Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

Media => TV & Movies => Topic started by: PANTS! on September 24, 2017, 10:31:03 PM

Title: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on September 24, 2017, 10:31:03 PM
Well, damn sight better than the Orville.  This has Brian Fuller's DNA all over it.  A little too claustrophobic so far, but that a minor quibble.

Anyone else watch?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on September 25, 2017, 01:20:40 AM
Yes.  I was way happier with it than I expected to be.  I have some small issues here and there, but overall I was happy with the look of it, the acting, and the plot.  My biggest complaint thus far though is that the Klingon makeup has so much prosthetics that their faces are practically immobilized; the leader especially.  Some were better than others, but overall it was very off-putting... though maybe that was the point so who knows?  I was also taken aback when Michael nerve pinched her beloved captain.  I mean, I get it, but it just seemed so extreme.  It is making me wonder if perchance she's suffering from PTSD from the Klingon attack from her childhood and that maybe that fact coupled with the likely numerous new cases being developed during the premiere and continuing war could be a major theme of the show.  It'd certainly be relevant to the present day.

At this point, I'm not 100% sold on it, but it has piqued my interest and I'm very happy that it wasn't as bad as some of the trailers made it seem.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: jt512 on September 25, 2017, 02:52:20 AM
I didn't care for the first two episodes: bad acting, bad writing, no likeable characters.  But the previews at the end of the second episode looked promising. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on September 25, 2017, 08:35:13 AM
I liked it. Science officer Saru is easily one of the best new ST characters since Chakotay. The guy who played Sarek is pretty weak. They went with the stupid lens flare shit and that made it hard to watch. Fuck you JJ. The new Klingons have potential. Ep 2 left me going "where do they go from here?"

How long is each ep? I couldn't figure it out.

And, wow, it's been a while since I watched a TV show with commercials that I couldn't pause.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on September 25, 2017, 10:04:58 PM
I liked it. Science officer Saru is easily one of the best new ST characters since Chakotay. The guy who played Sarek is pretty weak. They went with the stupid lens flare shit and that made it hard to watch. Fuck you JJ. The new Klingons have potential. Ep 2 left me going "where do they go from here?"

How long is each ep? I couldn't figure it out.

And, wow, it's been a while since I watched a TV show with commercials that I couldn't pause.

On All Access without commercials, the episodes ran 40 minutes.  Even though they're putting these on streaming, that is perfect timing for a 1 hour Television show with commercials.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on September 26, 2017, 08:47:44 AM
In Canada it's being run on the Space channel, Sunday 8 pm or 9 pm. One of those. Anyway, a great time slot. I'm really not sure how many people in the USA are going to sign up for yet another streaming service. Hopefully CBS will quickly see there's a big audience and release it as a legit CBS series.

Space is like the USA's SyFy. It's also gone down the fucking tubes like SyFy, given (like so many other channels) to cheap reality TV shows (ghost hunting shows). I haven't watched Space since the BSG days.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Ah.hell on September 26, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
In Canada it's being run on the Space channel, Sunday 8 pm or 9 pm. One of those. Anyway, a great time slot. I'm really not sure how many people in the USA are going to sign up for yet another streaming service. Hopefully CBS will quickly see there's a big audience and release it as a legit CBS series.

Space is like the USA's SyFy. It's also gone down the fucking tubes like SyFy, given (like so many other channels) to cheap reality TV shows (ghost hunting shows). I haven't watched Space since the BSG days.

To be fair, SciFi started in the tubes with mostly cheap direct to video monster movies and reruns of second rate direct to syndication series like Friday the 13th, the series.  It previously had a number of good and even great shows then went back down the tubes.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: superdave on September 26, 2017, 10:54:45 AM
I fell asleep while watching and then discovered there was no way to finish watching legally. 

But umm, the first 15 minutes seemed OK, though everything felt very fast paced and rushed.  I like my Trek slow and calculating.
But even in that 15 minutes I could tell that the acting was strong at least. 
I don't think my interest was piqued enough to pay for the rest, but I might do the free trial and check it out more.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on September 26, 2017, 10:58:25 AM
I only watched the pilot so far, and I can't say I was hooked. It was good enough, but lacked anything that would make it particularly interesting.

Will watch it a bit more and see what happens.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: superdave on September 26, 2017, 10:58:30 AM
also, I surprisingly didn't hate the Orville pilot.
It wasn't great or anything, but I was surprised that it seems they are going for more a straightforward sci-fi than a total parody.  Tone wise (not quality, just tone!)  it felt closer to firefly than spaceballs.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tyy on September 26, 2017, 01:50:59 PM
It was different to earlier Treks, but I didn't mind. Actually liked the new Klingons. And since it airs on Netflix in Europe, why not to watch because I pay for Netflix anyways.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: SkeptiQueer on September 26, 2017, 02:19:00 PM
Shameless plug for the Greatest Discovery podcast, a Star Trek podcast by two guys who are sort of embarrassed to have a Star Trek podcast. I loved their TNG 'cast, and I'm now going out of my way to watch STD earlier.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on September 26, 2017, 04:24:44 PM
also, I surprisingly didn't hate the Orville pilot.
It wasn't great or anything, but I was surprised that it seems they are going for more a straightforward sci-fi than a total parody.  Tone wise (not quality, just tone!)  it felt closer to firefly than spaceballs.

Check out the 3rd episode. It's way better in every regard (including the humor) and is a quintessential Trek style episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on September 26, 2017, 05:11:49 PM
also, I surprisingly didn't hate the Orville pilot.
It wasn't great or anything, but I was surprised that it seems they are going for more a straightforward sci-fi than a total parody.  Tone wise (not quality, just tone!)  it felt closer to firefly than spaceballs.

Check out the 3rd episode. It's way better in every regard (including the humor) and is a quintessential Trek style episode.

Except when it wasn't. I think the analogy that rings true for me is; imagine a meal.  Some dishes are stuff you can get anywhere and are cooked by a 6yo.   Other dishes are ones you love, that yoy havnt had in ages, and prepared by a good chef.

 You have to eat all of it and do it blindfolded.   That for me is what its like to watch episode 3 of  The Orville.  One moment its pretty competent Sci Fi, next Seth snuck some shit in the mix.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on September 26, 2017, 07:44:36 PM
also, I surprisingly didn't hate the Orville pilot.
It wasn't great or anything, but I was surprised that it seems they are going for more a straightforward sci-fi than a total parody.  Tone wise (not quality, just tone!)  it felt closer to firefly than spaceballs.

Check out the 3rd episode. It's way better in every regard (including the humor) and is a quintessential Trek style episode.

Except when it wasn't. I think the analogy that rings true for me is; imagine a meal.  Some dishes are stuff you can get anywhere and are cooked by a 6yo.   Other dishes are ones you love, that yoy havnt had in ages, and prepared by a good chef.

 You have to eat all of it and do it blindfolded.   That for me is what its like to watch episode 3 of  The Orville.  One moment its pretty competent Sci Fi, next Seth snuck some shit in the mix.

I never said it was perfect. Hell, most Star Trek episodes were far from perfect too. As much as it is like TNG, it is still its own thing as well and whatever deficiencies it's showing now could just as easily end up being growing pains as signs that it will not succeed. The 3rd episode did enough right that it's made me feel a bit better about its chances to become something memorable.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: xenu on September 26, 2017, 08:11:15 PM
I recorded the premier but have not watched it yet. Even if it is good there is no way I will watch the rest of them because I will not pay for another subscription service. I hope they bring it to NETFLIX USA or on air.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on September 28, 2017, 09:25:25 AM
I didn't like the Klingon's slurred speech and immobile head. This could have been any alien race instead of messing with our cannon. Still a good story with good characters.

At the end of the second episode I was pissed off that this wasn't even the right ship. More of a back story for the XO.

I don't normally watch TV and I would watch pay TV even less.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-pirated/
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on September 28, 2017, 10:02:51 AM
I didn't like the Klingon's slurred speech and immobile head.

Same here. Some Klingons were better than others, but overall not a fan. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 02, 2017, 09:26:48 AM
Ep3 was quite good! I'm enjoying the characters.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 02, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 02, 2017, 10:08:31 AM
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.

Did they mention Paul Stamets in the episode?  I don't recall.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 02, 2017, 11:10:14 AM
I agree that episode 3 was better and tighter.   I was quite happy with it until it started up with the theories of Paul Stamets, the mushroom guy.  He's really knowledgeable about fungus and it's potential uses, but....  I went to a health food convention (don't ask) several years ago and Stamets was the keynote speaker.  Most of his talk was interesting, he's smart with creative ideas about the uses of mushrooms... but the last 10 minutes of the talk he went off on some weird tangent about the nature of reality and theoretical physics.  He sounded like a stoned teenager saying  "Whoooah, dude.  What if, you know, the universe is a cosmic mushroom, and like the structure of space-time is connected like a giant fungus, man."

And I cried a little.


Star Trek has always had an uneasy fascination with sketchy pop science.  I hope they drop this plot thread soon.

Totally off topic but isn't Tralfaz the original name of the Jetson's dog Astro?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 02, 2017, 01:25:05 PM
@Belgarath

Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets.



@mindme

ding, ding, ding.  100 bonus points
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 02, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
@Belgarath
Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets

Boy, they weren't playing coy with that name. I felt the character was a bit too openly insubordinate. I think they were going a bit with the reaction of the scientists to Star Fleet using the Genesis device as a weapon.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Ah.hell on October 02, 2017, 03:28:59 PM
Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

In the US anyway, its not uncommon for traditional male names to become more common female names; Tracy, Lesley, Vivian, Madison(son of Mad), etc.  So, maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?  Misha already is and its just Russian for Mikey.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 02, 2017, 03:33:35 PM
I saw some clip that interviewed one of the creators of the series.  He said that in other shows he started he gave a female character a male name.  Why?  I don't know.  Of course I'd mention that there are many boy names that have become girl names.  Morgan, Jordan, Sean/Shawn, Ashley, Beverly, Madison, Kimberly.  Not as many in the other direction.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 02, 2017, 03:46:43 PM
I liked this episode a lot.  Still not blowing me away, but this was much more solid and I'm glad to begin to get a feeling of what this show is going to be about.  I'm getting a serious Section 31 vibe off of Lorca and the ship (the black badges especially) and I'm not sure how I feel about that.  On the one hand, Trek has had its dark moments and characters so why not Discovery?  On the other hand, it's not exactly the kind of story I'd have picked for a new Trek series either.  I'm OK with it for now though.  We'll see how it turns out.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

Bryan Fuller, the original showrunner who's since left, stated that it was his tradition to have female characters with male names.  I guess it's just a personal flourish of his.  He also notes that there are a handful of somewhat famous women named Michael so it's not without precedent.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 02, 2017, 03:53:29 PM
@Belgarath
Well, no.  But the science officer/astomycologist is named Lt. Paul Stamets

Boy, they weren't playing coy with that name. I felt the character was a bit too openly insubordinate. I think they were going a bit with the reaction of the scientists to Star Fleet using the Genesis device as a weapon.

Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

That's a Brian Fuller thing.   (https://culturess.com/2017/08/03/star-trek-discovery-eps-reveal-female-lead-named-michael/)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 02, 2017, 04:34:14 PM
"To have a woman with a male name, speaking of … how we see men and women in the future.”

Huh, so it's interesting and exciting and futuristic for a woman to have a man's name.  Yet I doubt if we'll see a man named Roxanne or Cassandra.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: MTBox on October 02, 2017, 04:42:22 PM
"maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?"

The Waltons' mother, actress: Michael Learned
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 02, 2017, 07:23:02 PM
"To have a woman with a male name, speaking of … how we see men and women in the future.”

Huh, so it's interesting and exciting and futuristic for a woman to have a man's name.  Yet I doubt if we'll see a man named Roxanne or Cassandra.

Well, I think it'd be interesting to have a future where the social boundaries between genders aren't so arbitrary and binary, so I guess a female having a male name might be an indication of that.  As for men having female names, I don't see why not, but it'd almost certainly be more socially distracting in this day and age than a female named Michael.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 03, 2017, 01:05:39 AM
I guess I'd argue that a woman with a traditionally male name is almost so common that it goes practically unnoticed (see the names in earlier posts).  Funny how a woman with a man's name is a mild curiosity, yet  man with a woman's name is so controversial that it could offend the audience.

If they really wanted to make a social commentary, there it is.  A woman with a male characteristic is good,  a man with a female characteristic is bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 03, 2017, 01:54:13 AM
I guess I'd argue that a woman with a traditionally male name is almost so common that it goes practically unnoticed (see the names in earlier posts).  Funny how a woman with a man's name is a mild curiosity, yet  man with a woman's name is so controversial that it could offend the audience.

If they really wanted to make a social commentary, there it is.  A woman with a male characteristic is good,  a man with a female characteristic is bad.

So common it goes unnoticed and yet a lot of people have made a point of noticing it and talking about it.  Also, there's practically no social commentary made that someone can't then say "yeah well, they could have gone further," so I'm not generally a fan of that line of thinking.  At any rate, it doesn't seem like it was intended to be some massive conversation starter and seems to be mostly a personal flourish of Brian Fuller's.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: michael0669 on October 03, 2017, 02:11:47 AM
I've met a handful of women with variants of this name (which also happens to be my given name, but I'm male...)

So far it's been two Michaelenes, one Michaela, and one Michael.  It's not exactly common for women yet, and may not ever be, but it's not unheard of, either.

On the other hand, hearing Stacey or Tracey used for a man's given name?  That still throws me.


Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

In the US anyway, its not uncommon for traditional male names to become more common female names; Tracy, Lesley, Vivian, Madison(son of Mad), etc.  So, maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?  Misha already is and its just Russian for Mikey.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: John Albert on October 03, 2017, 02:13:17 AM
This show is really good.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 03, 2017, 08:15:19 AM
Ok, apparently I'm having a way, way, way worse reaction to this show than most, but I'm loathing it. I can only name a couple of shows or films that I have found myself involuntarily laughing derisively at; one of them was Star Trek Discovery and it's happened in all 3 episodes so far; the other was the theatrical cut of Batman Vs Superman.

I really did want to like this series, I feel like we are well over due a good old dose of the Star Trek optimism, but that's nowhere to be found here.

So here are the main things that have annoyed me - in no order:

* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...
* The script - the dialogue is seriously turgid, and character and motivation seem often confused and inconsistent - seemingly to hit certain predetermined plot points.
* In the future people will be petty and squabblesome - this really kicked in in episode 3. It reminded me of the petty infighting in BSG, but at least there they had the excuse that half the crew were supposed to be Cylons.
* The tone - I have come away from the first 3 episodes with the strong impression that not only are they not interested in the tone of the previous Star Trek iterations but that they are actively opposed to it. They seem to have drawn from almost every SciFi genre from the last 20 years other than Star Trek.
* The Klingons - Oh... Dear... what on Earth were they thinking? I can only think that so much of the talent that went into decades of practical make-up on shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5 has drained away. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of the "poo monster" at the end of altered states.
* The Science - science in Star Trek always took somewhat of a back seat to plot, but they at least knew when they needed to apply some handwavium to cover over the cracks - here they neither know the science or care about it. My favourites so far:

For episodes 2 and 3:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on October 03, 2017, 08:27:07 AM
* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...

Hmm, I see there is another member of the Church in the forum to hang out in the Sceptical Receptacle.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 03, 2017, 08:37:29 AM
It's a good point that some male names have become female names. However, it's pretty clear in Ep 3 that Michael is an odd name for a woman. The cadet mentions she is aware of only one woman to be named Michael.

I don't know if this was meant to make the MRA types extra super mad. I got the feeling from my coworker who worked on the series that maybe the Michael character was originally envisioned to be male but the people who took the reigns were like "mmmmm nnnnnnnnn no. This is going to a strong female lead series." "But the main character needs to be called Michael Burnham." "Yep, we can do that."

There's so much potential in a female character with a male name. It's a teaching moment "why do you even give a fuck? I mean, warp engines. Every race looks human. Yet you can't suspend disbelief over a woman named Michael?" It might be part of a mystery.




Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 03, 2017, 08:42:20 AM
Hmm, I see there is another member of the Church in the forum to hang out in the Sceptical Receptacle.

When not on a Cruise.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 03, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Ok, apparently I'm having a way, way, way worse reaction to this show than most, but I'm loathing it. I can only name a couple of shows or films that I have found myself involuntarily laughing derisively at; one of them was Star Trek Discovery and it's happened in all 3 episodes so far; the other was the theatrical cut of Batman Vs Superman.

I really did want to like this series, I feel like we are well over due a good old dose of the Star Trek optimism, but that's nowhere to be found here.

So here are the main things that have annoyed me - in no order:

* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...
* The script - the dialogue is seriously turgid, and character and motivation seem often confused and inconsistent - seemingly to hit certain predetermined plot points.
* In the future people will be petty and squabblesome - this really kicked in in episode 3. It reminded me of the petty infighting in BSG, but at least there they had the excuse that half the crew were supposed to be Cylons.
* The tone - I have come away from the first 3 episodes with the strong impression that not only are they not interested in the tone of the previous Star Trek iterations but that they are actively opposed to it. They seem to have drawn from almost every SciFi genre from the last 20 years other than Star Trek.
* The Klingons - Oh... Dear... what on Earth were they thinking? I can only think that so much of the talent that went into decades of practical make-up on shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5 has drained away. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of the "poo monster" at the end of altered states.
* The Science - science in Star Trek always took somewhat of a back seat to plot, but they at least knew when they needed to apply some handwavium to cover over the cracks - here they neither know the science or care about it. My favourites so far:

For episodes 2 and 3:
(click to show/hide)

I can see that.  I don't really agree, as I am enjoying the show, but it does split from old Trek pretty violently.  It is like an ex-smoker in that regard.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 03, 2017, 09:44:56 AM
OMG i am totally in love with Cadet Sylvia Tilly. I would not kick her out of bed for eating cookies. Sure she talked a lot but man, has she got it.

If anyone needs me I'll be on holodeck 3.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 03, 2017, 10:26:52 AM
OMG i am totally in love with Cadet Sylvia Tilly. I would not kick her out of bed for eating cookies. Sure she talked a lot but man, has she got it.

If anyone needs me I'll be on holodeck 3.

Me too.  She is soooooo my type.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: superdave on October 03, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
science in star trek was never very good but it usually followed some sort of internal logic.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 03, 2017, 12:45:56 PM
science in star trek was never very good but it usually followed some sort of internal logic.

The breath sample lock is a joke.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 03, 2017, 01:22:28 PM
https://www.themarysue.com/cadet-sylvia-tilly-star-trek-discovery/

Interesting take on the cadet.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 03, 2017, 03:42:45 PM
I found the cadet a bit too whedonesque but I like the show way more than expected.
Im usually more a fan of trek in principle than practice.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 03, 2017, 03:50:58 PM
https://www.themarysue.com/cadet-sylvia-tilly-star-trek-discovery/

Interesting take on the cadet.


I think that was exactly what I thought they were doing with that character.

Ok. I gave the 3rd episode a second viewing this evening and I'm afraid it did not improve for me.

One of the things that was really bugging me on the rewatch was just how horribly contrived all the interpersonal conflicts are:

(click to show/hide)

And the thing about context being everything and directives being nothing felt like a huge middle finger to the prime directive and to Star Trek in general. Perhaps they are setting this up as a bad idea to be overcome - it was after all said by the most villainous of captains - but I'm not even sure that's where they're going with it or if that would excuse it.

(click to show/hide)

I think despite it being available on Netflix here. I'll have to bow out from the rest of this series, and maybe come back to it later if people tell me it changes direction dramatically. At least I have the Expanse, though Star Trek it is not.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 03, 2017, 03:53:41 PM
I found the cadet a bit too whedonesque but I like the show way more than expected.
Im usually more a fan of trek in principle than practice.

Did you mean Wheatonesque?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 03, 2017, 04:00:43 PM
I found the cadet a bit too whedonesque but I like the show way more than expected.
Im usually more a fan of trek in principle than practice.

Did you mean Wheatonesque?
Lol! No! But good catch!
I mean she came across as if she had been written by Joss Whedon.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 03, 2017, 04:10:30 PM
And the thing about context being everything and directives being nothing felt like a huge middle finger to the prime directive and to Star Trek in general.

AFAIK, there is no Prime Directive right now (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/First_Contact_(episode)).  If you notice Captain Georgou mentions the precursor to it in the first episode.  One of the things I think they are going to deal with in this series is how did the Prime Directive come about and why.

Quote from: memory-alpha
Picard explains the Prime Directive after Durken asks why the Federation would not offer their superior technology to his people. Picard says that it would be irresponsible and destructive

.....

 Picard explains that when Starfleet met with the Klingons, contact was "disastrous" and decades of war resulted. After that, the Federation decided that surveillance of this nature was necessary. He assures Durken that in time, full disclosure of the surveillance would have been made.


Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 03, 2017, 04:14:48 PM
They didn't meet the Klingons in Discovery though, they met them in Enterprise. Though it was hardly disastrous and decades of war didn't result so who knows?

Also, not sure how the Prime Directive stops the war started in Discovery anyways. This wasn't first contact and wasn't a situation where we could have observed without interfering. It was a hostile shop knowingly encroaching on Federation space in the hopes of sparking war.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 03, 2017, 04:21:34 PM
And the thing about context being everything and directives being nothing felt like a huge middle finger to the prime directive and to Star Trek in general.

AFAIK, there is no Prime Directive right now (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/First_Contact_(episode)).  If you notice Captain Georgou mentions the precursor to it in the first episode.  One of the things I think they are going to deal with in this series is how did the Prime Directive come about and why.

Quote from: memory-alpha
Picard explains the Prime Directive after Durken asks why the Federation would not offer their superior technology to his people. Picard says that it would be irresponsible and destructive

.....

 Picard explains that when Starfleet met with the Klingons, contact was "disastrous" and decades of war resulted. After that, the Federation decided that surveillance of this nature was necessary. He assures Durken that in time, full disclosure of the surveillance would have been made.

Well that's at least a bit interesting. I had picked up on the prime directive not being a thing yet, but didn't recall what Picard had said about Klingon first contact. I have to say I've begun to expect...

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 04, 2017, 08:11:08 PM

(click to show/hide)

Can I (should I) quote a spoiler?  Isn't there some mention in one of the many series that talks of some techno-genetic difference in appearance of the TOS Klingons and the TNG era (and movie era?) Klingons?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: bimble on October 05, 2017, 05:46:18 AM

(click to show/hide)

Can I (should I) quote a spoiler?  Isn't there some mention in one of the many series that talks of some techno-genetic difference in appearance of the TOS Klingons and the TNG era (and movie era?) Klingons?

In DS9, when they went back to TOS episode 'Trouble With Tribbles' the crew ask Worf about it, and he responds with a, "it's not something we talk about'; but then in Enterprise we discover that it's due to a virus that was spread during an eugenics attempt. I'm not spoilering it cause those episodes are 12 years old!
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 05, 2017, 08:54:19 AM
I much more liked the retcon that the Klingon empire is basically a collection of races (two or more). The TOS era saw a more human like minority come to power. But by Star Trek: the Movie the majority race had retaken power.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 05, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
@mindme

I'm curious, where does that come from?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 05, 2017, 09:18:01 AM
In DS9, when they went back to TOS episode 'Trouble With Tribbles' the crew ask Worf about it, and he responds with a, "it's not something we talk about'; but then in Enterprise we discover that it's due to a virus that was spread during an eugenics attempt. I'm not spoilering it cause those episodes are 12 years old!

Yeh, this plot line was already done in Enterprise to retcon the TOS beardy Klingons to the Klingons from The Motion Picture+, but I'm in no way confident that they wont steal this for STD... I mean retcon the retcon.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 05, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
@mindme

I'm curious, where does that come from?

I can't quite remember. I think I heard a guy explaining it at a gaming convention back when Star Trek: Wrath of Khan came out. We were musing about the Klingons and that was his brilliant retcon.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 05, 2017, 02:51:32 PM
@mindme

I'm curious, where does that come from?

I can't quite remember. I think I heard a guy explaining it at a gaming convention back when Star Trek: Wrath of Khan came out. We were musing about the Klingons and that was his brilliant retcon.
IIRC, the kirk-era Klingons were mutants, having tried to enhance themselves with human DNA (or maybe it was enhancements from Khan-like metahumans?) and accidentally created a plague that made them more human and also weaker, both causing infertility and whatnot. The TNG Klingons were the product of genetic therapy to try re-Klingify the Klingons using stored samples of dead tissue. Disco (or STD if you prefer) Klingons would then be pre-Kirk and pre-infection. The difference in motif is explained by the 24 houses not yet having merged into a more unified empire after the more-or-less end of hostilities with the federation.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Ah.hell on October 05, 2017, 05:07:50 PM
I much more liked the retcon that the Klingon empire is basically a collection of races (two or more). The TOS era saw a more human like minority come to power. But by Star Trek: the Movie the majority race had retaken power.

Best retcon I've heard, except for, "We had a bigger budget and better make up in 1980 than in 1960"
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: John Albert on October 06, 2017, 01:30:07 AM
This 3rd episode ratcheted up the drama quite a lot, in part by introducing some extremely heavyhanded characters and hamfisted villain types. Also, it appears to be scrambling to establish backstory by means of some really clumsy exposition. I guess that's to be expected with such a narrative gear-shift in a TV series.

In short it feels like it's lost its footing a bit, but still shows a lot of promise. I do really like the overall darker, yet still high concept sci-fi feel. I'll continue watching.

Not so keen on the rather hokey Alice and Wonderland references, but I did enjoy noticing the tribble on the Captain's desk.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 06, 2017, 07:44:48 AM
I did enjoy noticing the tribble on the Captain's desk.

That pissed me off. Tribbles are THE dumbest thing EVAH. Plus, Kirk and the TOS Enterprise seemed to have first encounter with them so it should not be in this trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 06, 2017, 08:49:39 AM
You could come up with dozens of reasonable explanations for that Tribble being there and not causing a problem with the time line, but what got me about the Tribble is that it is way too dangerous to keep as a pet.  You shouldn't be seeing just one, they should be filling the ship up.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 06, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Captain Lorca also kept the giant Targ. Final shot kinda made me think he was collecting for a zoo. Clearly he is a very dangerous man.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 06, 2017, 09:19:42 AM
Ham fisted villains became a standard Star Trek trope long ago for the convenience of lazy storytelling.  Maybe this villain will become morally ambiguous.  At least that is more interesting.  And as for the tribble, maaaaybe we are seeing the birth of the TOS era tribble  ;), the result of some top secret fertility experiment gone awry.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 06, 2017, 09:50:59 AM
Ham fisted villains became a standard Star Trek trope long ago for the convenience of lazy storytelling.  Maybe this villain will become morally ambiguous.  At least that is more interesting.  And as for the tribble, maaaaybe we are seeing the birth of the TOS era tribble  ;), the result of some top secret fertility experiment gone awry.
WHAT IF THE TRIBBLES ARE A SECRET BIOWEAPON THAT MAKES THE KLINGONS LOOL LIKE TOS KLINGONS
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 06, 2017, 10:01:45 AM
That pissed me off. Tribbles are THE dumbest thing EVAH. Plus, Kirk and the TOS Enterprise seemed to have first encounter with them so it should not be in this trek.

For better or worse, they were on Enterprise.

You could come up with dozens of reasonable explanations for that Tribble being there and not causing a problem with the time line, but what got me about the Tribble is that it is way too dangerous to keep as a pet.  You shouldn't be seeing just one, they should be filling the ship up.

Is it alive?

Captain Lorca also kept the giant Targ. Final shot kinda made me think he was collecting for a zoo. Clearly he is a very dangerous man.

He also has that Gorn? skeleton

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 06, 2017, 11:04:36 AM

You could come up with dozens of reasonable explanations for that Tribble being there and not causing a problem with the time line, but what got me about the Tribble is that it is way too dangerous to keep as a pet.  You shouldn't be seeing just one, they should be filling the ship up.

Is it alive?

I thought it made a noise and puffed up, but I'm not sure.

On another note, he also had a dead Cardassian Vole on his desk.

Oh, and did anyone else think the spore monster looked like a Tardigrade?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 06, 2017, 07:44:59 PM

For better or worse, they were on Enterprise.
 


I forgot about that.  I just watched the only sighting on Amazulu.  It only mentions that they breed prolifically, but not just HOW prolifically.  It still could fit into my grand conspiracy theory about them being bred as a biological weapon.  One that affects the cranial ridges of Klingons.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: John Albert on October 07, 2017, 03:01:43 PM
That pissed me off. Tribbles are THE dumbest thing EVAH. Plus, Kirk and the TOS Enterprise seemed to have first encounter with them so it should not be in this trek.

Yeah, that's a good point. They were supposed to be a newly-discovered species weren't they?


Captain Lorca also kept the giant Targ. Final shot kinda made me think he was collecting for a zoo. Clearly he is a very dangerous man.

That third ep positively reeked of Alien, with maybe a little Half Life thrown in.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 07, 2017, 06:45:22 PM
Here's an interesting theory on Discovery's Spore Drive.  Actually is kinda neat if he's right about his guess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-oIpBzNUcI
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 08, 2017, 04:44:17 AM
Here's an interesting theory on Discovery's Spore Drive.  Actually is kinda neat if he's right about his guess:

No. No it's not. It's Hammer of the Gods meets what every hippy who's ever taken magic mushrooms has "discovered" in a field at 2 am in the morning. And the Quantum crap is Deepak Chopra grade nonsense.   
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 08, 2017, 05:05:30 AM
Here's an interesting theory on Discovery's Spore Drive.  Actually is kinda neat if he's right about his guess:

No. No it's not. It's Hammer of the Gods meets what every hippy who's ever taken magic mushrooms has "discovered" in a field at 2 am in the morning. And the Quantum crap is Deepak Chopra grade nonsense.

I'm not sure how.  This isn't saying that we're all connected via quantum energy and then we can harness that energy via shrooms.  It's saying that Quantum Entanglement is a thing and that this fictional spore somehow evolved to procreate using it, leading to some sort of web of quantumly entangled spores that react predictably, and since they react predictably it's possible to send large amounts of data instantly across great distances and thus transport things.  I'm not saying it makes sense as a real world technology or anything, but it really doesn't sound like spiritual nonsense except for the fact that modern woo peddlers like to use the word 'quantum' because it's mysterious.  At any rate, it's no less ridiculous than inertial dampeners, artificial gravity, or Heisenberg compensators.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 08, 2017, 06:07:43 AM
I'm not sure how.  This isn't saying that we're all connected via quantum energy and then we can harness that energy via shrooms.

That's kinda exactly what it's saying.

Quantum entanglement just doesn't work like that, it doesn't travel faster than light, the entangled particles have to have become entangled together then be separated - not be part of the same species or organism - and it can't be used to communicate information FTL. Also entanglement is just some BS pulled out of the arse of whoever made this video. From what we've had from the show so far it looks like a case of "Quantum" ergo "magic".

Also as of the 3rd episode I'm 50-50 on whether they are saying this Quantum magic extends to all living things..

The nice thing about inertial dampeners and the rest was that it just supposed physics we don't know about yet.

Not that old Trek was above having a plot line like intragalactic space mushrooms on some of its sillier episodes, but the combination of the grimdark tone and magic space mushrooms has me reaching for my vomit bag.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tyy on October 08, 2017, 08:44:14 AM
Sorry to say, but I am disappointed after episode 3. This scientifish, naive approach...

Well, might enjoy it as a pure fairy-tale as well. Why should I expect anything else.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tyy on October 08, 2017, 08:46:34 AM
Here's an interesting theory on Discovery's Spore Drive.  Actually is kinda neat if he's right about his guess:

No. No it's not. It's Hammer of the Gods meets what every hippy who's ever taken magic mushrooms has "discovered" in a field at 2 am in the morning. And the Quantum crap is Deepak Chopra grade nonsense.

Exactly so.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 08, 2017, 01:36:04 PM
I'll admit Quantum Mechanics is not something I'm comfortable debating about except perhaps in the broadest of strokes, and I'm not saying I would choose the direction that this new sci-fi concept seems to be headed (much like I would not have chosen a few of the directions of this show), but it's not like Trek hasn't made some pretty questionable sci-fi decisions before where they reference some real-world science in the vaguest terms then says the magic techno babble words and poof, we have the technology that makes no sense, but sounds cool.  The Genesis Device springs to mind for instance.  It feels like mostly you guys are just reacting to the words "interconnected" and "quantum" and their occurrence in woo. Inherently, there is nothing unscientific about the words or concenpts and sci-fi has always operated similarly to woo where sciency-sounding words are used to bridge the gap between reality and fantasy; the difference is that sci-fi doesn't then go on and claim these concepts are real.  I haven't seen any evidence Discovery is trying to assert this stuff is real yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 08, 2017, 02:46:37 PM
..., but it's not like Trek hasn't made some pretty questionable sci-fi decisions before where they reference some real-world science in the vaguest terms then says the magic techno babble words and poof, we have the technology that makes no sense, but sounds cool.  The Genesis Device springs to mind for instance.

Absolutely no disagreement from me. Slingshoting around the sun to travel back to 1986 to steal whales comes to mind to me. Still TOS had earned a lot of good will from me and from TNG on they actually had science advisers so they at least knew when they needed to techno babble their way into doing whatever they needed for plot.

My worst fear is that they've given us a grimdark Star Trek series that ripped of its Sci-Fi elements from the Phantom Menace.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 08, 2017, 03:08:50 PM
My biggest hope is that they front-loaded the series with stuff to grab viewers beyond the existing fan base and are going to ease them into what Trek is really all about.  I mean 2009 Trek proved that it can bring in new audiences that way, and Beyond got really close to bringing classic Trek to the big screen.  Hopefully the execs aren't going to learn the wrong lessons though, and sacrifice what makes Trek special on the altar of mass appeal.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 08, 2017, 10:23:30 PM
Well that was the Star Trekiest one so far.  Science and understanding won the day - sorta. 

Anyone else getting a Platoon / Wall Street vibe frombthe two parenal figures?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 09, 2017, 12:20:32 AM
I liked the episode quite a bit.  Still not sold on the Klingons at all, but at least they are developing some characters instead of just making them the scary enemy.  Also:

(click to show/hide)

One thing that's repeatedly bugged me in Trek and other sci-fi is the idea that you encounter this new life form that you are barely familiar with it, and someone says to anesthetize it or give it stimulants to wake up.  For all you know, human anesthesia could be deadly poison or something that induces a hyper-aggressive state.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 09, 2017, 05:01:27 AM
half way through ep one ... I'm wondering how much this is going to play out to be a parable about the US peace-bringing to the middle east and pissing off a group of terrorists who believe in prophecy.

goddamn, they're really spelling it out in the Klingon dialogue. 'by faith!' ... 'yearning to part of something bigger'.

the 'sense of the coming of death' thing seems weird to me, for a sciencey show... I mean, it's kinda classic misuse of evolution talk. ...your evolved instincts aren't necessarily adaptive to future circumstances--being on a ship in a stand-off is hardly the same thing as being hunted in person on a planet.

all caught up.
sad that they had to rely on earthly animal noises to elicit sympathy for the utilitarianism problem, but I guess they were too pressed for time to be more Ender series about it. it would've been much more intriguing if they'd had her gadget detecting signs of distress that were totally alien to human empathies, in order to create more of a conflict between her humanity and her Vulcan training, to better address Hume's problem of morality.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 11, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Ep 4: Wow, they do indeed kill some people off quickly.

Alas I fear we're going to get some "save the space Tardigrade" story arc from here on in...
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on October 11, 2017, 12:38:58 PM
What I am really beginning to fear is whether we are going to see any Star Trek. The whole "explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before" thing.

So far it's mostly been more like Battlestar Galactica examining the morality of an intergalactic war for survival, which is fine, but not quite Star Trek.

Also, I do hope we'll get to know the crew at some point.

I would love to watch an optimistic, anti-war space, soft philosophical, well-meaning sci-fi adventure show, and I believe it would be more beneficial in these weird times than yet another tv series about grim people shooting stuff in the face.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 11, 2017, 01:48:18 PM
I would love to watch an optimistic, anti-war space, soft philosophical, well-meaning sci-fi adventure show, and I believe it would be more beneficial in these weird times than yet another tv series about grim people shooting stuff in the face.

I think it's clear that, while haunted and deeply depressed, Burnham is your typical Starfleet officer in that respect. There are most certainly others like that as well. I think, ala DS9, Trek has a tradition of not just showing humanity at its best, but also how it can be its best during its worst moments. DS9 had some very, very grim story arcs during the war and I think they produced some of the best TV Trek has ever put out there.  While I would have preferred a return to a more typical Trek show, I don't see any reason why this darker storyline can't achieve those things you mention.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 11, 2017, 01:48:25 PM
Im really not enjoying the subtitled Klingon scenes.
The make up, the dialogue and the fact that I have to keep looking away from my wok are all very irritating.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 11, 2017, 01:58:48 PM
looking away from my wok

Is that a euphemism?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 11, 2017, 01:59:57 PM
looking away from my wok

Is that a euphemism?
Absolutely
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 11, 2017, 02:35:41 PM
looking away from my wok

Is that a euphemism?
Absolutely

I thought you misspelled Ewok.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 11, 2017, 02:41:27 PM
looking away from my wok

Is that a euphemism?
Absolutely

I thought you misspelled Ewok.
:roflolmao:
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 11, 2017, 04:59:22 PM
I think, ala DS9, Trek has a tradition of not just showing humanity at its best, but also how it can be its best during its worst moments. DS9 had some very, very grim story arcs during the war and I think they produced some of the best TV Trek has ever put out there.  While I would have preferred a return to a more typical Trek show, I don't see any reason why this darker storyline can't achieve those things you mention.


Yeh, but is it? I've already given up on the series, pending reports of a major turnaround, but have noted that the last episode was called "The Butcher´s Knife Cares Not For The Lamb´s Cry". It's not sounding much like they're teaching reaching for the light, more like they think they're making a slasher movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 11, 2017, 10:38:03 PM
I think, ala DS9, Trek has a tradition of not just showing humanity at its best, but also how it can be its best during its worst moments. DS9 had some very, very grim story arcs during the war and I think they produced some of the best TV Trek has ever put out there.  While I would have preferred a return to a more typical Trek show, I don't see any reason why this darker storyline can't achieve those things you mention.


Yeh, but is it? I've already given up on the series, pending reports of a major turnaround, but have noted that the last episode was called "The Butcher´s Knife Cares Not For The Lamb´s Cry". It's not sounding much like they're teaching reaching for the light, more like they think they're making a slasher movie.

The main character and those not in Section 31 (assuming that's what Lorca and his cronies turn out to be) are definitely Starfleet officers in the time-honored tradition.  Sure, Burnham did mutiny and what not, but her approach to the science that is happening on Discovery, especially with regard to the Tardigrade monster, is decidedly Roddenberryesque.  It remains to be seen if the show is trying to show the difference between her and more modern sensibilities, but I'm interested enough to keep watching.  It sounds like you'd probably be best served just waiting for the show to be over and binging if the reviews are good enough though.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 12:08:15 AM
the last episode was called "The Butcher´s Knife Cares Not For The Lamb´s Cry". It's not sounding much like they're teaching reaching for the light, more like they think they're making a slasher movie.

what? how the fuck do you get slasher flick from that? they literally ended on the moral plight of the human military's success relying on the torturing of a sacrificial lamb

it's like they're acting out one of the most famous works of sci-fi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas


this is 'hostel is just gore porn' all over again.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on October 12, 2017, 03:37:36 AM
I think, ala DS9, Trek has a tradition of not just showing humanity at its best, but also how it can be its best during its worst moments. DS9 had some very, very grim story arcs during the war and I think they produced some of the best TV Trek has ever put out there.  While I would have preferred a return to a more typical Trek show, I don't see any reason why this darker storyline can't achieve those things you mention.


Yeh, but is it? I've already given up on the series, pending reports of a major turnaround, but have noted that the last episode was called "The Butcher´s Knife Cares Not For The Lamb´s Cry". It's not sounding much like they're teaching reaching for the light, more like they think they're making a slasher movie.

The main character and those not in Section 31 (assuming that's what Lorca and his cronies turn out to be) are definitely Starfleet officers in the time-honored tradition.  Sure, Burnham did mutiny and what not, but her approach to the science that is happening on Discovery, especially with regard to the Tardigrade monster, is decidedly Roddenberryesque.  It remains to be seen if the show is trying to show the difference between her and more modern sensibilities, but I'm interested enough to keep watching.  It sounds like you'd probably be best served just waiting for the show to be over and binging if the reviews are good enough though.

I agree that Burnham has potential, but apart from that, there are about three more characters on the show who could fit into the kind of Star Trek I crave. Though, now that I think about it, the show only has four somewhat fleshed-out Starfleet characters. The show would be better with a captain Burnham, but I cannot fathom how it could come to be before at least the end of the season.

Anyways, as things stand, the show would need a radical direction change, which I just cannot see happening anytime soon, and something not many shows I know have pulled off (the only example that comes into mind is the ending of Dollhouse).

Also, what do youse think, will outcast Klingon fanatic dude join the crew at one point?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 12, 2017, 04:33:10 AM
what? how the fuck do you get slasher flick from that? they literally ended on the moral plight of the human military's success relying on the torturing of a sacrificial lamb

it's like they're acting out one of the most famous works of sci-fi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas


this is 'hostel is just gore porn' all over again.

Hi, just to be clear I'm just commenting on the name - I've not seen the episode. Yes I can tell that they are trying to be clever and metaphorical with it. But the imagery they're using in it is pretty gorey - I can't help but think of lambs throats being cut, which is about as un-"Star Trek"-y an image as I can think of.

That said I've gone back and checked on the names of previous Trek episodes and while it's completely out of keeping with TNG+ names, it's not so out of keeping with the first season of TOS names.

"Dagger of the mind"
"Balance of Terror"
"Operation Annihilate!"

Though still considerably worse in my opinion. I've also never seen "Hostel", but the fact we're having a conversation about "Hostel" in a conversation about a Star Trek series seems crazy to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 04:36:16 AM
the fact we're having a conversation about "Hostel" in a conversation about a Star Trek series seems crazy to me.

the fact that anyone would compare such a pro-animal rights episode to a cheap slasher flick seemed crazy to me. that's how we go here. but you've now explained you were speaking in complete ignorance of the episode of which you were speaking.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 12, 2017, 04:58:40 AM
but you've now explained you were speaking in complete ignorance of the episode of which you were speaking.

Please be nice.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 06:52:33 AM
but you've now explained you were speaking in complete ignorance of the episode of which you were speaking.

Please be nice.

facts are neither naughty nor nice, they're just facts. you can dispute them or admit them.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 12, 2017, 07:13:15 AM
facts are neither naughty nor nice, they're just facts. you can dispute them or admit them.

Oh OK. I've fixed it for you so it's fact aligned.

the fact that anyone would compare such a pro-animal rights episode to a cheap slasher flick seemed crazy to me. that's how we go here. but you've now re-explained you were speaking in complete ignorance without knowledge of the episode about the title of which you were speaking.

(edit) sorry some quick editing to fix mistakes.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 07:36:58 AM
facts are neither naughty nor nice, they're just facts. you can dispute them or admit them.

Oh OK. I've fixed it for you so it's fact aligned.

the fact that anyone would compare such a pro-animal rights episode to a cheap slasher flick seemed crazy to me. that's how we go here. but you've now re-explained you were speaking in complete ignorance without knowledge of the episode about the title of which you were speaking.

(edit) sorry some quick editing to fix mistakes.

why do you prefer the definition of the word ignorance to the word ignorance itself?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 12, 2017, 08:02:56 AM
why do you prefer the definition of the word ignorance to the word ignorance itself?

"in complete ignorance of the episode" - meaning "you have absolutely no knowledge that can relate to the episode" with an implication that the person is generally ignorant as the can't bring any meaningful knowledge to bear.

"without knowledge of the episode" - meaning "you lack knowledge of the episode", with an implication that it is the knowledge of the specific content of the episode that is lacking.

Now unless you have a personality problem I'm pretty sure you should be perfectly aware that you we're being at least a little bit douchey.

/me glances at name and avatar

Oh... Ok. Well I guess I'll leave you to that then...

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 12, 2017, 08:18:35 AM
You can't just change someone elses words to suit you. GS is allowed to feel how he is as much as you are.

You do not have any meaningful knowledge on this episode until you watch it. Until then you are ignorant of it. There is a cure for ignorance. It is called knowledge. Is seems you not only lack the knowledge but are unwilling to rectify that before drawing your opinion. That is worse than ignorant.

Please do not judge a book by its cover. Open it up and explore what is inside. THEN you can form YOUR opinion, which may differ from others and that is ok.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mikeym on October 12, 2017, 08:40:58 AM
You can't just change someone elses words to suit you. GS is allowed to feel how he is as much as you are.

I'd somewhat hoped that I might trigger a little self reflection in him as to how he could have perhaps have been a little nicer. Sorry if I hurt his feelings.

Please do not judge a book by its cover. Open it up and explore what is inside. THEN you can form YOUR opinion, which may differ from others and that is ok.

I kinda thought I was judging a book's cover by it's cover, and it's not like I hadn't read the 3 previous books. Seriously though if my option is to keep watching this show or never think about Star Trek again, I guess I'm going to have to reluctantly go with the latter... Hope you guys enjoy it.


Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 12, 2017, 08:46:59 AM
Sorry to hear that. For this series to survive it needs viewers and I think TV has changed way too much since the TOS, TNG and DS9 eras. There is no way the ST:Disco can be in that format. It has to adapt and change with the times. I like this serialization that is keeping me engaged.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 09:09:34 AM
"in complete ignorance of the episode" - meaning "you have absolutely no knowledge that can relate to the episode"

exactly.
based on your personal admission you know absolutely nothing about the episode, except for the title of it, and your obviously erroneous inference as to what it was like or about.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 12, 2017, 09:12:13 AM
You can't just change someone elses words to suit you. GS is allowed to feel how he is as much as you are.

I'd somewhat hoped that I might trigger a little self reflection in him as to how he could have perhaps have been a little nicer. Sorry if I hurt his feelings.

lol. not sure why you're bringing feelings into this, except perhaps in some vain attempt at a red herring.

I kinda thought I was judging a book's cover by it's cover

I look forward to your future posts about how underwhelmed you are by the lack of ambulating upon balls of gas undergoing fusion on a show presuming to advertise itself as "Star Trek".
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 12, 2017, 09:23:04 AM
why do you prefer the definition of the word ignorance to the word ignorance itself?

"in complete ignorance of the episode" - meaning "you have absolutely no knowledge that can relate to the episode" with an implication that the person is generally ignorant as the can't bring any meaningful knowledge to bear.

"without knowledge of the episode" - meaning "you lack knowledge of the episode", with an implication that it is the knowledge of the specific content of the episode that is lacking.

Now unless you have a personality problem I'm pretty sure you should be perfectly aware that you we're being at least a little bit douchey.

/me glances at name and avatar

Oh... Ok. Well I guess I'll leave you to that then...

Yeah GS works best on ignore.  Trust me on this.  Plus, the more people that have him on ignore the less I have to see him in the replies of people arguing with his niggling, concern troll, passive-aggressive posts.  If his posts were a meme:

(https://i.imgur.com/DpQ9YJl.png)

But he is kinda right here.  Just his post goes about addressing it in an extremely dickish way. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 12, 2017, 06:47:04 PM
I kinda thought I was judging a book's cover by it's cover, and it's not like I hadn't read the 3 previous books. Seriously though if my option is to keep watching this show or never think about Star Trek again, I guess I'm going to have to reluctantly go with the latter... Hope you guys enjoy it.

Pretty sure the reasonable options are to; A) Watch the show and discuss your opinions of it with others, or; B) Don't watch the show and refrain from forming specific opinions about episodes you haven't seen.  Sure, you can form an opinion of the show after only 3 episodes and let it dissuade you from watching any more, but the further the show progresses beyond what you've watched, the less relevant your opinion is to any ongoing discussion of its merits or lack thereof.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 13, 2017, 03:24:09 AM
But he is kinda right here.  Just his post goes about addressing it in an extremely dickish way. 

awwww.
like you don't make a point of being dickish whenever you think you'll get away with it.

come to the dark side, PANTS.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 13, 2017, 12:08:31 PM
Do Klingons traditionally eat their victims? I loved they sort of dropped the new leader ate the captain. Now, it might be a function of the ship is low on food versus a custom or Klingons generally like to dine on human flesh.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 13, 2017, 08:10:18 PM
Do Klingons traditionally eat their victims? I loved they sort of dropped the new leader ate the captain. Now, it might be a function of the ship is low on food versus a custom or Klingons generally like to dine on human flesh.

I don't recall ever hearing Klingons doing this.  I have to admit I was appalled and a little amused when that conversation came up. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 13, 2017, 10:58:18 PM
It definitely ups their game a bit compared to previous incarnations, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 14, 2017, 02:27:13 AM
will jihadis trapped in a cave eat fellow jihadis to survive?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 14, 2017, 02:34:09 AM
will jihadis trapped in a cave eat fellow jihadis to survive?

Do they also eat the raw blood of a Targ as part of a ritual hunt?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 16, 2017, 08:46:29 AM
Whew. I feared the next 5 eps would be a "save the tardigrade" story arc. Glad they didn't go there. This ep was a little off the mark. I thought there was a better way to introduce Harry Mudd.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: bimble on October 16, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
Really Harry Mudd?? making his entry into his third Star Trek series after TOS and the film 'Into Darkness'... you'd think they'd be some original characters in the quadrant really...
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 16, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
My take away from this episode is that Brian Fuller shows really are not for me.
Everything felt rushed and forced.
Yet another show missed a chance to subvert torture tropes (as the homeopathy of interrogation, how has this not happened yet?)

The klingons are becoming more and more cartoonish by the week and the torturers were ridiculous. Also, for a warrior culture with greater than average human strength, armour and guns to be so easily over powered by two humans was pretty hacky.
Federation superiority is so firmly established so early on that I have no concern for any characters.
The lack of interesting alien cultures and crew members is also rather disappointing.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 16, 2017, 11:03:16 AM
It should be noted that Fuller was gone something like a year before filming even started so while his fingerprints are all over this show, it's hardly fair to lay the quality of the final result at his feet. At least not until someone publishes a book and we know how much of his vision survived.

As for the episode, I kinda saw it coming, but the reveal of the first gay male couple is a nice milestone to finally tick off for the franchise. Admittedly it's decades past when Trek SHOULD have done it, but whatever; I'll take it. Also, the first Trek F-bomb was unexpected and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I could not care less about magic scary words and it makes sense for Trek to treat them like any other word. On the other, in the current cultural setting, the decision instantly brackets the show into possibly not safe for children, which is a place I never want Trek to be. Yes, it's ridiculous that 'fuck' is the thing that makes it culturally so as opposed to violence and so on, but for the moment, it kinda is what it is.

With regards to the Klingons, I have never been a fan of just about any of the choices the show made. The makeup is way too overdone and seems to immobilize the actors' faces, the costumes are interesting but equally overdone, the apparent abandonment of the Universal Translator in favor of endless subtitles is annoying (and I usually prefer subs for foreign language films), and the delivery of all the Klingon lines is so meandering compared to the TNG era that it just wipes away all their charisma. Also, I have yet to see a single Klingon ship,  redesign or otherwise, that looked good to me. I am struggling to even determine a consistent design language between the various ships. They just all look ugly and bizarre. If I'm being generous, I can kinda see where maybe the show-runners were aiming to make the Klingons seem truly alien and different so that the eventual coming to an understanding with them (tenuous, though it's sure to be) will be more viscerally impactful to the viewer, but I just think they overshot their mark and just made them too unrelatable and just plain boring.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 16, 2017, 11:56:15 AM
Yeah the F bomb was sort of unexpected. I was all set to get my 7 year old step daughter to join me in watching the show but, hrm, not sure if her mother wants her exposed to that kinda language.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 16, 2017, 12:33:40 PM
Really Harry Mudd?? making his entry into his third Star Trek series after TOS and the film 'Into Darkness'... you'd think they'd be some original characters in the quadrant really...

*pushes glasses up and snorts*

You forgot the Animated Series.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: bimble on October 16, 2017, 01:23:53 PM
Really Harry Mudd?? making his entry into his third Star Trek series after TOS and the film 'Into Darkness'... you'd think they'd be some original characters in the quadrant really...

*pushes glasses up and snorts*

You forgot the Animated Series.

So I did... though in my defence, I've only seen the animated series once, and that was over 20 years ago... though I feel my point still stands!  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tyy on October 16, 2017, 03:18:10 PM
After this episode it is pretty much confirmed, that the show is ballooney. I don't get it: why to mangle science in order to tell an other fairytale.

I don't like to be disappointed about this show. But I am so.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 17, 2017, 03:55:37 PM
this is such a weirdly quaint/unimaginative series compared to a lot of sci-fi.

that "This is so fucking cool!" line, as though in hundreds of years time we'll still be so puritanical as to be all 'oh my' about naughty curse words. I imagine the guy who came up with that line is one of those nerd dads who buys his daughter 'I want to be a scientist when I grow up' t-shirts.

and these hand to hand combat scenes with a superior species... there was no singularity, obviously, but you'd think there'd be some hint of transhumanist augmentation if we really intended to be _physical soldiers_ in a battle with a physically superior species, not just computer console controllers never engaging in physical altercations. ...maybe they're just yet to reveal it? I mean, you can repeatedly punch a Klingon's ribbed boney face without issue? you must have augmented your hands somehow.

even their urban warfare tactics seem pathetically contrived for drama. and those of their enemy too, I guess... you surprise someone around a corner and knock a gun out of his hand -- you could have straight up shot the cunt, but nooooo, knock his gun down and push him up against a wall. it could've easily been a prisoner red shirt liberated with them and sacrificed in that scene in an ambush killing, instead.

I really hate the 'no one monitors prison cells' trope. fuck, it's 2017 and the police have cameras watching us, and casinos watching gamblers. Klingons can't afford ONE DUDE to sit at a screen? it's all this lazy 'this script would be acceptable if you set it in 1950' writing that just makes no sense for the actual show/context. jesus christ ... you don't wanna divert 'wandering around the ship guards' manpower into screen-watching? fine, put a collar around their neck that explodes if they step out of a certain radius. give them a legit future-prison problem to solve, a technological reason for their cocky obliviousness to what the prisoners are getting up to.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 17, 2017, 03:57:51 PM
After this episode it is pretty much confirmed, that the show is ballooney. I don't get it: why to mangle science in order to tell an other fairytale.

I don't like to be disappointed about this show. But I am so.

I get where you are coming from.  I don't 100% agree.  I think it is still Trek, but taking it in a new direction - and I still trust it even though it has a tendency to go "Wibbly Wobbly Sporsey Worsey" every now and then.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 17, 2017, 04:30:15 PM
I just don't see what is so atrocious about the spore drive compared with tons of other Trek tech we've seen throughout the franchise.  The only difference I can think of is that this time, the tech is central to the storyline of the whole series as opposed to just a single movie or episode. IDK, it's definitely something odd, but I don't see why Trek can't explore odd things. I just feel like Trek fans are being reactively more critical of the Spore Drive because less because it's bad sci-fi and more because it was totally unexpected for the first Trek show in over a decade.

If I had to pick one thing about it that I don't like however, it'd have to be that we are exploring this technology before TOS so we all know it doesn't last. I think I'd be much more invested if it were happening post Voyager.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 17, 2017, 04:52:54 PM
I feel like every other problem in TNG and DS9 was resolved by reversing the polarity of one thing or another.
They can use whatever sciencey words they want as far as Im concerned. If nothing else it brought tardigrades to the attention of a casual audience and showed that science is not a deliberate "invent a thing" process but that curiosity pays dividends in ways we may not expect and so scientists should be just left to do science.
The short sighted view of the creature as a weapon vs the much more amazing possibilities that came about from examining it was an arc that made me happy.

One thing I forgot to mention that makes me smile-
The hand to hand scene included the old swinging clasped hands double punch move that some choreographer on TOS invented and has stuck around for multiple series despite being one of the weakest and most self injurious ways you could possibly hit anything!
I find it fascinating that it seems to have begun in star trek (it exists in no fighting style Im aware of) and is rarely seen outside of it except the odd comicbook.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 17, 2017, 05:12:24 PM
If nothing else it brought tardigrades to the attention of a casual audience and showed that science is not a deliberate "invent a thing" process but that curiosity pays dividends in ways we may not expect and so scientists should be just left to do science.
The short sighted view of the creature as a weapon vs the much more amazing possibilities that came about from examining it was an arc that made me happy.

I like how they're like 'well, fuck it, we'll exploit it all we have to to serve our interests, until we're able to distill its value from it and then dispense with it with an admiring smile at the beauty of nature'.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: TheIrreverend on October 17, 2017, 05:28:56 PM
I just don't see what is so atrocious about the spore drive compared with tons of other Trek tech we've seen throughout the franchise.  The only difference I can think of is that this time, the tech is central to the storyline of the whole series as opposed to just a single movie or episode. IDK, it's definitely something odd, but I don't see why Trek can't explore odd things. I just feel like Trek fans are being reactively more critical of the Spore Drive because less because it's bad sci-fi and more because it was totally unexpected for the first Trek show in over a decade.

If I had to pick one thing about it that I don't like however, it'd have to be that we are exploring this technology before TOS so we all know it doesn't last. I think I'd be much more invested if it were happening post Voyager.

Because ultimately the technobabble of Trek tends to revolve around physics, not biology.  My suspension of disbelief failed to engage re: the mycelial network crap.  I think it might have been different if this wasn't Star Trek, but it is.  Trek = warp drive. It's especially jarring as a prequel show, because why the fuck haven't we heard of this nonsense before.

I really want to like this show, but so far, I admit, I do not.  Nothing Star Trek like has happened yet.  Maybe this is a good sci-fi show, but so far it isn't a good Star Trek series.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 17, 2017, 07:59:23 PM
Really Harry Mudd?? making his entry into his third Star Trek series after TOS and the film 'Into Darkness'...

Into Darkness?  Whaaaat?   When was he in that?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 17, 2017, 08:19:25 PM
Trek fans are being reactively more critical of the Spore Drive because less because it's bad sci-fi and more because it was totally unexpected for the first Trek show in over a decade.

I can't speak for other fans, but my complaint about the 'shroom drive is that it's based on the flaky fantasies that a living person (who I heard speak) had while tripping.  And (like I posted before) that Fuller is giving his "theories" credence by giving a character his actual name.  Paul Stamets.  It's like naming a character Linus Pauling and making the Vitamin C drive a plot point.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 18, 2017, 01:54:02 AM
Sorry, I must have misread what you said before about Stamets.  That said, I did a little searching and I'm not finding anything terribly egregious about his outlook on mushrooms.  Maybe a bit overzealous and bordering on some woo, but nothing approaching anything related to the Spore Drive that I can find.  Honestly I'm not digging super deep, but he just doesn't seem like a terribly controversial figure and for all we know, he and Fuller both just share an interest in mushrooms and the connection doesn't go further than that.  Could you maybe link something that's referencing what you're talking about here so I can look into it a bit more?

Assuming for the sake of argument though, that you are completely correct and it's the worst case scenario akin to the character having been named after Chopra and the tech based on his incoherent ramblings; while I would NOT be happy about it weaseling its way into Star Trek, I don't think it absolutely has to "lend credence" to the idea and I don't think it has to negatively impact the show either.  At the end of the day, this is all sci-fi and I don't think mushroom technobabel would have any worse impact than Chakotay's spirit animals and dream walking.  Again, not thrilled about the concept, but I don't think it has to mean the show is crap either; just perhaps an indication that things may not turn out well by the end of the season.

Really Harry Mudd?? making his entry into his third Star Trek series after TOS and the film 'Into Darkness'...

Into Darkness?  Whaaaat?   When was he in that?

He wasn't, but the craft they flew down to Kronos was said to be from the "Mudd incident" or something to that effect.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 18, 2017, 02:14:36 AM
I just don't see what is so atrocious about the spore drive compared with tons of other Trek tech we've seen throughout the franchise.  The only difference I can think of is that this time, the tech is central to the storyline of the whole series as opposed to just a single movie or episode. IDK, it's definitely something odd, but I don't see why Trek can't explore odd things. I just feel like Trek fans are being reactively more critical of the Spore Drive because less because it's bad sci-fi and more because it was totally unexpected for the first Trek show in over a decade.

If I had to pick one thing about it that I don't like however, it'd have to be that we are exploring this technology before TOS so we all know it doesn't last. I think I'd be much more invested if it were happening post Voyager.

Because ultimately the technobabble of Trek tends to revolve around physics, not biology.  My suspension of disbelief failed to engage re: the mycelial network crap.  I think it might have been different if this wasn't Star Trek, but it is.  Trek = warp drive. It's especially jarring as a prequel show, because why the fuck haven't we heard of this nonsense before.

I really want to like this show, but so far, I admit, I do not.  Nothing Star Trek like has happened yet.  Maybe this is a good sci-fi show, but so far it isn't a good Star Trek series.

I mean, I can't say anything that will retroactively make you not balk at it, but I'm not sure why sci-fi biology is more problematic in that regard than sci-fi physics, especially when this is hardly the first time Star Trek has explored biotech.  I admit that the introduction to the tech was a little bizarre and sounded really woo-woo, but nothing I've seen so far seems to be indicating that the Spore Drive is based on anything other than exploiting the natural abilities of creatures.  If TNG can have naturally occurring, warp-capable space whales, then why not quantum-entangled fungus fed on by over-sized Tardigrades?

As for nothing Star Trek happening, overall the show does not radiate "Trek" while I'm watching it, but I think there have been plenty of Trek-like things in the show so far.  From the gay crew-members that are just there as if it's normal (which, you know, it is) like Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu were, to not assuming the Tardigrade was a monster despite having killed multiple Starfleet officers and Klingons like the Horta wasn't, and so on, there have been a decent amount of Trek-like things.

Look, if it's not your cup of tea I can't change your mind and I'm not going to try to, but I think a lot of the complaints I've been reading here and elsewhere seem to be more like post-hoc justifications for not liking the show rather than accurate depictions of the show.  At the very least, most of the things being complained about are hardly new to the franchise.  From my perspective, Discovery is so far worlds better and more representative of what I think Trek should be than the first season or two of TNG, and while it may not be an apples to apples comparison, it still gives me pause to wait and judge the show after it's had its full season and all its cards are on the table.  The fact that this show is more about one large narrative only reinforces that instinct in me anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: TheIrreverend on October 18, 2017, 07:54:51 AM
I don't think I would have had any problem with the spore drive if it had formed the basis of a single episode of the show; as you said, lots of Trek episodes are "ALIENS ARE CRAZY"-esque, but IMO the means/method of space travel are a key part of the Trek mythos, and it is being fucked with.

Ripper is, I will admit, Trek-ish; dumb human misunderstands motivation of alien, hijinks ensue.

I'm also a fan of the single narrative; it is why DS9 remains the best of all Treks, and I haven't given up on Disco yet, but it has failed to grab me.  As you said, neither the first two seasons of TNG, or the first season of DS9, was great, but in the post-network world, I'm not sure Disco will be given an opportunity to mature if it doesn't start to produce gold soon.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 18, 2017, 09:41:01 PM
I'm not finding anything terribly egregious about his outlook on mushrooms.  Maybe a bit overzealous and bordering on some woo, but nothing approaching anything related to the Spore Drive that I can find. 

I heard Stemets give a speech 6-7 years ago.  It was about mushrooms and fungus, etc.  He had some creative ideas about cultivation and using spore filled banks for small scale flood control.  Interesting stuff.  The last 10 minutes was about how fungus has a chemical feedback loop built into it's underground network structure and how the fabric of space/time was connected like that fungus network and how everything was connected like a gigantic cosmic mushroom network.  He may have mentioned karma and god.  I was squirming in my chair and had steam blowing out my ears at the time so my memory is a little hazy.


Considering that Paul Stamets, the living mycologist from the 21st century, and the fictional Paul Stamets from the 23rd century starfleet spaceship and creator of a go-everywhere mushroom drive espouse similar theories, I'm presuming that Fuller heard the 21st c. Stamets speak and thought the theory was really cool.  I consider that to be promoting woo and pseudoscience.

Maybe I'm overreacting.  I felt the same way about Chakotay's spirit animal.  I actually wrote a letter (by hand!) back in 1996 complaining about that, asking if they were planning on having other crew members talk about their religious beliefs (one week hinduism, next judaism, then islam, christianity, jainism, buddhism and so forth.).  But I never could find an address to sent the letter to.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 19, 2017, 07:57:12 AM
I don't think I would have had any problem with the spore drive if it had formed the basis of a single episode of the show; as you said, lots of Trek episodes are "ALIENS ARE CRAZY"-esque, but IMO the means/method of space travel are a key part of the Trek mythos, and it is being fucked with.

maybe it's supposed to symbolize the American stealth and drone technologies and their ability to be anywhere at anytime unseen/unpredicted against their holy terrorist enemy.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: John Albert on October 19, 2017, 01:17:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RVf01en-YA
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 23, 2017, 06:32:07 AM
OK, I'm calling it now I think that:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 23, 2017, 07:58:37 AM
I'm also calling it right now:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 23, 2017, 08:06:46 AM
I'm also calling it right now:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 23, 2017, 09:02:43 AM
Great point about Ash. Indeed he seemed to be welcomed aboard too quickly. It's a bit like "oh look I have a gun in my desk but that's just there for no reason at all. Everything is perfectly safe and there will never be a need for this gun left right here in my desk drawer!"

The Klingon angle is a great catch. A very Star Wars "that's the only explanation for the ease of our escape".
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 23, 2017, 09:45:36 AM
OK, I'm calling it now I think that:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 23, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
Yeah something is fer sure up with that guy.  I got those vibes from last ep.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 23, 2017, 06:15:23 PM
I'v also decided I REALLY don't like Lorca.

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 23, 2017, 06:25:53 PM
Also 'Logic Extremists' seems kinda like a stupid name.  I can wrap my head around terrorist Vulcans, but don't call them 'logic extremists'  that's just silly.

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 23, 2017, 06:46:51 PM
Also 'Logic Extremists' seems kinda like a stupid name.  I can wrap my head around terrorist Vulcans, but don't call them 'logic extremists'  that's just silly.

IDK, taken to the "logical" extreme, the notion that Vulcan are superior to all other life forms because of their dedication to logic and their abandonment of emotion means that Vulcan must remain "pure" at all costs to remain superior.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 23, 2017, 06:56:40 PM
Also 'Logic Extremists' seems kinda like a stupid name.  I can wrap my head around terrorist Vulcans, but don't call them 'logic extremists'  that's just silly.

IDK, taken to the "logical" extreme, the notion that Vulcan are superior to all other life forms because of their dedication to logic and their abandonment of emotion means that Vulcan must remain "pure" at all costs to remain superior.

I guess that I'm approaching it from the standpoint that people who are good at logic would actually question those premises.  The name just rubs me wrong.  They're really Vulcan Supremacists more than anything else.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 23, 2017, 07:30:57 PM
Also 'Logic Extremists' seems kinda like a stupid name.  I can wrap my head around terrorist Vulcans, but don't call them 'logic extremists'  that's just silly.

IDK, taken to the "logical" extreme, the notion that Vulcan are superior to all other life forms because of their dedication to logic and their abandonment of emotion means that Vulcan must remain "pure" at all costs to remain superior.

I guess that I'm approaching it from the standpoint that people who are good at logic would actually question those premises.  The name just rubs me wrong.  They're really Vulcan Supremacists more than anything else.

Perhaps it's that most Vulcans agree with the sentiment that all Vulcans are superior, but the non-extremists refrain from following that premise to its logical conclusions for some reason.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 23, 2017, 07:38:01 PM
I'm also calling it right now:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on October 24, 2017, 09:57:21 AM
I am still not completely hooked by the series. At least there were less Klingons this episode, with their weird prosthetics and hardly credible intonation.

However, I am truly appreciating the Burham - Tilly relationship. It is becoming something truly great.

However, the long-suffering, handsome, troubled male characters' dramas leave me yawning. Even despite Jason Isaacs (hello).


Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 24, 2017, 10:18:10 AM
The Call of Duty holodeck thing rang very hollow and untrek like to me.
Weird that they have a space for the Captain and his bros to practice CQB but anyone who wants to take a jog has to do it in the corridors?
No treadmills in the future?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: jt512 on October 24, 2017, 10:22:55 AM
The Call of Duty holodeck thing rang very hollow and untrek like to me.
Weird that they have a space for the Captain and his bros to practice CQB but anyone who wants to take a jog has to do it in the corridors?
No treadmills in the future?

Why would someone want to run on a treadmill if they had any other option?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on October 24, 2017, 10:52:36 AM
The Call of Duty holodeck thing rang very hollow and untrek like to me.
Weird that they have a space for the Captain and his bros to practice CQB but anyone who wants to take a jog has to do it in the corridors?
No treadmills in the future?

Definitely untrek. I don't think Roddenberry would have had Federation officers going "Hey bro, let's pop into the holodeck and splatter some brains! I am sure I will beat your KDR!"

I did not mind the jogging that much. The shape of the ship kinda lends itself, and some people just don't like treadmills. Plus it lends itself to more visual dynamics, and looks better on screen.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Harry Black on October 24, 2017, 05:33:37 PM
The Call of Duty holodeck thing rang very hollow and untrek like to me.
Weird that they have a space for the Captain and his bros to practice CQB but anyone who wants to take a jog has to do it in the corridors?
No treadmills in the future?

Why would someone want to run on a treadmill if they had any other option?
Because maybe they tried running on a ship once in their lives and realised how much it sucks.
And because people on ships are going places and doing things and get annoyed dodging random joggers.
And because I assume with holodecks and such, they may have slightly better gym equipment in star fleet than we do currently.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 25, 2017, 08:59:28 AM
Was the Disco thing on their sweatshirts an attempt to get people to stop calling it STD? And ST:Disco?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 25, 2017, 09:21:52 AM
Was the Disco thing on their sweatshirts an attempt to get people to stop calling it STD? And ST:Disco?

You sure they just don't like old music?

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on October 25, 2017, 10:53:31 AM
Was the Disco thing on their sweatshirts an attempt to get people to stop calling it STD? And ST:Disco?

You sure they just don't like old music?

I actually have seen several discussions over this being an attempt to get rid of ST:D as a shorthand for the show.

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 25, 2017, 04:17:55 PM
Was the Disco thing on their sweatshirts an attempt to get people to stop calling it STD? And ST:Disco?

You sure they just don't like old music?

I actually have seen several discussions over this being an attempt to get rid of ST:D as a shorthand for the show.

I thought the "official" abbreviation was "DSC."
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 26, 2017, 05:07:06 AM
suuuper boring episode.

also, lol @ the replicator's 'excellent source of antioxidants' comment.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on October 26, 2017, 08:07:28 AM
suuuper boring episode.

also, lol @ the replicator's 'excellent source of antioxidants' comment.

Yeah I would disable that feature pretty fast.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on October 26, 2017, 08:27:42 AM
suuuper boring episode.

also, lol @ the replicator's 'excellent source of antioxidants' comment.

Yeah I would disable that feature pretty fast.

what feature? the one that tells you bunk science perks of your choices? :P

I'd just switch it to Joe Rogan's voice.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on October 26, 2017, 08:54:20 AM
It's interesting Star Trek has long been predicated on physics woo and handwaving. No one really much notices. But when it switches to biology, oh boy.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 26, 2017, 09:21:24 AM
I bow to the superior recollection of all you people.  I'm sure I haven't seen every ST mirror universe episodes, so I don't know what is considered canon.  My question is this:  Has the ST mirror universe ever before involved mirrors?  I only recall episodes that involve transporter malfunctions and such.  I don't remember ever seeing any suggestion that flat reflective surface could allow a glimpse into, you know, an alternate universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 26, 2017, 10:35:12 AM
I bow to the superior recollection of all you people.  I'm sure I haven't seen every ST mirror universe episodes, so I don't know what is considered canon.  My question is this:  Has the ST mirror universe ever before involved mirrors?  I only recall episodes that involve transporter malfunctions and such.  I don't remember ever seeing any suggestion that flat reflective surface could allow a glimpse into, you know, an alternate universe.

Yeah - that part is a little on the nose.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on October 27, 2017, 09:29:05 AM
Yeah - that part is a little on the nose.

I know it's a minor quibble.  And I do like poetic imagery in a movies and tv shows.  Heck, I even re-read Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass last year for the heck of it.  But for something like Star Trek that is more or less hard science fiction,  this seems like a poorly thought out gimmick. Star Trek physics should be SIMILAR to real physics.  If you think about it, in order for a mirror to be a window into a physically left handed universe, that one mirror must be the singular intersection between the two.  Or maybe all mirrors and reflections glimpses into another reality ***because***.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: TheIrreverend on October 28, 2017, 02:48:42 PM
It's interesting Star Trek has long been predicated on physics woo and handwaving. No one really much notices. But when it switches to biology, oh boy.

I agree it is not rational, but yet it is.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on October 29, 2017, 09:50:10 PM
Now that was Star Trek up the ying-yang.  Damn good Trek too.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on November 03, 2017, 04:22:29 PM
gotta admit that episode was well written.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on November 05, 2017, 01:06:21 AM
Yes, it was a well put together episode.  A classic stand alone Trek story.  And a nice reworking of the TNG episode Cause and Effect.  BTW, Cause and Effect was broadcast a week after the movie Groundhog Day started filming.  Which means both likely existed as scripts at the same time.  And they both are remarkably similar to the short humorous play "Sure Thing" by David Ives (produced 4 years earlier) about a man who meets a woman and every time he makes a stupid or wrong comment the conversation starts over from the very beginning.  Until he manages to not say anything stupid or wrong.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on November 05, 2017, 01:16:59 AM
And similar to the 1973 short story 12:01 pm by Richard Lupoff which was made into a short film in 1990 and a tv movie in 1993.   Hmmm.... 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 06, 2017, 03:56:32 AM
I'd say that this was another episode well done.  Even the Klingons managed to be a bit more interesting this time around even if L'rell's plan seemed all over the place and a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on November 06, 2017, 07:49:10 AM
I'd say that this was another episode well done.  Even the Klingons managed to be a bit more interesting this time around even if L'rell's plan seemed all over the place and a bit confusing.

Frankly at this point, I don't even know what her plan is.

But this was a decent episode set up for next week.

I think the storyline for Saru in this episode was a bit hinky.  It seemed extraordinarily easy for the aliens to get in his head, but the scene with Michael Burnam at the end in sick bay seemed to, perhaps, mend some of the fences between them.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on November 06, 2017, 08:32:37 AM
Harry Mudd seems particularly vicious in this incarnation. He doesn't quite jibe with the Harry Mudd we see in TOS. I might enjoy if he was just a character who was NOT Harry Mudd.

But, I dunno, I think so far for a first season Trek, it's really not bad and promises a better season 2. I was not overly impressed with TNG the first season.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on November 06, 2017, 10:13:10 AM
I'd say that this was another episode well done.  Even the Klingons managed to be a bit more interesting this time around even if L'rell's plan seemed all over the place and a bit confusing.

Frankly at this point, I don't even know what her plan is.

I don't think she does either.  It barely got off the ground before it got radically altered.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on November 08, 2017, 10:25:59 AM
. I was not overly impressed with TNG the first season.

Back in 1987 I watched every episode intently and only cringed a few times.  Now if I watch one I will fall asleep.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 12, 2017, 11:09:37 PM
Now THAT was a good goddamn episode.  Definitely the best they've put out yet and at the risk of speaking from a place where I'm still taking it all in and thus less objective, one of the better episodes of Trek as well.  Not top 10 or anything, but really engaging, exciting, emotional, and just all around well written, well acted, and well produced.  Also, I think we can call our Ash theory confirmed at this point, though clearly it's more complex than I'd given credit.  house of deceivers indeed :).  Now I'm just mainly curious if the remainder of the season will actually be about the Klingon war or if that is more or less going to go onto the backburner if not off the stove completely.  I doubt it will all be about where we left the ship specifically, but it seems like with the success of the mission there's not much more to focus on in terms of winning the war.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on November 13, 2017, 10:58:13 AM
Now THAT was a good goddamn episode.  Definitely the best they've put out yet and at the risk of speaking from a place where I'm still taking it all in and thus less objective, one of the better episodes of Trek as well.  Not top 10 or anything, but really engaging, exciting, emotional, and just all around well written, well acted, and well produced.  Also, I think we can call our Ash theory confirmed at this point, though clearly it's more complex than I'd given credit.  house of deceivers indeed :).  Now I'm just mainly curious if the remainder of the season will actually be about the Klingon war or if that is more or less going to go onto the backburner if not off the stove completely.  I doubt it will all be about where we left the ship specifically, but it seems like with the success of the mission there's not much more to focus on in terms of winning the war.

I agree.  The only nit that I have with it was the stupid contrivance of Stamets using the Spore Drive 'one last time'. They really could have set that up much better.  Make them have a threat or something that needed it's use just one more time.  The whole 'oh ok, I'll do it one more time just to be a nice guy, but no more ever after that' was very contrived and jarring to me.

Other than that one little nitpick, I really enjoyed this episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 13, 2017, 11:18:05 AM
Yeah, if they'd just made the incoming Klingon threat feel a little more urgent, it would have been better. My main nitpick however was the super stealthy beacons they placed on the ship that yelled at top volume "CONNECTED TO USS DISCOVERY!!!" Then proceeded to beep very loudly while pulsing a bright light. Like, who the fuck came up with that?!
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on November 13, 2017, 11:30:22 AM
Yeah, if they'd just made the incoming Klingon threat feel a little more urgent, it would have been better. My main nitpick however was the super stealthy beacons they placed on the ship that yelled at top volume "CONNECTED TO USS DISCOVERY!!!" Then proceeded to beep very loudly while pulsing a bright light. Like, who the fuck came up with that?!

So see, I came up with an explanation for that that made sense.  They were pre-fab beacons that they didn't have time to make more 'stealthy'.  Remember they had very little time to come up with this plan, so I just assumed that they used some beacons that were for some sort of normal scientific survey and were repurposed for the use.

They could have solved it with a throw away line or two 'Hey these things are stupid big and stupid bright and stupid loud!' 'Sorry Lt. We didn't have time to redesign them before the Klingon ship arrived!'

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on November 14, 2017, 01:39:31 AM
Yeah, if they'd just made the incoming Klingon threat feel a little more urgent, it would have been better. My main nitpick however was the super stealthy beacons they placed on the ship that yelled at top volume "CONNECTED TO USS DISCOVERY!!!" Then proceeded to beep very loudly while pulsing a bright light. Like, who the fuck came up with that?!

So see, I came up with an explanation for that that made sense.  They were pre-fab beacons that they didn't have time to make more 'stealthy'.

a little black spray paint and a mute button?
it's the USS Discovery, not the iDiscovery, I'm sure they have the ability to access and tweak their devices.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 14, 2017, 01:43:34 AM
Yeah, if they'd just made the incoming Klingon threat feel a little more urgent, it would have been better. My main nitpick however was the super stealthy beacons they placed on the ship that yelled at top volume "CONNECTED TO USS DISCOVERY!!!" Then proceeded to beep very loudly while pulsing a bright light. Like, who the fuck came up with that?!

So see, I came up with an explanation for that that made sense.  They were pre-fab beacons that they didn't have time to make more 'stealthy'.  Remember they had very little time to come up with this plan, so I just assumed that they used some beacons that were for some sort of normal scientific survey and were repurposed for the use.

They could have solved it with a throw away line or two 'Hey these things are stupid big and stupid bright and stupid loud!' 'Sorry Lt. We didn't have time to redesign them before the Klingon ship arrived!'

I suppose that could have been the case, but Michael setting up the device on the bridge, mere feet away from the General and his crew, and not even batting an eyelash made it seem like way more of an oversight in production.  I'm with you though, one throwaway line and a little bit of a reaction from Michael and Ash when they set them up would have sated my raised eyebrow.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 14, 2017, 02:06:42 AM
On another note what does everyone think about the theory floating around about Lorca?

(click to show/hide)

Honestly, I'm not sold on the idea, but I'm really hoping that it's true because that would really take this show to the next level in my mind.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on November 15, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
I noticed the shot of his arm rest and was going to watch again to verify.  Interesting, I can’t think of a good reason for them putting in this shot other than to show Lorca is up to something


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Ah.hell on December 31, 2017, 09:37:33 AM
Ok, just saw the first two episodes.  It was entertaining but....

The stick with some of Trek's worst tropes.  Namely, always send the captain and or other bridge crew into danger.  I'd hope for better.

Has anyone figured out why they changed the Klingons?  The new look isn't any better than the film and next gen look.

(click to show/hide)
Also what was the time frame this all occur over, it seemed like a few minute or maybe a few hours but it was long enough for all of the Klingon house's to see?  Were they just the other side of that star system? 

So the episodes starts with number 1's log, are all star fleet officer logs long winded prose regarding the beauty of the universe?

Edit to add:
It would suck to work for starfleet, 7 years and nobody on the bridge had gotten promoted or assigned to a different post?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on December 31, 2017, 10:54:30 PM
Has anyone figured out why they changed the Klingons?  The new look isn't any better than the film and next gen look.

I have a theory but it involves some plot points you haven't gotten to yet.  I'll spoiler it so you can read it later if you want.

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 07, 2018, 10:54:59 PM
Dammit, I  got to playi g with tbe kids on the Switch and we didn't watch the new ep.  How was it?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on January 07, 2018, 11:10:15 PM
Everything you expected.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on January 08, 2018, 01:20:56 AM
I was happy with it.  Definitely exceeded my expectations for where I figured the show was going in the back half of the season.  Now the only question is how long they are going to keep this plotline going for?  I'm guessing 3-4 max.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on January 08, 2018, 05:04:14 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 08, 2018, 10:11:05 PM
I trust them still.  It remains to be seen if this is actually a Bury Your Gays moment.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on January 08, 2018, 10:16:20 PM
I trust them still.  It remains to be seen if this is actually a Bury Your Gays moment.

Did you watch it yet?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 08, 2018, 10:36:49 PM
I trust them still.  It remains to be seen if this is actually a Bury Your Gays moment.

Did you watch it yet?
Yes.  But we are dealing with multiple universes here.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on January 08, 2018, 11:25:13 PM
I still maintain that since this season is more or less a really long episode, it's courting foolishness to judge the series until it's over.  That's not to say you can't legitimately say you're not a fan of the show or are not happy with it, but to bemoan each step of the plot like they don't have the opportunity to take it in another direction even in the next episode is premature IMO.

I really didn't like the episode. I hoped for something interesting, not a regular 'darkest timeline'. This is still not Star Trek, and it's not getting any closer to it.

I may not have chosen to take the first Trek show in over a decade in this direction but expectations aside, I'm enjoying this new direction for Discovery and the last few episodes leading up to this were enjoyable as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 09, 2018, 10:06:01 AM
I mean it's completely obvious to me at this point that Lorca is the Lorca from the Mirror Universe and he went to this universe to get Burnham so that he could get close to the emperor and overthrow him. Which in my mind is a kick-ass storyline I'm really kind of enjoying it. I mean when he says things like maybe it's not a bad thing that you and I are ghost or and my crew are they all dead it's major tip-off.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on January 09, 2018, 10:11:37 AM
I mean it's completely obvious to me at this point that Lorca is the Lorca from the Mirror Universe and he went to this universe to get Burnham so that he could get close to the emperor and overthrow him. Which in my mind is a kick-ass storyline I'm really kind of enjoying it. I mean when he says things like maybe it's not a bad thing that you and I are ghost or and my crew are they all dead it's major tip-off.

Hmm, that actually sounds like something I'd like to see.

Though I would have enjoyed the Red Letter Media idea more, to have the original be the darkest timeline and the alternate be a better world.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 09, 2018, 10:18:49 AM
I had some sympathy towards that idea as well. And I do think it would have been neat to see play out. I still don't think that we are 100% sure that they were originally in the original universe. They could have been that they come from a third universe that is different from the Mirror Universe and the original Star Trek universe.  There are too many discrepancies to square just yet. Like the Klingons and the lack of prime directive and a whole host of other things.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on January 09, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
Also, could we also travel to the universe where there is nothing but shrimp?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on January 09, 2018, 12:26:28 PM
Also, could we also travel to the universe where there is nothing but shrimp?

Yum.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on January 09, 2018, 06:39:23 PM
Wilson Cruz discussed this episode on the After Trek show.  He most certainly does not see this as a bury your gays episode and he says that his favorite acting scene in his entire career is yet to come in this season. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on January 16, 2018, 08:00:46 AM
I continue being conflicted about the show.

I want to like it so much, I do like the core concepts and most of the the cast (Hello to Jason Isaacs!), but I just don't really enjoy the episodes and what's going on.

It probably doesn't help that the plot feels so, dunno, "written". It doesn't flow naturally, things just happen because that is what was decided to happen by the creators.
(click to show/hide)

Also, it is jarring that I just cannot care about Tyler, can't believe in that whole romance. I don't know why they are putting so much attention to this artificial, contrived nonsense instead of developing much more interesting relationships.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on January 29, 2018, 12:57:51 AM
Now the only question is how long they are going to keep this plotline going for?  I'm guessing 3-4 max.

Nailed it  ;D.  Overall, this back half of the season has been much better than the front.  The fact that a lot of what dragged down the front half was more or less entirely in service of setting up the pay offs in the back almost makes up for how weak the series was at the beginning.  It's nice that for once, the mirror universe is being used as a means of exploring human nature instead of just a cheap gimmick.  Admittedly, it's not the deepest dive and doesn't have the most ground-breaking messages, but at least they were trying.  I also really like how this episode largely was the climax for several characters' personal journeys as well, despite the fact that we have a few more episodes left.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 05, 2018, 04:39:54 AM
It feels a bit contrived; how we got to this moment, but I am actually a little giddy over the prospect of what is almost certainly going to happen in the finale and how the end of Michael's journey is going to mirror the beginning.  That aside though, I can't help but feel this whole season is going to leave me a little disappointed.  Either they end with what would seem to be a massive canonical inconsistency or we hit a huge and unsatisfying reset button. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on February 05, 2018, 11:48:39 AM
I'm looking forward to the reset button.

BUT:  I am wondering if they may not end the whole damn season in a cliffhanger.  I see the potential for many many cliffhangers.

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 05, 2018, 02:14:30 PM
Caught up. Wow. The series really came roaring back. I did not expect they were going to the Mirror Mirror universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 07, 2018, 12:42:35 PM
What was the fate of Mirror Universe Saru? Was that the one Michael ate? If not, I was surprised there wasn't an story arc to save him. Maybe they will return to save him? Assuming he wasn't eaten?
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 07, 2018, 01:17:38 PM
What was the fate of Mirror Universe Saru? Was that the one Michael ate? If not, I was surprised there wasn't an story arc to save him. Maybe they will return to save him? Assuming he wasn't eaten?

I assume that when the Emperor asked Michael to pick a Kelpian, it was for dinner. 
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on February 07, 2018, 03:51:48 PM
What was the fate of Mirror Universe Saru? Was that the one Michael ate? If not, I was surprised there wasn't an story arc to save him. Maybe they will return to save him? Assuming he wasn't eaten?

I assume that when the Emperor asked Michael to pick a Kelpian, it was for dinner.

Thats exactly it.  She asked her to pick the best Kelpian, and that's the one that they later ate at dinner....  It was Saru.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 08, 2018, 09:47:24 AM
Boy, Michael has an even deeper secret to keep from Saru!
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 08, 2018, 09:51:12 AM
Wait. The nets claim it wasn't MU Saru:

https://trekmovie.com/2018/01/22/after-trek-gives-details-on-georgious-meal-mirror-stamets-terran-empire-history-and-more/

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on February 08, 2018, 11:49:10 AM
Wait. The nets claim it wasn't MU Saru:

https://trekmovie.com/2018/01/22/after-trek-gives-details-on-georgious-meal-mirror-stamets-terran-empire-history-and-more/

I need to watch again.  I recall her picking Saru out of that group!

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on February 11, 2018, 09:04:43 PM
Ha.  That was Clint Howard there. 

So many easter eggs.   Not sure if
(click to show/hide)
.

I am also not sure I buy that resolution.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 12, 2018, 12:28:39 AM
That finale was terrible... Good messages, very Trek-like, but damn was that super unsatisfying, all over the place, and frankly just bizarre. I'd go so far as to say that it was the worst episode of the season. Bleh.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 12, 2018, 12:34:05 AM
Clunky. That's the word I was looking for. That episodes was exceedingly clunky.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 12, 2018, 01:02:23 AM
OK, after thinking on it for a few minutes here's my take on the episode:

It clumsily strung together a number of decent scenes with no regard to tonal, plot, emotional, or logical consistency, in order to hand-wave away the war, less than hand-wave away the game-changing tech of the Spore Drive, clumsily close Michael's atory arc and tie a bow on the moral of the season, and then tried (successfully it seems based on the limited reaction I've seen on reddit and elsewhere) to spackle shut all those holes with an extra clumsy and out of place heaping of fan service. Many constituent parts of the show were as well done as the rest of the season, but this episode screams last minute studio meddling. Knowing a bit about the production history, I wonder if it was a case of Fuller's intended finale not being compatible with what the studio wants, i.e. more seasons featuring this ship and crew, and so the new show runners had to make a mad dash to redirect and tie up all the delicate threads Fuller weaved throughout his season that were originally intended to lead to much different places.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Morvis13 on February 12, 2018, 08:47:02 AM
Yeah I thought it was really rushed and could have been at least 3 episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on February 12, 2018, 10:35:28 AM
Ha.  That was Clint Howard there. 

So many easter eggs.   Not sure if
(click to show/hide)
.

I am also not sure I buy that resolution.

The resolution at the end was a good one, but the way they implemented it was extremely hasty and not written well.  I generally blame the writing for that, but perhaps it was more due to trying to fit everything into that last episode.

(click to show/hide)

All in all I liked the episode with just the major nit I pointed out in the spoiler.  I blame it on editing and trying to squeeze this all into a single episode.  That really should have been two episodes.  But I'm still very much excited about the next season.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: GodSlayer on March 02, 2018, 11:01:13 PM
hmm, the klingon might have new brainwashing technology... I know, I'll have a one-on-one meeting with the victim, no guards, no nurses, no force-fields.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on May 08, 2018, 01:54:38 PM
I've been thinking about Ash and Voq, it took me a while to understand what had happened, but now that I understand it I don't like what happened.

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: PANTS! on May 08, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
I've been thinking about Ash and Voq, it took me a while to understand what had happened, but now that I understand it I don't like what happened.

(click to show/hide)

I mean, yeah, but I fully expect there to be fallout.  Of course I thought that AngelFromRent/Erique/Dr. Hugh Culber would be back and get better treatment over the long term, soooooo.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: tralfaz on May 09, 2018, 10:26:31 AM
Of course I thought that AngelFromRent/Erique/Dr. Hugh Culber would be back and get better treatment over the long term, soooooo.

I'm pretty sure Wilson Cruz wanted out of the show because he's in the big Broadway revival of Boys in the Band opening soon (with Zach Quinto and Jim Parsons).  Besides, there's always mirror Hugh.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on January 18, 2019, 06:07:39 AM
Welp, season 2 has now begun!  I have to first say that in the intervening time between the S1 finale and the S2 premiere, my opinion of season 1 has fallen a bit.  I need to re-watch it, but at this point I'm feeling like it just wasn't all that good.  This premiere I thought, was guilty of some of the things I didn't like much about season 1 but also seems to be attempting to fix some of them as well.  One major thing I hadn't thought about before was how every other Trek has always been about the crew working together, but season 1 was largely about a few big characters and left much of the bridge crew completely overlooked like the helmsman and tactical officers.  This episode really seemed to be taking some steps to make them more involved and have more to do, but it is yet to be seen if they are ever going to be explored further as characters with stories of their own.  It also seems like they are trying to do a big 180 on the grim tone of season 1 with almost an overload of stupid jokes and light-hearted moments.  Overall, I like the happier, have fun direction but they need a little work on setting a tone that works because some things are just out of place like the sneezing alien.

Beyond that, I'm pretty happy with Pike this time around though he seems a bit generic so far, but I'm down to see where he goes.  I am a little intrigued by the main story this season though I'm still really confused what exactly was supposed to have happened to the Enterprise to knock it out of commission so badly.  Honestly, it feels like a rush job to explain why they inserted yet another existing Trek name into this series and once again makes me feel like this show would be better off taking some time to establish its own identity rather than borrow from the existing canon to pique our interest and get us invested.  Having Spock AND Pike now major characters in this season is really disappointing for me, even if they do it well.  I really think this series could have benefited greatly from just making Saru the captain and I really, really think that jamming so many TOS characters into this show is just robbing this show of the chance to get its own identity and for its characters to win us over.

All in all, this was a reasonably fun episode and I think that despite my misgivings about many of their decisions, it has a reasonable amount of promise and seems on course to be overall better than the first season.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on January 25, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
OK, now episode 2 was just fantastic.  Honestly the first Discovery episode I can remember feeling that way about.  Really, really well done and very classic Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Belgarath on January 26, 2019, 08:58:59 AM
OK, now episode 2 was just fantastic.  Honestly the first Discovery episode I can remember feeling that way about.  Really, really well done and very classic Trek.


Same here, really liked it, but I also liked the first episode of S2 also.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: brilligtove on January 26, 2019, 10:42:53 AM
I didn't realize it had started. Will watch both tonight!
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on January 28, 2019, 08:54:01 AM
Looks like this will be some kind of quest story arc this season.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: werecow on February 16, 2019, 06:21:32 PM
I'm still not fond of the whole spore network thing, and now the suggestion that there is some life force energy bs at work in there is a bit much to swallow. Other than that though I'm really enjoying this season. It's pretty action packed, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on February 16, 2019, 11:03:08 PM
... and now the suggestion that there is some life force energy bs at work in there is a bit much to swallow.

I'm on the same page, though I think that's been recurring in Star Trek since TOS though with people swapping bodies, inhabiting computers, and so on.  I can't really fault Disco for doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 21, 2019, 09:37:01 AM
Keep wondering when Spock will make an appearance.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on February 21, 2019, 09:37:58 AM
... and now the suggestion that there is some life force energy bs at work in there is a bit much to swallow.

I'm on the same page, though I think that's been recurring in Star Trek since TOS though with people swapping bodies, inhabiting computers, and so on.  I can't really fault Disco for doing the same thing.

Well said. The spore thing seems a little dumb but, hey, Star Trek does dumb things.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: werecow on February 21, 2019, 12:33:26 PM
... and now the suggestion that there is some life force energy bs at work in there is a bit much to swallow.

I'm on the same page, though I think that's been recurring in Star Trek since TOS though with people swapping bodies, inhabiting computers, and so on.  I can't really fault Disco for doing the same thing.

Well said. The spore thing seems a little dumb but, hey, Star Trek does dumb things.

Yeah, true I guess, fair enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: werecow on February 23, 2019, 01:47:05 PM
Nitpick: Why does every TV show and movie insist on saying "evolution" when they're talking about development in a single individual? Are there no screen writers that understand the difference? I guess it's a sexier word, maybe, but it irks me.

Also, never thought I'd see a crossover episode between star trek and the Ring movie series.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Friendly Angel on February 26, 2019, 04:40:29 PM
Semi-related - would you pay to see  TWoK with live Shatner afterward?  I'm thinking my wife might consider giving me this as a birthday present.  I suspect there may be too many "get a life" guys attending though.

Quote
Set your phasers to fun! Prepare to be beamed up for an unforgettable night with William Shatner, live on stage. In this unique evening you’ll enjoy a screening of the classic film “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” on the big screen. Following the movie, one of Hollywood’s most recognizable figures, William Shatner, will take to the stage to share fascinating and humorous behind the scenes stories from portraying the original “Captain James T. Kirk” in the Star Trek television series and movies as well as his career spanning over 50 years as an award winning actor, producer, director and writer. Fans will also have a chance to ask William their question during the audience led Q&A
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 10, 2019, 10:51:56 PM
Welp, they've finally shown us Spock and now have taken us back to

(click to show/hide)

What did everyone think?  Personally, I'm tired of revisiting old people and places and want to just go somewhere new, but ignoring that I guess this was fine.  Didn't thrill me, and I'm really tired of Spock being treated like the most important Star Trek character to have ever existed, but given the context of the show it went about as well as could be expected.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Rai on March 11, 2019, 02:25:50 AM
Welp, they've finally shown us Spock and now have taken us back to

(click to show/hide)

What did everyone think?  Personally, I'm tired of revisiting old people and places and want to just go somewhere new, but ignoring that I guess this was fine.  Didn't thrill me, and I'm really tired of Spock being treated like the most important Star Trek character to have ever existed, but given the context of the show it went about as well as could be expected.

I am in total agreement. I really like Discovery, but I can't be arsed about connecting it to the TOS. I don't kmow why they just can't tell their own stories, like all the other Star Trek series did.

At least the more Spock, the less Kingons,
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 11, 2019, 03:19:53 AM
I will say this though, at least this season the people and places we are revisiting are, for the most part, fairly untouched in Trek lore.  Pike, the place we visited last week, and even this part of Spock's life (you know, bridging the gap between smiling at flowers in The Cage and his typical stoic, emotionless self in Where No Man Has Gone Before) are largely left unexplored and unknown.  Still wouldn't be my preference as I think the more we are doing this, the more Discovery gets robbed of its own identity, but it could be way, way worse.
Title: Re: Star Trek: Discovery
Post by: mindme on March 11, 2019, 08:02:43 AM
I will say this though, at least this season the people and places we are revisiting are, for the most part, fairly untouched in Trek lore.  Pike, the place we visited last week, and even this part of Spock's life (you know, bridging the gap between smiling at flowers in The Cage and his typical stoic, emotionless self in Where No Man Has Gone Before) are largely left unexplored and unknown.  Still wouldn't be my preference as I think the more we are doing this, the more Discovery gets robbed of its own identity, but it could be way, way worse.

Sometimes I feel like how politicians wrap themselves in the flag to bolster support, Star Trek series go for the time travel plot to bolster a season.