and so forth. Compare this to those who want to vote No. They are currently forcing people to live a certain way.

That's one type of authoritarian, but not all fingers are thumbs and I explicitly mentioned its nature as an anti-liberal left leaning form of it.

How is one side better than the other? Also, does it make the right SJW's then? Or can SJWs only be from the Left?

SJWs are left in nature, though given how much the line blurs when you reach deep into authoritarianism then I supposed there is an argument to be made for fascists (after all the actual fascists of the past did explicitly fight for social justice. As then as now, it isn't about equality).

Cultural Imperialists - that's anyone trying to change things to suit themselves. Conservative, Progressives, especially Libertarians.

True but it's again one part of the whole. Not all cultural imperialists are SJWs, but all SJWs are cultural imperialists.

Do I really need to add that Fascism (i.e. super capitalism and conservatism) did exactly the same as the Soviets. Anyone who disagreed was jail and potentially killed

Yes I'm aware of that, though the "super capitalist" part is news given their economic policy and explicit anti-capitalist, socialistic nature.

The term political correctness came from Left people calling out other Left who were being self righteous and needed to be taken down a notch. Star Trek, especially TNG, showed how self righteous was pretty awful. It made me want to try to be more humble.

I'm aware of that, just as the term "Regressive Left" came from a socialist in the UK of Pakistani origin. The problem is unlike those old politically correct types of the 80s and 90s, the Regressive Left managed to take over mainstream left wing parties despite holding views so antithetical to what said parties stand for most would be closer to what they claim to be by voting Tory, and now SJWs are trying to pretend that a franchise that takes a hard stance against what they believe somehow, despite the fact it's unaltered video for all to see, supports their views in one of the worst attempts ever made at revisionism. Though given how few have any actual familiarity with the IP (a lot actually believed this was the first with a black lead and a female captain after all) I'm not surprised that someone telling them Trek supports them would be enough for them to think it did.

Saelune:

KissingSunlight:

Did the SJWs SJW this show then?

I am going to say "Yes". When your biggest selling point for the new Star Trek series is that the cast is going to be diverse. You are admitting that you have no new idea for the series.

I wonder if you would have said that when TNG was first aired.

But lets ignore the blind black guy or a Klingon in charge of security, which in-universe would be like having a Muslim in the US army in charge of stopping bomb threats.

Was TNG marketed by the skin color/disabilities of it's cast? BTW, Worf wasn't the security Chief until Tasha Yar was killed off.

Mark Hettenbach:

Tbh I haven't watched it yet, but the source I get my TV from doesn't post till about an hour after it airs. But I refuse to pay ransom to Cable companies for additional content, Its getting as bad as Microstransactions in games. Your expected to pay for a cable service and 3-4 additional services to get the rest of the programming.

Fortunately there are plenty of sources to get the shows without paying for anything other than the Internet, as long as you don't mind having a little patience and not watching them Day 1

I will be watching at least one of these tonight and will make up my mind then, Unfortunately it competes will Philip K Dicks Electric dreams for my attention on Sundays :D

Looking into whether or not PKD had anything to do with the 1980s movie of that name. Loved it back in the day. Looking into the series in general. Best anthology I'm aware of at this time is Black Mirror. I'd love another one being as worthy.

Nnnyeeaauuh.

It was okay?

I imagine I would have liked it a whole lot more if it wasn't hamstrung by Star Trek's usual insistence on maintaining a look that was originally defined by the limitations of a 60s TV show. Which I suppose is just a long-winded way of saying the aliens all look fucking dumb.

The action looked ridiculous too. Rather undermined some of the drama. I don't understand why TV shows keep trying to depict things they don't have the capacity to do well.

I did have a bit of a chuckle when I realised that they were practically chanting, "Make Klingons Great Again!"

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little interested to see where it goes from here though.

Redvenge:

Redryhno:
And Enterprise I heard was a terrible first season, followed by a breakout second, and led into a pretty decent setup at the end of season 3, before it got cancelled. Haven't ever had time to learn more about it.

Star Trek: Enterprise spent most of it's run-time retconning The Original Series.

Enterprise is the reason there are portable holo-emitters in Star Trek: Discovery (over 200 years before they were invented using Borg tech on Star Trek: Voyager) and it is the reason why every Klingon ship in Discovery has a cloaking device 20 years before the Romulans in the TOS episode Balance of Terror.

Star Trek: Enterprise is fairly terrible from a Trek perspective. It might have worked as a difference science fiction series.

I feel bad for the Klingons. First, they were Russian communists. Then they were Viking Samurai. Now they are the Thraddash. I guess it's just become the norm to re-write your Klingons every time you start a new Trek series.

So basically Enterprise is a passover just like Discovery? Might want to make it a point to the guy that was asking about where to dip his toe in the water.

But yeah, Klignons just don't ever seem to have a set place in the universe. Specific ones, sure, but the race as a whole always seems to end up the default villains and however stupid you decide to make them.

Really wish we got more Cardassians, Romulans, or even 8472. They could really bring a new dynamic to the Borg power struggle I think if it was thought out enough. All it would take is one Borg created portal dropping a Federation ship into it to spark some kind of backlash.

Ninjamedic:

Redryhno:

I'm not saying it was the right choice or that it was well-written, I'm saying it's not all that out of line.

My main axe to grind with this is that with nothing else being brought in over the two episodes, it just looks like they're going for action with nothing else to it, all that's happened to far is a list of contrivances to justify the situation.

It's a Post-Abrams Trek world, I was sorta expecting it. Also let's be fair, both Voyager and DS9 both started their runs as semi-heavy action(For ST at least). But yeah, Discovery really just doesn't seem to actually want to be Star Trek. Action is a staple, but it's always been that talky-techy type of action. Phasers and Kirk Punches, aliens throwing Worf across the universe to show how dangerous they are, etc.

WeepingAngels:

Saelune:

KissingSunlight:

I am going to say "Yes". When your biggest selling point for the new Star Trek series is that the cast is going to be diverse. You are admitting that you have no new idea for the series.

I wonder if you would have said that when TNG was first aired.

But lets ignore the blind black guy or a Klingon in charge of security, which in-universe would be like having a Muslim in the US army in charge of stopping bomb threats.

Was TNG marketed by the skin color/disabilities of it's cast? BTW, Worf wasn't the security Chief until Tasha Yar was killed off.

Not to mention over a hundred years since the peace treaties and Klingon joining with the Federation. It'd probably be more like a Nazi Scientist-descended German being in charge of who gets confined and quarantined.

Also no, if I'm remembering right from promos that were shot that my mom still has vhs's of, it was more marketed as "You remember that cult classic TV show from twenty years ago? WE GOT THE FUNDING FOR MORE OF IT."

Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Gordon_4:
Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Because if you do that you have to invent new aliens and you lose nostalgia bucks.

Ezekiel:
I've never called Tomb Raider 2013 bad. Ever. It's mediocre.

There's a difference?

DefunctTheory:

Star Trek is a misnomer - You can't journey through space on foot. The whole show is built on a faulty premise! Burn it with fire!

...but I could swear that there was a book that said something about hitchiking through space...

immortalfrieza:

Another thing that Star Trek fans forget (or more likely willfully ignore) is that The Next Generation is really the odd one out of the franchise. Most of what fans attribute to the franchise, the peaceful exploration, the diplomacy, the sophisticated
superior attitude, etc. comes solely from TNG, the rest of the franchise isn't even remotely like that, and even the most popular and well known moments of the franchise have nothing to do with that anyway. In other words, what people THINK Star Trek should be like is massively divorced from what it's actually like, TNG is the exception not the rule.

The only Trek series I can really comment on are TOS, Enterprise, TNG, and the Kelvinverse. That said, I can't consider TNG an outlier. Both TOS and Enterprise are in the same mould of TNG - exploring, diplomacy, etc. The difference is (for me) is that TNG is by far the most preachy about it, at least in the first season. If anything, DS9 strikes me as being the outlier of the series for somewhat obvious reasons.

That said, I do agree that there's a wide gulf between what Trekkies claim Star Trek to be, and what it actually is. Star Trek, in a die-hard fan's mind, is intelligent, well written sci-fi that parallels modern times and explores themes/concepts in an adroit manner. To which I say "yeah, it does. At times." This is also the series that's given us stuff like Spock's brain, the mirror universe, a planet of Nazis, alien beings that can literally fling a starship across light years, whales being the key to saving Earth from an alien probe, aliens that barely look alien, Greek gods, and a fight between Kirk and Spock that's more funny than intense. Just for starters. It's part of what baffles me about the idea of the Kelvinverse 'betraying' Star Trek, because Star Trek's run the full gamete of the silly to the serious, to the profound to the absurd. You can't pretend that Star Trek at its best is all it's ever been.

Whitbane:
I miss Farscape.

Sci-fi on television is basically a dead genre.

I miss Farscape too, but seriously?

Killjoys, Dark Matter, The Expanse, Discovery, The Orville, Westworld, etc.

I mean, my thoughts on those individual shows aside (Killjoys is average, Dark Matter is good, Westworld is good, bordering on excellent), I can't really call the genre dead.

Ninjamedic:

You're part of the way there, it's the character drama and action married into High Concepts and ideas that set Trek and many similar series (Doctor Who, Stargate, Babylon 5 and the like) aside from all the other action adventure series of their times. Your watering down of the shows to a handful of the memes and disregard for the ideas, concepts and themes of the work only works as an attempt to big Discovery up by pushing what came before it down.

I'm not going to say they're perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination, but there was a hell of a lot more to these shows that stuck around beyond what the lowest common denominator may or may not think.

We really calling Star Trek "high concept?"

Stuff like 2001 is high concept. Star Trek is primarily soft sci-fi that elevates itself (sometimes) with parallels to real-world scenarios and exploring ethical questions. Key word "at times." Much as I like those other shows, well, Doctor Who is more sci-fa than sci-fi, and its exploration is more on outlandish scenarios more than heavy concept stuff. Babylon 5 is easily the best written of that lot, as it combines political intrigue with good character writing and a universe that grows in scope over time. Stargate...to be honest, I don't see much in the way of high concepts there. Maybe if we're talking the original movie and SG-1, there's something to be said about science and technology (Tau'ri) triumphing over religious superstition (the goa'uld), but it's a theme that doesn't extend to its sister shows. At the least, Star Trek is generally consistent in its 'essence' (and yes, I'd say that applies to the Kelvinverse as well.

Redryhno:

And Enterprise I heard was a terrible first season, followed by a breakout second, and led into a pretty decent setup at the end of season 3, before it got cancelled. Haven't ever had time to learn more about it.

For me, it goes TNG>TOS>Enterprise, but I'm not that enamored with any of them. That said, I'm a bit more generous to Enterprise than that. Season 1 of Enterprise to me is...fine. It's average. It's passable. It's nothing special, but nothing that'll make you tear your hair out either. That said, there's still a lot that bugs me about Enterprise - Archer is insufferable (at least in season 1), how he keeps on going on about how great humans are and those damn Vulcans (straight to T'Pol's face no less), but while Picard could kind of pull it off, here, it comes off as him being a blowhard. Humans are nothing special at this point in time, and he keeps stuffing up anyway.

wizzy555:

Gordon_4:
Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Because if you do that you have to invent new aliens and you lose nostalgia bucks.

You say that like they've never pulled a new race out of their arses before. I mean fuck me, even filing the serial numbers off the Turians and Salarians from Mass Effect would have been better than this shit - though not by much.

I thought the episode I watched was fine. Seems like (if not exactly looks like) the Star Trek I remember. Then I see some of the complaints here... and I notice a trend in the folks posting on the "hate it" side. Then I watch Moviebob's review, and he's in the "like it" camp.

Oh, now I see. This doesn't have anything to do with Star Trek at all...

Well weighing in on my side, Bob was more rational than the "hate it" folks here. But I'm not watching it. It might be a good series (with the correct politics) but I'm not getting another subscription service just to see Star Trek Discovery, or ANY one show.

Gordon_4:

wizzy555:

Gordon_4:
Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Because if you do that you have to invent new aliens and you lose nostalgia bucks.

You say that like they've never pulled a new race out of their arses before. I mean fuck me, even filing the serial numbers off the Turians and Salarians from Mass Effect would have been better than this shit - though not by much.

That's not what I said. I said they are deliberately not inventing new aliens to keep the old icons.

Anyway I watched the first two episodes. I don't agree that it is "not star trek", in many ways it is very star trek, but I am not convinced it is good star trek... yet.

Pros:
Klingon Design,
Extensive Klingon Language,
Internal Klingon Politics,
Michelle Yeoh,
Vulcans being neither saintly nor demonic,
Shooting first controversy

Cons:
Stupid "lets go out in a space suit into a situation that will definitely go wrong" plan
That stupid "we sense when death is coming speech" which didn't make an ounce of sense.

Zontar:
I was already turned off by the opening. Exposition dump in a scene that shows our "protagonist" doesn't have a sense of direction (literally, not character wise) with a bad CG shot of the ship at the end that exists only for the trailer and doesn't make any sense in context. That was our opening, and it set the tone.

Yeah, this. That was one of the worst openings I've ever seen in anything. Things improved slightly after that, but the dialogue continued to suck, nothing about the plot or the characters was all that interesting, and I was rolling my eyes at so many different points.

EDIT: Oh, you're one of those people who uses the term 'SJW' unironically. I still agree with you on the point I quoted, but now I feel slightly ashamed of having done it.

Gordon_4:
Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Ever notice how it's always Kirk and co. when Star Trek is brought up in a movie or a TV show? Hollywood has convinced themselves that TOS is the only Trek that matters and so they keep ignoring fan requests to stop revisiting the past and they wonder why they are killing the franchise.

I just want more borg and they're never going to do it if they keep kicking their feet around in the TOS era

WeepingAngels:
Ever notice how it's always Kirk and co. when Star Trek is brought up in a movie or a TV show? Hollywood has convinced themselves that TOS is the only Trek that matters and so they keep ignoring fan requests to stop revisiting the past and they wonder why they are killing the franchise.

Two things.

1) Paramount has the rights to movies, CBS the rights to TV shows. There's an inherent barrier to making movies based on things other than TOS or TNG.

2) Kirk and TOS made their way into popular culture. Picard to a slight extent. Ask the average person who Captain Kirk is and they'll know. Ask them who Picard is, there's a slight chance. Ask them about Sisko, Janeway, or Archer, and you're likely to get blank stares. I know this from experience. So, yes, arguably TOS matters more than the other series because it's the series that people are familiar with outside the fandom. And you're not going to make million dollar movies just to satisfy a niche.

Hawki:

Two things.

1) Paramount has the rights to movies, CBS the rights to TV shows. There's an inherent barrier to making movies based on things other than TOS or TNG.

Pretty sure they were doing this when Paramount owned it all (pre-2005). Anyway. explain to me why a movie or TV show not produced by either CBS or Paramount always chooses TOS when they would have to pay license fees no matter which show they chose to sample?

2) Kirk and TOS made their way into popular culture. Picard to a slight extent. Ask the average person who Captain Kirk is and they'll know. Ask them who Picard is, there's a slight chance. Ask them about Sisko, Janeway, or Archer, and you're likely to get blank stares. I know this from experience. So, yes, arguably TOS matters more than the other series because it's the series that people are familiar with outside the fandom. And you're not going to make million dollar movies just to satisfy a niche.

Actually, you're wrong: http://www.startrek.com/article/poll-fans-most-watched-star-trek-series-is

undeadsuitor:
I just want more borg and they're never going to do it if they keep kicking their feet around in the TOS era

Maybe V'ger was modified by the Borg.

WeepingAngels:

undeadsuitor:
I just want more borg and they're never going to do it if they keep kicking their feet around in the TOS era

Maybe V'ger was modified by the Borg.

I think that would be a pretty interesting twist

or retcon...well...it was never established who V'ger ran into so it wouldnt really be a retcon.

i just mainly what to see what they could make the borg look like with today's special effects

WeepingAngels:

Gordon_4:
Jesus wept, why isn't this show set 100-years post DS9/Voyager? I mean I've always thought of Star Trek as looking forwards, not backwards. And they wasted some great talent like Michelle Yeoh and Jason Issacs on this sequel to the prequel series: fucking mind-boggling.

Ever notice how it's always Kirk and co. when Star Trek is brought up in a movie or a TV show? Hollywood has convinced themselves that TOS is the only Trek that matters and so they keep ignoring fan requests to stop revisiting the past and they wonder why they are killing the franchise.

On an episode of Babylon 5, they had this thing called an explorer ship: fucking massive thing it was - it charted unknown sectors for jumpgates.

As soon as I saw that, I knew what I wanted from the next Star Trek TV show: one about that kind of ship. A ship so big it had it's own hydroponics, fabrication plants, ore refinery etc and who's stated purpose was to pick a direction into the unknown and just keep going. Since this would be 100+ years post DS9, we could have relaxed the restrictions on genetic augmentation and medical science means humans (and anyone else we want) can life well into their 100's before starting to get 'past it'. Forget the five year mission, this was a twenty year mission.

immortalfrieza:
My reaction to Michael and the Captain's "debate" and her subsequent attempt to take over the ship was "about time somebody with some intelligence took over." We're clearly supposed to find what Michael did wrong, but the fact is racism motivated or not she is 100% correct about the Klingons and as we're shown when both fleets show up she was correct in what should have been done. Klingons throughout Star Trek have consistently shown whenever they aren't allied with The Federation they are to a man little more than a bunch of psychotic warmongering jerkasses to whom diplomacy is useless the vast majority of the time. "Shoot first and ask questions later" should be Starfleet's default order when Klingons show up, the Admiral's order was totally idiotic and the Captain even more so for following it. This is especially true since her first officer went out of her way to find a trustworthy source on how to handle the Klingons and explain to the Captain exactly what they should do and why but got blown off because "Starfleet doesn't shoot first" as though that was a remotely intelligent or sane rationale.

I don't think she was right at all. Then again, I don't think Starfleet was right either - every single action taken on the Federation side made the situation worse...and that's something I'm REALLY liking about this show so far.

Here's the thing: everybody's thinking is limited in the first two episodes, and limited in a manner that prevents the incident from being de-escalated.

On the Starfleet side, they have a policy that they follow without fail based on the values of non-warrior cultures, and it has worked well enough for them in the past that they are treating it as a catch-all solution - and it ISN'T. As they follow the steps, they make things worse. They apologize for killing the Klingon on the artifact, they provide an ultimatum that is "leave or talk," and the admiral goes as far as to be sanctimonious: "Every minute we're fighting, we're not talking" - to a culture that cares very much about martial prowess, there is nothing to inspire respect here. So, every communication they have with the Klingons backfires, and the Federation is completely incapable of interacting with the Klingons in a meaningful way.

Michael is on the right track (she realizes that a show of strength and resolve is necessary to inspire respect and bring the Klingons to the table seeing the Federation as equals), but her own thinking is also limited to the point of being self-defeating. She attempts to copy the Vulcan solution point-for-point, and she commits mutiny to make the attempt. But the Federation and Starfleet are not Vulcan (even if they contain Vulcan) - attacking first in peacetime is an act that no Federation diplomat can justify in negotiations after the incident, neither is it something that Starfleet could ever support. She never even thinks of attempting another type of show of force or resolve (such as "You are intruding in Federation space - withdraw or be destroyed") or attempting to approach the situation sideways so that the Klingons can't justify attacking ("You have strayed into Federation space - we stand ready to render assistance and escort you back to the border" - which might have disrupted the attempt to present the Federation as a threat the Klingon Empire needed to unify over) or even just firing a warning shot across the Klingon's bow.

Considering the Klingon agenda, it's quite likely that de-escalation would just provide a temporary reprieve, but there are a lot of other options that Starfleet could have attempted - and nobody had the imagination to do so. They were all trapped thinking inside the box, and the war became inevitable as a result.

Ninjamedic:
Halfway into the second episode,

Token mention to "The Horror, The Horror" war is bad sentiment before letting loose with the action set-pieces and "you are special" contrivances to the protagonist who cant wait to start killing those Klingon bastards.

Does anyone question how someone so emotionally compromised could become second-in-command of a vessel which is on the border with the very people she harbors contempt for?

So it's pro-war propaganda?

Kyrian007:
I thought the episode I watched was fine. Seems like (if not exactly looks like) the Star Trek I remember. Then I see some of the complaints here... and I notice a trend in the folks posting on the "hate it" side. Then I watch Moviebob's review, and he's in the "like it" camp.

Oh, now I see. This doesn't have anything to do with Star Trek at all...

Well weighing in on my side, Bob was more rational than the "hate it" folks here. But I'm not watching it. It might be a good series (with the correct politics) but I'm not getting another subscription service just to see Star Trek Discovery, or ANY one show.

I bet almost nobody here who watched it paid for it/subscribed. Yeah, I got bored of the discussion several pages back, when it became so political. I didn't think of SJW or any of that crap when I watched the two episodes.

Gorfias:
I loved the 1st two episodes. The 3rd, which just dropped, felt like the worst of STNG: all social politics

That's the bloody point of Star Trek.

Also I'm really liking The Orville.

Ninjamedic:
Right now, Discovery has just said "Yep, she's right in saying they're inherently violent!", before placing her in a scenario that requires Starfleet to overlook her clear neuroses to even let her near a ship again.

Neuroses which also make a limited amount of sense given that she spent seven years doing Vulcan training and living among Vulcans.

Where is it that people are seeing the 3rd episode, it's not on CBS All Access.

Loop Stricken:

Gorfias:
I loved the 1st two episodes. The 3rd, which just dropped, felt like the worst of STNG: all social politics

That's the bloody point of Star Trek.

Also I'm really liking The Orville.

I love social politics in Sci Fi, when well placed (ie Bryan Singer was very good in Xmen, terrible in Superman Returns IMHO) But original series had shows like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Gideon which was both good social commentary AND fun, sci fi. Heck, first 2 episodes of The Orville had some social commentary (divorce, sexism, etc.) But DO NOT, for the sake of your show and fans, be nothing but politics. A Japanese artist once told my Mom that having a "good message" does not over-come bad execution of art. Episode 3 was such an execution. My fingers are crossed that episode 4 gets back on track.

This just feels like it come out just in time for some comparisons.

Ezekiel:

Kyrian007:
I thought the episode I watched was fine. Seems like (if not exactly looks like) the Star Trek I remember. Then I see some of the complaints here... and I notice a trend in the folks posting on the "hate it" side. Then I watch Moviebob's review, and he's in the "like it" camp.

Oh, now I see. This doesn't have anything to do with Star Trek at all...

Well weighing in on my side, Bob was more rational than the "hate it" folks here. But I'm not watching it. It might be a good series (with the correct politics) but I'm not getting another subscription service just to see Star Trek Discovery, or ANY one show.

I bet almost nobody here who watched it paid for it/subscribed. Yeah, I got bored of the discussion several pages back, when it became so political. I didn't think of SJW or any of that crap when I watched the two episodes.

I paid for it.... I'm on Netflix thanks.

And no, I didn't like it, and it had nothing to do with SJW trends. I just thought it wasn't very well written, and it didn't "feel" like Star Trek to me. That's a personal taste thing. You like it? Good for you. I hope there's enough of you peeps who enjoyed it so it's not cancelled.

For me, what a let down. :(

Robert B. Marks:
On the Starfleet side, they have a policy that they follow without fail based on the values of non-warrior cultures, and it has worked well enough for them in the past that they are treating it as a catch-all solution - and it ISN'T. As they follow the steps, they make things worse. They apologize for killing the Klingon on the artifact, they provide an ultimatum that is "leave or talk," and the admiral goes as far as to be sanctimonious: "Every minute we're fighting, we're not talking" - to a culture that cares very much about martial prowess, there is nothing to inspire respect here. So, every communication they have with the Klingons backfires, and the Federation is completely incapable of interacting with the Klingons in a meaningful way.

Michael is on the right track (she realizes that a show of strength and resolve is necessary to inspire respect and bring the Klingons to the table seeing the Federation as equals), but her own thinking is also limited to the point of being self-defeating. She attempts to copy the Vulcan solution point-for-point, and she commits mutiny to make the attempt. But the Federation and Starfleet are not Vulcan (even if they contain Vulcan) - attacking first in peacetime is an act that no Federation diplomat can justify in negotiations after the incident, neither is it something that Starfleet could ever support. She never even thinks of attempting another type of show of force or resolve (such as "You are intruding in Federation space - withdraw or be destroyed") or attempting to approach the situation sideways so that the Klingons can't justify attacking ("You have strayed into Federation space - we stand ready to render assistance and escort you back to the border" - which might have disrupted the attempt to present the Federation as a threat the Klingon Empire needed to unify over) or even just firing a warning shot across the Klingon's bow.

Considering the Klingon agenda, it's quite likely that de-escalation would just provide a temporary reprieve, but there are a lot of other options that Starfleet could have attempted - and nobody had the imagination to do so. They were all trapped thinking inside the box, and the war became inevitable as a result.

All of this is just smokescreen. Nonsense. The Klingons just want to murder people. That's all. The Federation is only making mistakes because the only people who have dealt with the Klingons are the Vulcans. They did not update Wikipedia for some reason, so Burnham has to run off in the middle of a crisis to call her dad for advice. He then tells her "the only way to deal with Klingons is to shoot them in the face".

For years, the Klingons have been performing "terror raids" and murdering unarmed civilians because they can. I don't know why the show bothers with all this meaningless attempts at "first contact" nonsense. The Klingons are mindless murderers. They don't value non-Klingons. I don't even know why they would have translators. They seem pointless.

If they want to unite the fractured empire, can't they just scream WAAAAGH! and everyone just starts Zerging the Federation? It feels like they spent way too much time faffing about for a species that does not care about the niceties of diplomacy. The Klingons are mindless murderers. Get to murdering already.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here