Discovery 1x03 – "Context is for Kings" [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Greyjoy

It's a better start to the series than the two-parter prologue although it did reinforce my feeling that the pilot would have worked better with the klingon battle in pt 1 then skip ahead 6 months and bring Burnham onto the Discovery in part 2.

The show feels more Expanse/BSG than Trek to me. I like both of those shows but for different reasons than Trek. I'm willing to go along with this darker tone as long as there is a refutation of these 'section 31' methods in the end. The show needs to end with a re-iteration of the Federation's principles.

server down

Greyjoy wrote: »

It's a better start to the series than the two-parter prologue although it did reinforce my feeling that the pilot would have worked better with the klingon battle in pt 1 then skip ahead 6 months and bring Burnham onto the Discovery in part 2.

The show feels more Expanse/BSG than Trek to me. I like both of those shows but for different reasons than Trek. I'm willing to go along with this darker tone as long as there is a refutation of these 'section 31' methods in the end. The show needs to end with a re-iteration of the Federation's principles.

I dont know much about this war - not sure how much is represented in the canon.

And, maybe the principles in the TOS and later come about because of this war.

server down

Spear wrote: »

He definitely said Romulus.

The 90 light year thing was how far the Glenn had managed to jump exploiting the spores.

I assumed they were just showing images via the spores, given that moving the ship even small distances was still problematic (at least for Discovery).

Yeh, the ship itself couldnt move more than a few 100K.

Greyjoy

server down wrote: »

I dont know much about this war - not sure how much is represented in the canon.

And, maybe the principles in the TOS and later come about because of this war.

The Federation is already established by the time of Discovery so those principles are already there. You have Capt Lorca saying lines like "universal laws are for lackeys, context is for kings". The show runners talked about how could the Federation cope when its ideals come under pressure in times of war.

pixelburp

Greyjoy wrote: »

It's a better start to the series than the two-parter prologue although it did reinforce my feeling that the pilot would have worked better with the klingon battle in pt 1 then skip ahead 6 months and bring Burnham onto the Discovery in part 2.

The show feels more Expanse/BSG than Trek to me. I like both of those shows but for different reasons than Trek. I'm willing to go along with this darker tone as long as there is a refutation of these 'section 31' methods in the end. The show needs to end with a re-iteration of the Federation's principles.

Thing is, wasn't this darkness always there though? TNG / DS9 loved going to that well; a crazy Captain here, an Admiral invoking martial law there. DS9 itself made it an entire arc when the Dominion tried to upend the Federation's stability & utopian ideals. Or even on the fringes of Fed. space with the Macqui & a senior officer abandoning the Federation for the rebels.

I think 90s Trek just hid the smudgier corners of the Federation because that wasn't where it wanted to tell the stories, but it feels a little reductionist to simply ignore what was always bubbling around the corners of the Federation - especially prior to the TNG era when the remaining grey areas still existed more prominently. And introduce a theme of war and what other personality type is going to step forward than the soldiers, schemers and 'win at all cost' types... the folks you'd reject during times of peace must now be accommodated.

Greyjoy

pixelburp wrote: »

I think 90s Trek just hid the smudgier corners of the Federation because that wasn't where it wanted to tell the stories, but it feels a little reductionist to simply ignore what was always bubbling around the corners of the Federation - especially prior to the TNG era when the remaining grey areas still existed more prominently. And introduce a theme of war and what other personality type is going to step forward than the soldiers, schemers and 'win at all cost' types... the folks you'd reject during times of peace must now be accommodated.

It *how* they approach this theme of darkness that matters. If the show reinforces the notion of "the end justifies the means" then that's a contradiction of the core values of Trek. To be honest I don't think it actually will. I imagine that Lorca will take a step too far for Burnham and she will be forced to mutiny again but this time in defense of the Federation principles.

Greyjoy

Greyjoy wrote: »

It *how* they approach this theme of darkness that matters. If the show reinforces the notion of "the end justifies the means" then that's a contradiction of the core values of Trek. To be honest I don't think it actually will. I imagine that Lorca will take a step too far for Burnham and she will be forced to mutiny again but this time in defense of the Federation principles.

But there are many times within Trek when it is believed the end justify the means. Section 31, The Equinox from Voyager. Hell, Sisko unknowingly (but suspected) allowed the murder of some Romulans to get them involved in the Dominion War.

It's not like we're delving into uncharted territory. What I personally find great is that we're now smack dab in the middle of one of these grey areas, instead of it being on the fringe.

Spear

I'm wondering if the head of security will be set up as more of an initial villain, than Lorca. She seems to be more of the good little storm trooper type. Moreso given that Lorca relies on her for the shady stuff, not his newish First Officer Sura.

Goodshape

Watched it a second time and enjoyed it a lot more. It just... wasn't what I was expecting first time around.

On second viewing I was able to relax into the tone of it more. The roommate and the science officer guy (I'll get the names eventually) seem like people I'll enjoy getting to know, and can't wait to find out more about Saru. Lorca was alright too but I'm not a huge fan of the above-the-law angry Starfleet officers.

Although, in context, and on reflection, the obviously less-than-perfect relationships between crew-members could be right out of TOS. I forget that things weren't so happy-families 'back then'.

The spore thing is really interesting in a general "I like sci-fi" kind of way. I'd really hoped for some simpler technology this time though. And I'm not crazy about a series based (probably maybe) around Section 31. But we'll see how those things pan out.

Interesting one about Saru. I could actually see him causing more trouble than Burnham. He is a lot more rigid than she, I think, and we'll likely see a showdown between he and his Captain, at which point he'll realise what she had to do was right in the grand scheme of things.

Tristram

Really enjoyed that episode. Strong opening few that has me excited for the rest of the season!

pixelburp

Greyjoy wrote: »

It *how* they approach this theme of darkness that matters. If the show reinforces the notion of "the end justifies the means" then that's a contradiction of the core values of Trek. To be honest I don't think it actually will. I imagine that Lorca will take a step too far for Burnham and she will be forced to mutiny again but this time in defense of the Federation principles.

Like you said, I don't think that's the direction being taken; Lorca is definitely up to something that's bound to put him against Burnham & creating a natural personal arc. If anything, it feels like the show is at pains to remind the viewer that the Discovery is not the norm for Starfleet, emphasising the ship as one full of scientists, dreamers and optimists.

server down

I like it, as I have said. The one thing I miss though, is humour. No humour anywhere.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

If anything, it feels like the show is at pains to remind the viewer that the Discovery is not the norm for Starfleet, emphasising the ship as one full of scientists, dreamers and optimists.

To be critical though, from these first few episodes it looks as though they're trying to have their cake and eat it too; with talk about science – how that should be the mission or is the ideal – while otherwise plotting and scheming for war, military personal all over the place, guns and armour at the ready.

"We're supposed to be a science vessel" is all well and good; just hope it's not consigned entirely to "supposed to be".

Greyjoy

Greyjoy wrote: »

If the show reinforces the notion of "the end justifies the means" then that's a contradiction of the core values of Trek.

Sisko and In The Pale Moonlight?

Dónal

Dónal wrote: »

Sisko and In The Pale Moonlight?

The Equoinox crew in Voyager. And others I said already.

People are acting like it's uncharted territory for the Trek franchise.

Greyjoy

Deleted User wrote: »

The Equoinox crew in Voyager. And others I said already.

People are acting like it's uncharted territory for the Trek franchise.

The Equinox crew are not held up as heroic characters - they're a reflection of what could have happened to Voyager if they abandoned their principles.
With Sisko you see him wrestle with the morality of what he's doing, it's presented as a tragedy that he's compromised his principles for the sake of the war.

Raising the issue != reinforcing it. If Lorca and Section 31 are shown to be 'right' then the show will have reinforced their (lack of) ethics. That goes against the core values of Trek. I don't think they will - I imagine Burnham & Lorca will eventually clash over his methods.

expectationlost

Spear wrote: »

He definitely said Romulus.

The 90 light year thing was how far the Glenn had managed to jump exploiting the spores.

I assumed they were just showing images via the spores, given that moving the ship even small distances was still problematic (at least for Discovery).

would you need to stand in them to just view?

did they say anything about it on after trek?

hal9550

ON my second watching! Im a die hard star trek fan but im going to play devils advocate here and offer an alternate opinion on starfleet, section 31 and offer the dominion war, and S31's actions therein as an alternate

The Obvious argument in favor of Gene's vision is that it portrays the Federation, and humanity in general, as being highly principled. Disregarding several Prime Directive episodes which i think went too far, the PD and non Interference is a decent principle to conduct trek style exploration in a peaceful and Non-Intrusive way.

BUT!

I can see a legitimate case for Section 31's existence. Obviously they are not exactly 'nice guys' but Sloans case for their position is rather compelling

The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience, men of principle... men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section 31 exists. Someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong

Now take the Dominion war, and specifically the attempt at wiping out the Founders. Immediately you can see a horrific issue with such an unspeakable crime. however:

• The Founders stated goal is imposing order and keeping all non changeling civilizations under their control.. These people have no issue at all doing anything and everything to achieve this goal
• They do not value humanoid life - Created drug addicted super soldiers to impose their will, and programming them along with the Vorta to treat them as gods
• Several instances of attempted genocide under their belt, and they are just the ones we KNOW ABOUT! The species in the gamma quadrant dying of a biotoxin.. Attempting to exterminate the cardassians, merely as a warning to other species not to cross them. Attempting to wipe out the ENTIRE BAJORAN system simply to cripple the federation, Klingon and Romulan fleets

Now i think Star Treks principles shown through in the end of DS9 with ODO curing the female shapeshifter and the war ending without a final 'Battle of Berlin' style massacre. But iv always felt that was a MASSIVE Ex Deus Machina - Odo linked many times with the shapeshifters, (Both the female leader and the link itself), and his ideals and views of humanoid life NEVER peculated through - they just kept coming, hell bent on winning at ANY cost


So from a REALPOLITIK/Realist point of view, 31 come along.. and with a single stroke, however barbaric, they effectively destroy the dominion. Regardless of the outcome in the war, the dominion was on borrowed time and would eventually crumble.. Mass Jem-Hadar suicides as the link dies, the Vorta could hardly take over - thats it .. they are TOAST


So in relation to Discovery! YES i reckon 31 are most definitely involved. The federations existence is at risk, and while we know it will survive (assuming we are not dealing with a reboot), at this point facing down against a an enemy that likes to rip out hearts and eat them, they are justified in taking an active roll!


Will Burnham save the day? I DUNNO! (being a fan of 31 and their story lines i hope thats a final season thing)


Will i enjoy watching a darker, grittier Trek! HECK YES I WILL!

And is it still trek!? YEP!!



Happy to discuss!

Sonics2k

Greyjoy wrote: »

It *how* they approach this theme of darkness that matters. If the show reinforces the notion of "the end justifies the means" then that's a contradiction of the core values of Trek. To be honest I don't think it actually will. I imagine that Lorca will take a step too far for Burnham and she will be forced to mutiny again but this time in defense of the Federation principles.

The Federation has always had an idea of 'the end justifies the means', they're just a lot more subtle about it in the later days.

The whole thing has always seemed a little bit odd to me, a military base in total control the Federation. Who knows what happened in the early days of the Federation, but maybe we'll find out soon.

The more I think about it, the less I think Burnham will cause the Captain any trouble, especially if she starts seeing how the end does justify the means. The reality is that the Federation is at war -- with the race that killed her parents. She already suggested (and carried out) a plan of planting bombs on corpses and detonating them. Saru is going to be the real trouble maker.

That's where the bridge drama will likely come from.

Goodshape

Deleted User wrote: »

The Equoinox crew in Voyager. And others I said already.

People are acting like it's uncharted territory for the Trek franchise.

Not uncharted, just unwelcome.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

The more I think about it, the less I think Burnham will cause the Captain any trouble, especially if she starts seeing how the end does justify the means. The reality is that the Federation is at war -- with the race that killed her parents. She already suggested (and carried out) a plan of planting bombs on corpses and detonating them. Saru is going to be the real trouble maker.

That's where the bridge drama will likely come from.

Hmmm, I don't think it'll go in that direction; there'd be less of an emotional arc for Burnham then, and the show in general. Her rash impulsiveness on the Shenzhou started a war, and caused the death of her maternal-mentor (not to mention the hundreds of others). She was content to pay for her crimes, knowing that she'll never get to officially live by the creed of the Federation. Meanwhile, the crew of the Discovery are positively falling over themselves to remind her she's Starfleet's only mutineer. She succumbed to rash decision making and it nearly cost everything.

It adds up to what feels very like a redemption angle, mixed in with what's leaning towards very obvious drama that's going to arise when - surprise surprise - she has to go up against her Captain again & must fight with her past all over again. Lorca has already demonstrated himself to be very unlike Captain Georgiou and I suspect we'll see some moments akin to "What would Georgiou have done?"

SoftMicro

Really enjoyed ep 3. I think the first 2 (while not too strong imo) definitely served their purpose for introducing Michael & Saru. Much better than if ep 3 was the series starter and them doing a prequel of the mutiny events later in the season.

JeffKenna

I thought that was brilliant.

I really enjoyed the episode, but as another poster said, it looks like they are doing Fringe in Space. So for 40 minutes of "switch off the mind scifi", it could do very well, but theres no point in commenting on plot holes or unlikely technology because in JJ Abrams style they'll be making up the tech(and the plots) as they go.

As I said, I really enjoyed it, this episode had a bit of everything: some action, some humour, some bread and butter scifi. I really like the dark path its taking but the highly theoretical Fringe-esque physics, I suspect is going to lead us into many alternate universes, alternate timelines, some (good) WTF moments and lots of (bad) WTF moments.

silverharp

it was a good episode and as si-fi its pretty decent. Characters are ropey though , the security officer is a bit wooden, the bunk mate is annoying, the captain will be an interesting character and it will be a change to have a captain that isn't bound by protocalls. Im still not taking to puss face.
As for the purpose of the mission, in the end it must fail as the tech doesn't appear in any later Star Trek or am I missing something?

seamus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It may have had a strong opening (although personally I think they'd have been better off dumping the 2-part prologue and starting with Episode 3), but it remains to be seen whether it's Star Trek.

I dunno - context is for kings after all
If we'd just been introduced to Burnham as a mutineer who somehow messed up at some big Klingon battle six months ago, starting the war that's apparently now happening, we'd lose a lot of what we know. We'd be wondering why a convict was so determined to do her sentence, so reluctant to accept a new assignment, and the relative unfairness of the crew's dislike towards her. She didn't start the war after all, she tried to end it before it started, but she's clearly been blamed (and blames herself) for it.
We know that she's principled and dedicated. If she had been introduced as a convict, we would assume that she's a rogue, likely to turn on the crew at any time.

We might also feel a little aggrieved that a major war with the Klingons just appeared out of some innocuous battle, without knowing what actually happened.

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

"Did he just 'shush' us?"

I find it really interesting that the Orville came out at the same time, given that both series seem to be going for the more natural scripts and dialogue like this, rather than the far more formal/deep overwritten dialogue that TNG/DS9/VOY went for.

[*]The Tribble. Maybe he's discovered that they don't like Klingons and it's kind of like a warning system for him but did it have to coo EVERY couple of seconds? We got it. We saw it

Hah. I didn't even see it. If there was one there, then it seems likely there's some relationship between the crazy invincible alien and the tribble. Perhaps they're attempting to create an anti-Klingon bioweapon that they can just transport on board mid-battle.

Not sure how I felt about the whole Amanda name drop (And her son). It was cool but pandering a bit.

I guess it was pandering, they were ensuring that people knew she slotted into the established canon.

I guess one issue is that she's is effectively Spock's sister, yet we've never heard of her. Good article here though explaining why it's not a problem:
https://trekmovie.com/2017/07/31/editorial-spock-having-a-sister-in-star-trek-discovery-is-not-that-big-of-a-deal/

Would also make sense that Spock wouldn't casually drop her name into conversation if she's despised by Starfleet personnel.

Bacchus

pixelburp wrote: »

.... Her rash impulsiveness on the Shenzhou started a war, and caused the death of her maternal-mentor (not to mention the hundreds of others). ....

Sorry, I keep seeing this menioned that she started a war. How did she start a war? T'Kuvma was carrying out a plan to start a war to unite the Klingons. Whatever Michael did was inconsequential... no?

Bacchus

TBH I just thought the Tribble was there because it was extremely soothing. I might be wrong, but do they not discover that Klingons hate Tribbles until the TOS episode? Which is set a few years ahead in the cannon.

But I definitely laughed a bit when I saw it.

Bacchus wrote: »

Sorry, I keep seeing this menioned that she started a war. How did she start a war? T'Kuvma was carrying out a plan to start a war to unite the Klingons. Whatever Michael did was inconsequential... no?

I thought the exact same! I mean, we're even told of the plan at the opening of the first episode!