Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Discovery 1x01 & 1x02 – 2-part premiere [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

1235710

Comments

  • Posts: 8,756 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Someone is against sending senior crew on dangerous missions??
    Can I interest you in 27 seasons of Trek and a dozen films


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Zillah wrote: »
    The idiotic writing ruined this for me.

    - Michael didn't notice that the Captain was walking them in the shape of a Star Fleet insignia including sharp corners? The ship can't detect them through a storm but it will be able to see a symbol drawn in footsteps?

    When Burnham said "you walked us in a circle", I don't think she was assuming they'd literally walked in geometrically perfect circle. She meant "you've brought us back to where we were" and was using hyperbole.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - Assaulting your commanding officer over a hunch and trying to commandeer the ship wtf.

    This was the least Star Trek bit- I loved it. The betrayal underpins a lot of what happens later, and I've a feeling Burnham's guilt over this will be important as we move out of the prologue and into the main sequence episodes.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - Everyone arguing over who gets to go on the entirely unnecessary suicide mission.

    This was very Star Trek.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - Bombs on corpse is literally a war crime.

    That's true and hard to excuse.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - Her entire plan was to capture him and then she just executes him in the back? What are we supposed to believe in going on with this character development? "Argh I just hate Klingons so much" is not an interesting trait. We saw enough of that explored with O'Brien and the Cardassians, and it was done a hell of a lot better then.

    She just witness him rather brutally kill her mentor who she already had a pretty significant guilt complex over. Along from the PTSD thing, her response seems very plausible to me.

    I don't think the intention is for Burnham's xenophobia to be a driving trait of the character, but rather just the tragic flaw which precipitated the Shenzhou incident and her court martial in disgrace. It's an interesting place to start her story.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - Sarek able to do a mind meld across the galaxy, and does so just say hi go get 'em tiger?

    Katra transfer... that already has precedent for connecting people psychically across lightyears. Writers know the canon.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - The Klingons were a mess. The high council goes from "lol fck off" to "hail our new emperor" in seconds, for almost no reason.

    24 leaders, about... 8 (? I should count em again) actually opened comms, only 7 said yeah ok. Kol of House Kor does not buy into T'Kuvma's BS and it's implied he's not alone in that.
    Zillah wrote: »
    - HEY I KNOW let's send the Captain and the first officer on an assault onto an enemy ship. Two women with no back will go into melee with Klingon warriors. Great fckin plan. Will we bring a security team? Naaaaah. Remember in the other Star Treks where there were actual security personnel and officers commanding them? And then the Captain gets killed and I practically shouted at the screen "OH IT'S ALMOST LIKE SENDING HER IN THERE WAS DANGEROUS".

    Yeah, that was the most Star Trek bit of the whole 2 episodes though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    When Burnham said "you walked us in a circle", I don't think she was assuming they'd literally walked in geometrically perfect circle. She meant "you've brought us back to where we were" and was using hyperbole.

    She sounded surprised. You'd think she'd have realised something weird was up they turned 300 degrees to back almost exactly the way they came. Like, I know, they wanted the whole zoom-out to show the symbol in the sand moment, which is exactly my problem with this show so far: it's a cheesy "whoah" moment at the cost of a world that makes sense.
    This was the least Star Trek bit- I loved it. The betrayal underpins a lot of what happens later, and I've a feeling Burnham's guilt over this will be important as we move out of the prologue and into the main sequence episodes.

    Who knows what they're going to do with it. So far I thought it was completely absurd.
    Katra transfer... that already has precedent for connecting people psychically across lightyears. Writers know the canon.

    Alright, I didn't know that; my main complaint was the pointlessness of it though. He was just giving her a pep talk or what?
    Yeah, that was the most Star Trek bit of the whole 2 episodes though.

    It's not, though. Maybe TOS series did this more, but the kitschy silly bits of TOS are the ones that were left behind. Other series, like TNG or Voyager made an effort to point out that the captain isn't allowed go on missions like that. If they had an important mission a security detail, often commanded by the first officer would be sent. They made an effort to explain extenuating circumstances when the captain ended up having to (or it was a simple diplomatic mission, etc).

    In this they just threw the two ranking officers into a suicide mission for no reason.

    It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wait.. one of your issues is that they didn't know what shape was being made... while in a sandstorm?

    Also... there's so many f*cking times they sent senior staff on suicide missions for no reason. It's a Trek staple, I'm afraid.


  • Posts: 8,756 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zillah wrote: »


    It's not, though. Maybe TOS series did this more, but the kitschy silly bits of TOS are the ones that were left behind. Other series, like TNG or Voyager made an effort to point out that the captain isn't allowed go on missions like that. If they had an important mission a security detail, often commanded by the first officer would be sent. They made an effort to explain extenuating circumstances when the captain ended up having to (or it was a simple diplomatic mission, etc).

    In this they just threw the two ranking officers into a suicide mission for no reason.

    It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

    It is TOS time line


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    its one thing to set up a story where the rogue person commits a war crime but to have the honourable captain have that idea.

    i presuming that they are doing a post 9/11 america has gone to the dark side and burham will lead a 'breaking the rules' ship, but would it not have been better to have the klingons also be something we don't expect, have them be less war like not more, ,they might show that later or in the second season.


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Surely Trek have done similar stuff before.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Wait.. one of your issues is that they didn't know what shape was being made... while in a sandstorm?

    No, my issue is that Michael seemed shocked that they came across their own tracks and seemed to think they were just heading out into the desert while they had been blatantly drawing a symbol in the sand that involves really sharp corners. It's also bloody stupid that the ship couldn't detect them through a storm but would some how see footprints.

    The plot didn't revolve around that scene or anything; it's just emblematic of what I find so dumb about the writing: superficial "whoah" moments with no thought behind them.
    Also... there's so many f*cking times they sent senior staff on suicide missions for no reason. It's a Trek staple, I'm afraid.

    In dire times, and they would bring a team that made sense for the mission. Why did they only send two people?

    Nonsensical suicides are not a Star Trek staple; they always made an effort to make it make sense. I really wish people would stop saying that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    Zillah wrote: »
    It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.

    Bloody hell !! Its two episodes in mate. If they had gone all cerebral or touchy feely and and it tanked in the ratings everybody would have been moaning they should have started with a bang to draw viewers in. You can't win with some people. How about you wait until you see what the ratio of action to intelligent sci fi is before you lose your ****. Maybe you're right and it will be Action trek rather then Star Trek, maybe you'll be wrong, but at least you'll be informed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,712 ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Kinda sucks that this has to go through CBS. I think they're even showing ads on their subscription service?

    Watching on Netflix you could still feel those hard breaks for adverts, and that second episode wasn't even 40 minutes long with the ads stripped out.

    Afraid I've just gotten used to not having to put up with that.

    This is the only thing that really annoyed me.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tbh I don't care about the sand stuff, because seeing the ship come through the clouds was so cool.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Zillah wrote: »
    Nonsensical suicides are not a Star Trek staple; they always made an effort to make it make sense. I really wish people would stop saying that.

    They really didn't make an effort most of the time, I don't know why you're insisting Trek avoided sending the crew down. By TNG they dispensed with the 'red shirts' and most away trips no matter how dire the circumstances tended to have a mixture of the bridge crew. Picard rarely left the ship true, but that's why Riker was written as the man of action. I mean, of course they left the bridge, wouldn't do to have the big climax solved by some extras from Security. There has to be some deference to the narrative.

    By DS9 it was twice as bad IMO, the scripts often at pains to get the crew off the station and in mortal / pointless peril. Every second episode featured Sisko / Kira / Bashir fighting for their lives... can't speak too accurately about Voyager, but Enterprise loved showing the crew as dimwits endangering themselves.

    Discovery may have amped up the thrills and action, but just cos they have a better stunt crew budget didn't make the away trip any less ... normal as Trek's trips go.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Zillah wrote: »

    It's not very Star Trek - it's like a dumb person's superficial imitation of Star Trek. All the cheap bits without any of the heart or brains.


    Have to agree so far, it looks like trek, and sadly it seems like a really shallow veneer because of the writing being so awful in the opening 2 shows. It's like it's just based on Roddenberry's trek, rather than expanding on it.

    I can rationalise the klingons appearance, the timetravelling technology which shouldn't be there if it's any cannon universe we've seen before, the senior bridge crew fcuking up basic orientation, Humans being able to do the vulcan nerve pinch, (yeah okay TOS) striking a superior officer, yadda yadda and all the other piddly crap, but there's so much of it!

    It's actually difficult to watch the show without asking oneself, what the fcuk have they done that for? Why is that happening, why is the Klingon nobody ever fcuking heard have the title of "The unforgettable"?

    Anyway,

    Really, TNG was fine, DS9 was fine, Voyager(not my favorite) but it's got 7 seasons, fine, even Enterprise did well with 4 seasons, did fine.
    Please.. for the love of Q, don't let trek die like this.

    I honestly hope it's just the pilot episodes that are this level of shyte and out of sync with Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.

    No offense to BSG ( loved it btw) but i want to see them actually go and do a 5 year exploration mission, not 5 seasons of coldwar bollox with the Klingons.

    Seek out new civilizations, boldy go, and all that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Bloody hell !! Its two episodes in mate. If they had gone all cerebral or touchy feely and and it tanked in the ratings everybody would have been moaning they should have started with a bang to draw viewers in. You can't win with some people. How about you wait until you see what the ratio of action to intelligent sci fi is before you lose your ****. Maybe you're right and it will be Action trek rather then Star Trek, maybe you'll be wrong, but at least you'll be informed.

    I have no problem with action - I never said I did. I like action that makes sense.

    You are confusing cerebral with coherent. I am not asking for cerebral (the captain goes on an archaeology dig and has to solve a math puzzle), I am asking for coherent (cause and effect are applied to the story; characters make decisions based on their circumstances not because they exist in a tv show).

    They might have a whole roster of cerebral storylines lined up, that doesn't make the story or character behaviour coherent.
    pixelburp wrote: »
    Every second episode featured Sisko / Kira / Bashir fighting for their lives...

    Putting your main cast in peril is needed to drive the excitement, I'm not complaining about that. But the main cast should be forced into dangerous situations by the circumstances, not their own suicidal inclination motivated by schlocky writers aping their betters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Tbh I don't care about the sand stuff, because seeing the ship come through the clouds was so cool.

    You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    Gotta laugh at how bent out of shape people are getting over the tech. Beverly Crusher employed multiphasic shields to hide in a Stars corona from the Borg. Never heard of again. Didn't ruin TNG or subsequent series for anyone, it was forgotten about. Plot device weapons of mass destruction created by Geordi/O'Brien were a dime a dozen in trek, never used again, is anyone bothered ? no . But holograms. Which showed up in all of 1 episode of DS9,are the ruination of Discovery for some.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Zillah wrote: »
    You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.

    Ah come on, you talk like a neat, throwaway visual setpiece is some inherent & total artistic betrayal. Like Burnham and her captain were rescued in a monster truck, or that Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave; it was totally showy and a bit over thought, but what set piece ultimately isn't when it builds to a payoff or crescendo? It's there for a visceral thrill, maybe underscore some quick lateral thinking from the captain. Onwards goes the plot.


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zillah wrote: »
    You are the target audience apparently/unfortunately. The character's behaviour doesn't have to make sense so long as we get our big "wooo" moment.

    Well goddamn, aren't you condescending? It's f*cking Star Trek, man. Stop getting so uppity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Ah come on, you talk like a neat, throwaway visual setpiece is some inherent & total artistic betrayal. Like Burnham and her captain were rescued in a monster truck, or that Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave; it was totally showy and a bit over thought, but what set piece ultimately isn't when it builds to a payoff or crescendo? It's there for a visceral thrill, maybe underscore some quick lateral thinking from the captain. Onwards goes the plot.

    Like I said earlier, the moment itself isn't a big problem, it's just a good example of the same superficial/cheesy storytelling we see throughout both episodes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    Just read there that there are gonna be 17 episodes in the first season . Delighted with that. Was sure with the production values in those first two episodes that we would be getting an 8-10 ep season max. In which case given how badly things have started with the Klingons one would have imagined there wouldn't have been much room for side adventures. As things stand tho, with 15 episodes to go, and with the understanding that budget restrictions will necessitate a few bottle episodes , there's plenty of scope for more cerebral trek.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    It's actually difficult to watch the show without asking oneself, what the fcuk have they done that for? Why is that happening, why is the Klingon nobody ever fcuking heard have the title of "The unforgettable"?

    Because they're hailing him as a successor to Kahless.

    That doesn't mean he wasn't forgotten anyway. Perhaps the House of Kor ensured that bit of Klingon history was re-written. Whatever way the upcoming conflicts shake out, by the time of TOS, they seem to have prevailed and not T'kuvma's followers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,153 ✭✭✭Inviere


    Gotta laugh at how bent out of shape people are getting over the tech. Beverly Crusher employed multiphasic shields to hide in a Stars corona from the Borg. Never heard of again. Didn't ruin TNG or subsequent series for anyone, it was forgotten about. Plot device weapons of mass destruction created by Geordi/O'Brien were a dime a dozen in trek, never used again, is anyone bothered ? no . But holograms. Which showed up in all of 1 episode of DS9,are the ruination of Discovery for some.

    The holographic communication tech shows up in Discovery 150 years before its actually supposed to be invented and rolled out. It's pretty damn noticeable and jarring. It's a bit like Kirk giving the order to fire quantum torpedoes at a Species 8472 ship.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Because they're hailing him as a successor to Kahless.

    That doesn't mean he wasn't forgotten anyway. Perhaps the House of Kor ensured that bit of Klingon history was re-written. Whatever way the upcoming conflicts shake out, by the time of TOS, they seem to have prevailed and not T'kuvma's followers.

    I know it's a lot of nitpicking, but that's the point i was making - there's so much to nitpick about it so far, there are so many little things that are just out of place and even time in the show so far that it's hard to accept the minor faults for the storyline which hasnt really been explained so far, insofar as it being Michael's court martial and the events leading up to it.

    We haven't even seen the discovery yet, something else that's bugging me is that after 90 minutes, it's pretty much just an origin story for the first officer(and not a very good one) which broke/ignored a lot of trek's great writing and imo, some of Roddenberry's vision from previous shows.


  • Posts: 8,756 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Inviere wrote: »
    The holographic communication tech shows up in Discovery 150 years before its actually supposed to be invented and rolled out. It's pretty damn noticeable and jarring. It's a bit like Kirk giving the order to fire quantum torpedoes at a Species 8472 ship.

    FFS we have holo-projection now. Break a CD case correctly and you can even do faux holograms from your phone.

    It would be stupid to not have it in a new show (and JUST as stupid to continue down a timeline based on 1960/80/90's view of future tech)
    It's a TV show getting a soft reboot in terms of the tech tree, deal with it...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    FFS we have holo-projection now. Break a CD case correctly and you can even do faux holograms from your phone.

    It would be stupid to not have it in a new show (and JUST as stupid to continue down a timeline based on 1960/80/90's view of future tech)
    It's a TV show getting a soft reboot in terms of the tech tree, deal with it...

    The holograms were not as much an issue as it was those holograms being recorded/broadcasted live and broadcast/transmit large amounts of data without degradation or delay specifically for communication from vast distances wirelessly.

    It's not just oooh holograms, cool! :D

    Like i said last night, you could reasonably say - well there was signal degradation, and the hologram was being piped through the shenzhou to the klingon ship, so there probably wasnt much in the way of lagtime - but really, why bother with an overthetop method of communication when a flat 2D video image livestream would have sufficed?
    Quicker, more secure and less prone to degrading - hell, if that fails you just go to voice communications.
    "Audio only"
    meh, it was needless and it broke the lore.


  • Posts: 8,756 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The holograms were not as much an issue as it was those holograms being recorded/broadcasted live and broadcast/transmit large amounts of data without degradation or delay specifically for communication from vast distances wirelessly.

    It's not just oooh holograms, cool! :D

    Like i said last night, you could reasonably say - well there was signal degradation, and the hologram was being piped through the shenzhou to the klingon ship, so there probably wasnt much in the way of lagtime - but really, why bother with an overthetop method of communication when a flat 2D video image livestream would have sufficed?
    Quicker, more secure and less prone to degrading - hell, if that fails you just go to voice communications.
    "Audio only"
    meh, it was needless and it broke the lore.

    Except we'll be using it in a few years ourselves. People thought that video calling would be a fad and now it is what keeps families from feeling quite so apart, due to emigration.

    I would love to be able to use holo calls as if my distant family were in the room with me.

    They have to move with the times; using the viewscreen always seemed insane to me, as that is what they use to look out the bloody window


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Thinking about it -- when the Klingons were beamed in with the holographic stuff, I really wanted them to start singing Bohemian Raphsody.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Caught the second episode last night & on reflection, I definitely agree with the other posters who said that it felt like an extended introduction to just one character. It took a long time to get to what amounts to Burnham's starting position. Any issues of dialogue now become a little more understandable when seen through the prism that both episodes were basically the show's pilot.

    As for the hologram 'controversy', it's not like Trek didn't frequently invent new technologies only to then quickly forget all about them soon after; it's entirely possible this may happen here, if the production figure it's too much of a blip in continuity & quietly shelve it. I'm on the fence myself, though it doesn't seem to work half the time, given all the lag & glitching that kept happening; doesn't seem like the best diplomatic tool if your first contact conversation gets interrupted by constant buffering :D


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Caught the second episode last night & on reflection, I definitely agree with the other posters who said that it felt like an extended introduction to just one character. It took a long time to get to what amounts to Burnham's starting position. Any issues of dialogue now become a little more understandable when seen through the prism that both episodes were basically the show's pilot.

    Surely any show where the two first episodes are released on the same night should be treated as an extended pilot?

    Heck, Battlestar Galactica had an entire mini series that acted as a pilot for the eventual long running series.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Surely any show where the two first episodes are released on the same night should be treated as an extended pilot?

    Heck, Battlestar Galactica had an entire mini series that acted as a pilot for the eventual long running series.

    I think were it a feature-length, single episode it might have been a bit more understandable; but the second ep. didn't even try to lay any groundwork for what's presumably going to be the status quo on the titular Discovery.It's a bit weird that this shiny new series released the first 2 episodes & we haven't even got to the ship the show's named for. That's really what surprised me most, as I honestly thought we'd have left the Klingon standoff by at the midpoint.

    Not a massive criticism, just made the pacing and narrative feel a little clumsy is all.


Advertisement