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

hal9550

Overall i really enjoyed both episodes - obviously a SERIOUS amount of issues with various things

Holographic communication: Canon wise its not on OBVIOUSLY! but to be honest id let it slide because i imagine humanity will have something similar soon enough. the way i see it, being PRE TOS is all well and good but its difficult to have something less advanced than the old 60s 1701 without it seeming far too retro for todays audience

Klingon Cloaking Device: Obviously more issues, as with the general design of their ships but again. Happy to Ignore - who knows where these guys acquired this cloak... romululan incolvement perhaps? as to the ship design its the same argument as above

Story line involving Burnham - WORST part in my opinion - very unrealistic for me - also life imprisonment for nerve pinching a superior? Because thats basically all she did! a wee bit harsh!!!

Generally im glad its back and its like this:

JJtrek One - VERY annoyed over design, plus canon issues, destruction of vulcan - silly story - terrible

JJTrek two - HORRIFIC - only seen it once, never again

JJTREK 3 - OMG shockingly bad

Discovery - Not bad! I WANT MORE!

Sparko

Deleted User wrote: »

So after half the Federation seeing future tech, Jayneway allowed come back in time with it, equipping Voyager, crippling the Borg, and now you want temporal operatives to come and take it away.

Oh FFS

Wow sorry I was just throwing out some ideas, I didn't mean to piss in your cornflakes.

Goodshape

hal9550 wrote: »

Story line involving Burnham - WORST part in my opinion - very unrealistic for me - also life imprisonment for nerve pinching a superior? Because thats basically all she did! a wee bit harsh!!!

Well she literally mutinied and attempted to assume control of an entire Federation starship to pre-emptively attack an alien vessel.

Not sure how much more series it could get for a Starfleet officer.


"Was it logic? Was it emotion? – I don't know" – I think that line from Burnham towards to end is key. She's not all right in the head.

James Brown

Has the TV Trek universe been altered along with the new movies? If so, did/will Voyager happen/ed at all?

Goodshape

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Has the TV Trek universe been altered along with the new movies? If so, did/will Voyager happen/ed at all?

The new movies are a separate thing, set in an adjacent / alternative timeline.

Discovery – we've been told, although it hasn't mattered or been really confirmed on-screen yet – is set in the "normal" Star Trek timeline which includes TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent.

They've updated some things again (as they did in the original first film, second film, third film, and TNG) which has annoyed some people again, but it is the same timeline.

silverharp

Goodshape wrote: »

"Was it logic? Was it emotion? – I don't know" – I think that line from Burnham towards to end is key. She's not all right in the head.

when they were on the desert, the captain asker how long it would take for the storm to get to them, she gave an answer down to the second, as there wasn't a knowing look of gettit, she appears to be quite mad

PhiloCypher

silverharp wrote: »

when they were on the desert, the captain asker how long it would take for the storm to get to them, she gave an answer down to the second, as there wasn't a knowing look of gettit, she appears to be quite mad

That whole desert prologue was kinda cringey tbh, if I wasn't such a big trek and Sci fi fan in general I would have tapped out . I get that they had some exposition to get through and character dynamics to establish but that was Attack of the clones Obi wan & Anakin forced banter in that elevator bad. Thankfully after that exposition dump the dialogue became more natural and I was able to enjoy the rest of the episode(s).

silverharp

PhiloCypher wrote: »

That whole desert prologue was kinda cringey tbh, if I wasn't such a big trek and Sci fi fan in general I would have tapped out . I get that they had some exposition to get through and character dynamics to establish but that was Attack of the clones Obi wan & Anakin forced banter in that elevator bad. Thankfully after that exposition dump the dialogue became more natural and I was able to enjoy the rest of the episode(s).

the whole scene didn't add adding to the episode it was a dead end, it looks like they had it so they could have a cool scene for the trailers.

Inviere

gloobag wrote: »

[*]It should be set post Voyager/Nemesis - And, what then? Who are the bad guys? Another new antagonistic race will need to be introduced, and they'll need to be almost godlike in their power to go up against the Federation at this stage.

I don't agree with this point. You could paint a hugely different Alpha Quadrant in the 25th, or 26th century, with some imagination. There's certainly more possibilities in the unwritten, than there are in the already written.

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

I don't agree with this point. You could paint a hugely different Alpha Quadrant in the 25th, or 26th century, with some imagination. There's certainly more possibilities in the unwritten, than there are in the already written.

What's been written about the Klingons in the pre-TOS / TOS era? Or about Starfleet for that matter? (discounting the 1960s look of the thing).

We have 3 years on the Enterprise, plus one additional episode set ~10 years earlier (The Cage). A little bit of exposition maybe from subsequent series. Isn't that kind of it? Or am I missing something?

Post-Voyager, everyone seems to have different ideas as to what should or could happen with the myriad of races, the politics, the technology. It's all pretty rigidly defined.

bigar

I am mildly positive about the two first episodes. Klingons have never been my favourite race and that will not change now. The annoyingly slow delivery of their made up language is just too tiresome to listen to. The should do the Star Trek VI thing and change to English after the first few sentences in Klingon.

I do like most of the characters and the FX are not too intrusive. Favourite part is Burnham's discussion with the computer to let her out of the brig.

I will continue watching but hope the Klingons do not feature too much.

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

What's been written about the Klingons in the pre-TOS / TOS era? Or about Starfleet for that matter? (discounting the 1960s look of the thing).

We have 3 years on the Enterprise, plus one additional episode set ~10 years earlier (The Cage). A little bit of exposition maybe from subsequent series. Isn't that kind of it? Or am I missing something?

What I meant was, being a prequel, there's not very many freedoms that can be taken with, well, anything really...because we know the general outline of the timeline. We know there was a war, we know the war was eventually ended, we know there will be a peace treaty, and we know we'll ultimately end up being allied to the Klingons. While a writer can fill in the blanks to an extent, there's only so much creative freedom given those constraints.

Post-Voyager, everyone seems to have different ideas as to what should or could happen with the myriad of races, the politics, the technology. It's all pretty rigidly defined.

That sounds like an oxymoron. If everyone has different ideas about how things could be done, how is that rigidly defined? I'm truly baffled as to how anyone can feel that a prequel setting gives more creative freedom than a sequel setting. The 25th century in Star Trek has never been mentioned in the 60 years of canon that I recall, a complete and total blank canvas...yet there's people who argue writing within the confines of a prequel setting offers more possibilities? I honestly don't get it

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

What I meant was, being a prequel, there's not very many freedoms that can be taken with, well, anything really...because we know the general outline of the timeline. We know there was a war, we know the war was eventually ended, we know there will be a peace treaty, and we know we'll ultimately end up being allied to the Klingons. While a writer can fill in the blanks to an extent, there's only so much creative freedom given those constraints.

Those are fair points. I suppose I am still interested in knowing the details of that war, despite – as you say – having the foreknowledge of an eventual peace treaty.

Knowing how WW2 ended didn't hinder my enjoyment of Dunkirk and there was plenty of scope for creating original characters and plot details there, as there is here.

That sounds like an oxymoron. If everyone has different ideas about how things could be done, how is that rigidly defined?

I think I phrased that badly. Everyone has their own way of excusing or writing away the difficulties of a post-Voyager Federation ("the temporal guys will undo the super-tech", "take it 100+ years in the future so it'll be different", "introduce a new superpower", "etc. etc.") – and I think it'd be the same people complaining were any one such 'solution' chosen. Mt point is "set it in the future" is not a silver bullet, at all.

I'm truly baffled as to how anyone can feel that a prequel setting gives more creative freedom than a sequel setting.

I don't really believe it's a zero-sum game. It's not "prequel is good, sequel is bad" for me – but it's not "prequel bad! FULL-STOP!" either. And the prequel is what we have, so... let's enjoy it?


And this prequel hatred thing... I mean, it's not the bloody Star Wars' Skywalker saga here. It's not a prequel in the sense that they were; digging up old favourite characters and literally tampering with stories, people, and places you've loved before. This is a massive universe in which we've previously spent 3 years aboard a single ship.

This is something set before / during the same era, it's not a "prequel" to Captain Kirk's 5 year mission. It's not Star Trek '09 where we get to see young whipper-snapper James T. steal his uncle's product-placing 200-year-old car. It's just another story set during one of Starfleet's most interesting and mostly unexplored times.



Potentially, anyway. It could still be ****. Kinda feels like it hasn't started yet, despite the pilot. But damn I'm looking forward to finding out.

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

Knowing how WW2 ended didn't hinder my enjoyment of Dunkirk and there was plenty of scope for creating original characters and plot details there, as there is here.

Indeed. However, and specifically related to Star Trek, the previous tv show was a prequel, the previous three film releases have been in a prequel setting...I have to admit that I'm quite jaded with the prequel concept in the Star Trek universe. It's been 16 years....sixteen years, since Star Trek has tried to push forward. Since then, we've been looking backwards.

I think I phrased that badly. Everyone has their own way of excusing or writing away the difficulties of a post-Voyager Federation ("the temporal guys will undo the super-tech", "take it 100+ years in the future so it'll be different", "introduce a new superpower", "etc. etc.") – and I think it'd be the same people complaining were any one such 'solution' chosen. Mt point is "set it in the future" is not a silver bullet, at all.

Definitely not a silver bullet, but speaking in terms of writing freedom, breathing in new life to the franchise, and breaking free of the notion that Star Trek is defined by the Kirk era, a future setting offers the most creative freedom.

It's just another story set during one of Starfleet's most interesting and mostly unexplored times.

Perhaps, time will certainly tell. Don't take my cynicism for negativity, I really enjoyed the opening gambits. My only criticism is not of the show, but of the studio going out of their way to tell us it's being set in the Prime Universe. It's a reboot, they're fooling nobody.

PhiloCypher

fixxxer wrote: »

They didn't have the rights to do that (afaik) so it wasn't an option. With the visual style being so similar I guess they hoped that the majority of casual viewers would just assume they were set in the same timeline.

Someone other then CBS owns the rights to the Post Voyager/Nemesis 24th century and onwards ? I find that hard to believe. Even if there's been a 100 books written about that period since the last 24th century movie/show its not like the Authors own the IP. CBS can do what they want. They just happen to want a prequel.

Deleted User wrote: »

What have they changed really in Discovery, the look of Klingons/Ships and a bit of modernisation of tech views.

The problem with the end of Voyager (and entire prime line)
-Delta Quadrant is massively Borg and Voyager heard not a hint of another power there.
-Gamma is Dominion and canon maps have them controlling most of it.
-Alpha and Beta are massively mapped, where are the next big race coming from? It was already ridiculous that the Federation did not even hear of the Ferengi prior to TNG, where are the others going to hide?

After the TNG/DS9/Voy timeline Star Trek was falling into the SG1 problem of needing to invent a heretofore unknown big bad to keep growing.
SG1 did it so much in their 10 years that they had to leave the Galaxy for Atlantis and SG1

Why would there necessarily need to be a next big race discovered. The post Dominion war fallout would provide plenty of fertile ground to cover as the old powers lick their wounds and struggle for a new equilibrium. Besides the same argument can be made against making a prequel, as you can't really introduce any new race of galactic consequence that we haven't already heard of.

Sparko wrote: »

Those dinosaur aliens in Voyager seemed to be fairly advanced - not sure how much storyline potential there could be but I'll leave that to the writers!

I think with decent writing the post Voyager/Nemesis universe still has untapped potential. The future tech could be confiscated by the temporal department or whatever it was called. In terms of an enemy - what about the other aliens often mentioned but not hugely explored? Tholians, Tzenkethi, Sheliak, Breen (in ds9 but still fairly undeveloped). Again it just comes down to the writing, I'm sure decent writers could mine plenty of story out of that timeline.

Haha had completely forgotten about that bonkers Voyager Dino episode which posited that Dinosaurs had managed to evolve into a spacefaring race without leaving any visible trace of, what must have been, an extremely advanced civilisation.

hal9550 wrote: »

Overall i really enjoyed both episodes - obviously a SERIOUS amount of issues with various things

Holographic communication: Canon wise its not on OBVIOUSLY! but to be honest id let it slide because i imagine humanity will have something similar soon enough. the way i see it, being PRE TOS is all well and good but its difficult to have something less advanced than the old 60s 1701 without it seeming far too retro for todays audience

Klingon Cloaking Device: Obviously more issues, as with the general design of their ships but again. Happy to Ignore - who knows where these guys acquired this cloak... romululan incolvement perhaps? as to the ship design its the same argument as above

Story line involving Burnham - WORST part in my opinion - very unrealistic for me - also life imprisonment for nerve pinching a superior? Because thats basically all she did! a wee bit harsh!!!

Generally im glad its back and its like this:

JJtrek One - VERY annoyed over design, plus canon issues, destruction of vulcan - silly story - terrible

JJTrek two - HORRIFIC - only seen it once, never again

JJTREK 3 - OMG shockingly bad

Discovery - Not bad! I WANT MORE!

Am I the only person who thinks Beyond is the best(or at least most fun and least canon destroying) of the JJ trek films ?

silverharp wrote: »

the whole scene didn't add adding to the episode it was a dead end, it looks like they had it so they could have a cool scene for the trailers.

I know, most of the most pertinent information like the fact Burnham has served under the Captain for 7 years is repeated later in a more naturalistic way anyway. So its kinda redundant.

Inviere

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Why would there necessarily need to be a next big race discovered. The post Dominion war fallout would provide plenty of fertile ground to cover as the old powers lick their wounds and struggle for a new equilibrium. Besides the same argument can be made against making a prequel, as you can't really introduce any new race of galactic consequence that we haven't already heard of

Precisely. Plus, what's wrong with the notion of actually going exploring again? The very early days of transwarp speeds could yield some fantastic stuff. Not that I'd like TNG 2.0 or anything, but there's a lot more to the universe than just the Milky Way. Neighboring galaxies, rogue clusters in the intergalatic void, systems on the very edges of our galaxy, HUGE parts of the Gamma and Delta Quadrants left unexplored (Voyager took a straight line through the Delta Quadrant, it's not like it was actively explored!). There'd be so much more to see, explore, and visit.

And that's all just exploration, as above, there could be huge socio-political changes in the wake of the Dominion War. Ad some time to that (100 years!), and the Alpha Quadrant could be an almost new place. The essence of Star Trek being humanity putting its differences aside in order to better itself could be the core message once again.

Am I the only person who thinks Beyond is the best(or at least most fun and least canon destroying) of the JJ trek films ?

Nope, agreed on that too. I actively dislike the first one (2009), enjoyed the second one in a switch off your brain way, but felt the third was the most polished and enjoyable one thus far. I have to say, I really love the score to those films.

Evade

Zillah wrote: »

The only lore continuity thing that I care about was that they declared hull breaches on Deck 1, but the bridge was fine at that point.

Deck 1 is always the bridge! That's why it's so exciting when the security officer is all "Sensors have detected intruders on decks, 12, 5, and....1"
startled looks from everyone present

The bridge is normally on the top hence it being deck 1.

Asus X540L

It's ****

FutureGuy

Asus X540L wrote: »

It's ****

Fantastically thorough first post.

Ludo

FutureGuy wrote: »

Fantastically thorough first post.

In fairness...he does have a point unfortunately. Hope to god it gets a lot better.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

TomSweeney

Goodshape wrote: »

Having said that, if you think "Identity Politics in Star Trek is a bad idea", you might have been watching the wrong show this past 50 years.



^^ sounds like every other episode of TOS and TNG.

True equality doesn't need Identity politics !! people are judged on their character and actions - not on their sex / race / orientation etc.
TNG at least had this, it didn't need to remind us in the episodes. (then again I didn't pay attention to media back when I was a kid ... )

pixelburp

TomSweeney wrote: »

True equality doesn't need Identity politics !! people are judged on their character and actions - not on their sex / race / orientation etc.
TNG at least had this, it didn't need to remind us in the episodes. (then again I didn't pay attention to media back when I was a kid ... )

Oh yes it did:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Outcast_(episode)


Star Trek frequently played with issues of sex, race and gender, often doing so allegorically, but it was there & with all the subtly or sensitivity of a hammer. To suggest otherwise would be displaying a pretty selective view of Trek history.

Goodshape

TomSweeney wrote: »

True equality doesn't need Identity politics !!

Tell that to the marginalised.

PhiloCypher

Red letter media's Re:View of Star Trek : Discovery

It's a long video. Cliff notes version . Mike likes it and is cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season. Richie didn't like it , thought it was too dark and action packed and if that was what we could be expecting it would be exhausting.

TomSweeney

Goodshape wrote: »

Tell that to the marginalised.

What marginalised ?
It's all equal oppurtunity now adays, I got hassle as a kid in England being from Ireland - and we didn't have much money, was I marginalised?

Or maybe I got on with it and built my own life ?

Goodshape

TomSweeney wrote: »

What marginalised ?
It's all equal oppurtunity now adays, I got hassle as a kid in England being from Ireland - and we didn't have much money, was I marginalised?

Or maybe I got on with it and built my own life ?

pixelburp

TomSweeney wrote: »

What marginalised ?
It's all equal oppurtunity now adays, I got hassle as a kid in England being from Ireland - and we didn't have much money, was I marginalised?

Or maybe I got on with it and built my own life ?

So anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of prejudice, injustice or marginalisation should just "get on with it?" Nor are they allowed talk about, or try to address these problems? Harsh, and pretty uncaring too TBH; it also sounds a lot like the sort of dismissive attitude directed towards those with mental issues, as if any problems are only ever ones own fault.

I've had my own bumps and bruises through life - who hasn't - but I'm not so naive as to think my problems through life, or indeed how I coped with those issues, automatically translate onto any other experience, like - I dunno, say - young gay kids growing up in rural Ireland; only pick that specific examples 'cos I had the chance to chat to some folks about their own experiences - it really highlighted what an oppressive, sad & lonely life it is for a lot of people growing up who fear for being themselves. Should these kids just "get on with it"?. Or are you going by the notion that cos of the marriage referendum Ireland overnight became instantaneously welcoming to all?

TomSweeney

pixelburp wrote: »

So anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of prejudice, injustice or marginalisation should just "get on with it?" Nor are they allowed talk about, or try to address these problems? Harsh, and pretty uncaring too TBH; it also sounds a lot like the sort of dismissive attitude directed towards those with mental issues, as if any problems are only ever ones own fault.

I've had my own bumps and bruises through life - who hasn't - but I'm not so naive as to think my problems through life, or indeed how I coped with those issues, automatically translate onto any other experience, like - I dunno, say - young gay kids growing up in rural Ireland; only pick that specific examples 'cos I had the chance to chat to some folks about their own experiences - it really highlighted what an oppressive, sad & lonely life it is for a lot of people growing up who fear for being themselves. Should these kids just "get on with it"?. Or are you going by the notion that cos of the marriage referendum Ireland overnight became instantaneously welcoming to all?

I hear ya, my point is in the true ST universe, none of these issues would even exist !!
Anyway, im not able to articulate my point well here!

I enjoyed the show, and only got this feeling after reading reviews so ill steer clear of media on this in the next episodes.

Btw you also have the other idiots on the far side saying it's white genocide ??? like really ?? wtf ...

Goodshape

TomSweeney wrote: »

I hear ya, my point is in the true ST universe, none of these issues would even exist !!
Anyway, im not able to articulate my point well here!

I enjoyed the show, and only got this feeling after reading reviews so ill steer clear of media on this in the next episodes.

That's just it though; nobody on the show is making any issue of it whatsoever. Sure some clickbait headlines are being written but that's sod all to do with the show (as you did say yourself).

There's also nothing wrong with celebrating increased, visible, diversity. Particularly in a show like Star Trek.

I'm gay myself and can't help but be delighted that there's finally going to be a prominent gay character on Discovery. It doesn't feel great to read or hear about how I shouldn't "harp on" about it because it doesn't affect you personally.