Discovery 1x04 – "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not For The Lamb's Cry" [** SPOILERS **]

expectationlost

how did the creature get into the Glen, does it use the spores to travel?

Blazer

expectationlost wrote: »

how did the creature get into the Glen, does it use the spores to travel?

It probably sneaked aboard when they were loadinfo the mushroom containers. It would have done it under cover of darkness due to its aversion to light.

I’m not too hung up on canon Star Trek as long as they make intelligent scripts. As the moment the only thing that bugs me is the name Michael and the stupid security chief doing stupid ****.
All the rest I can get over as long as they tie it up.
It’s still better than Voyager.. Christ awful ****e.

PhiloCypher

expectationlost wrote: »

how did the creature get into the Glen, does it use the spores to travel?

I'd imagine it wasn't always that large so it hid in one of the spore containers and ate its way to the size it is now on a Spore diet.

flaneur

Well they did say that it resembled a tiny lifeform on Earth. So, it's possible it was microscopic to start with.

I have to say though this Star Trek is incredibly graphically violent compared to the previous iterations. So far we've seen people turned inside out on a ship, ribs sticking through chests and at the first captain to be eaten!

SimonTemplar

I'm a huge ST fan (well TNG and DS9 anyway) and I was very hesitant about this. The last thing I wanted was another Enterprise.

Finally caught up on the four episodes. Overall, it is much better than I feared, which is mostly due to both Michael as a character and Sonequa Martin's performance. I quite like Jason Isaacs' captain too. It is early days but I think those two have so much potential.

Not a fan of the chief engineer character, just can't really warm to him. I know his character is supposed to be a curt with his colleagues but that shouldn't alienate the audience. B'elanna was similarly difficult to work with, but I actually found her one of the better parts of Voyager.

Not too sure what I feel about the tall alien Number One yet. Need a few more episodes to flesh out his character. At the moment, he just seems a little bland. Likewise with Michael's room mate. At the moment, she just seems like a token "not typical Starfleet material" character thrown in for variety. Sort of like Reg.

As for the Klingons, I really wish they had kept the TNG era design. The huge protruding ridges with a mane of thick hair looked so unique and distinctive. Discovery's Klingons look like generic intimidating alien design #38.

Also not a fan of the spores and that monster thing being used to navigate and control them. That technology in that storyline seems more suited to Doctor Who than Star Trek.

Anyway, I know I'm sounding more negative than positive, but I do find it very watchable mostly due to the lead. Let's not forget that the early days of TNG were mostly unwatchable, so compared to that, I'd say Discovery is off to a good start. It is definitely keeping me engaged which is more than I could say about The Orville which I switched off after 20 mins.

hal9550

meep wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say and I have no problem with this being Star Trek.
The 'I don't want to watch it' thing I mentioned is more along these lines;

For the first few episodes, I was looking forward to the new Trek and made it an event to watch it Monday nights on Netflix. Sitting through this one, I found myself thinking there was better stuff to be watching and maybe I could just store these up and watch them in one go at series end.

The bit that really gets me is having to sit through extended Klingon dialog which I've got to read while the audio grates and grates. I understand the creative reason why they chose to do this, I just don't agree with it find it distracting in the extreme.

When you combine that with having (for me) zero characters to root for or care about, it just doesn't seem worthwhile.

I think in general, there seems a disappointment in several things with Discovery. As an opinion i would say that

-Klingon Dialogue for me isnt an issue and i actually generally enjoy the Klingon Cut aways as providing their view of the conflict and their internal power struggles

-The silliness of the security officer is a bad point which i take - but i would again say i have seen starfleet officers do far stupider things throughout the franchise

-The Technology and its relationship to canon was expected by me and is completely irrelevant to judging the show on its merits. There was no way a star trek show could have been successful, in the long term, if they attempted to have anything similar to TOS or 'The Cage'. The ship was always going to look more advanced and i can forgive the holograms purely on the basis that the technology will probably exist in reality within my life time

I am genuinely happy Trek is back. And while the issues surrounding Burnham, who i am not a fan of, and various other teething issues are present - and will be debated endlessly, there is cause for optimism My view is that the show is appealing to a larger portion of society not just fans. AND YET AS A FAN, i am definitely liking it.

As to perhaps saving up the series and binging it i think as an on demand show, thats simply a choice. I have done this with Thrones in the past, and it CERTAINLY didnt mean i felt there were better things on than Thrones! It was simply to look forward to a 2-3 evening binging session!

Appealing to a broader base was the goal of enterprise, and it failed utterly in its attempts. Discovery is on track! thats my take

corkie

corkie wrote: »

Maybe just that I have seen so much of Doctor Who, things like that don't surprise me.

Reminds me of "The Beast Below" episode.

Probably been other sci-fi examples of creatures used in the same manner! Can't remember them at the moment.

Fenster wrote: »

Discovery takes place in the Dune universe: confirmed

• Spaceship possesses a drive which folds space and permits instant travel in anywhere in the known universe.
• Rare, valuable substance (mushroom spores) underpins the foldspace drive.
• Navigator placed in a chamber full of spores to perform their task.
• Living Navigator plugged into drive system controls it.
• Navigator is a mutant (tardigrade).

DMcL1971 wrote: »

It reminds me of the Infinite Improbability Drive from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It allows you to pass through every point in the galaxy simultaneously. They even said this week that the spore drive was probabilistic.

Or the Blink Drive from Dark Matter that allowed you to instantaneously jump your ship to a point and then jump out again, in the blink of an eye.

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Also not a fan of the spores and that monster thing being used to navigate and control them. That technology in that storyline seems more suited to Doctor Who than Star Trek.

As you can see the spore drive technology has already been compared to other scifi shows.

Blazer

Blazer wrote: »

Can you imagine the backlash if JJ rewrote Star Wars and destroyed the canon? This is what he did to Star Trek.

There was backlash already when he basically just reshot the same Star Wars movie, but with better effects and better looking people.

Truth is though that they had to - the Trek movies were failing, which each one getting progressively worse and worse.

But, hey, because of JJ we have new Star Wars movies and Star Trek movies, so hate him as much as you might, he revived both of these dying franchises.

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I'm a huge ST fan (well TNG and DS9 anyway) and I was very hesitant about this. The last thing I wanted was another Enterprise.

Finally caught up on the four episodes. Overall, it is much better than I feared, which is mostly due to both Michael as a character and Sonequa Martin's performance. I quite like Jason Isaacs' captain too. It is early days but I think those two have so much potential.

Not a fan of the chief engineer character, just can't really warm to him. I know his character is supposed to be a curt with his colleagues but that shouldn't alienate the audience. B'elanna was similarly difficult to work with, but I actually found her one of the better parts of Voyager.

Not too sure what I feel about the tall alien Number One yet. Need a few more episodes to flesh out his character. At the moment, he just seems a little bland. Likewise with Michael's room mate. At the moment, she just seems like a token "not typical Starfleet material" character thrown in for variety. Sort of like Reg.

As for the Klingons, I really wish they had kept the TNG era design. The huge protruding ridges with a mane of thick hair looked so unique and distinctive. Discovery's Klingons look like generic intimidating alien design #38.

Also not a fan of the spores and that monster thing being used to navigate and control them. That technology in that storyline seems more suited to Doctor Who than Star Trek.

Anyway, I know I'm sounding more negative than positive, but I do find it very watchable mostly due to the lead. Let's not forget that the early days of TNG were mostly unwatchable, so compared to that, I'd say Discovery is off to a good start. It is definitely keeping me engaged which is more than I could say about The Orville which I switched off after 20 mins.

To be fair, B'ellena was very standoffish for the first season or so of Voyager. And it took much longer than that for her heart to come through. We're 4 episodes in - so it'll be interesting to see where it goes.

IvySlayer

Only Saru is a character I'm interested in.

The rest of them are awful and unlikable. The captain sarcastically clapping his crew after they made a mistake during a simulation.

The Klingon portions are slow, tedious, dull and ruin the pace of the show.

Don't get me started on the security chiefs death...4 episodes in and thousands of deaths already. I'm struggling to find the Star Trek in this nor do I like the fact this is in the same universe as TOS.

Give me something!

Goodshape

IvySlayer wrote: »

The rest of them are awful and unlikable.

"Likeable" is a strange one. Not just you personally, Ivy, but lots of people saying they don't "like" Burnham and other characters.

Is it literally that you wouldn't want to hang out with them? That they don't seem to be friendly happy people? Or do you mean they're bad characters and/or badly portrayed or acted?

I'm not at all sure if I like Michael Burnham. Lorca's certainly a dick. Saru is so uptight I think he'd get on my nerves. Maybe I'd get on alright with the engineer, who seems like a right-minded and interesting guy, and Tilly, but otherwise I agree – they're not entirely likably people. (Although having said that, it is early days!).

But I do think they're good characters – so far at least, maybe the strongest characters we've had out of the gates on any Trek show – and I like watching them be slightly unlikeable.

It's bloody interesting. Each to their own but I'm finding it nice having some shades of grey in there for a change.

Mitch Connor

I've really enjoyed the show so far - but I also aknowledge some of the issues (incredibly stupid sec officer, spore drive...).

However, what I can't reconcile the show I am watching and enjoying with the talk of it being an absolute disaster of a show with a replacement show already in the works.

The show has a few issues but it is far from what I was expecting given the pre-release fears for it.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Probably reading a bit too much into it tbh
That said, the goal of using Discovery in battles would be to create a legend, a myth. A ship that appears out of nowhere, devastates and disappears again.
Remember TNG when there were ships and colonies being wiped out along the neutral zone, by causes unknown? That's intimidating and it's terrifying.

So as much as Discovery wants to defeat the Klingons and remain hidden, they still needs news of the battles won to reach the Klingon empire. That the five ships who appeared to have the colony beaten, just suddenly disappeared like a fart in the wind.

I think this is the biggest problem of any star trek prequel. So many fans who have decided what the ST universe looks like and won't accept anything which deviates the slightest from that personal vision. Indeed, the bulk of the criticism I see here and elsewhere online are about canonical issues - be that the look and feel of the Klingons, up-to-date technology, or questions about where it fits in the timeline.

Very few comments or criticisms of the production, except for maybe Commander Jarhead's rash suicide.

I guess in many ways Abrams had the right idea; reboot the universe and then your canon can go fnck itself. Every continuity issue can be written off as being due to the altered timeline.

The fact they had to do that for a movie shows how much the “true fans” ruin stuff with their nitpicking.

Nobody ever complains about the lack of Greek Gods.

Evade

server down wrote: »

Nobody ever complains about the lack of Greek Gods.

I was hoping for some bizarre exactly-like-Earth's-past-planets.

expectationlost

lets face it the klingon make up is terrible, I keep watching their mouths strain to open and tounges trying to deal with it

PhiloCypher

expectationlost wrote: »

lets face it the klingon make up is terrible, I keep watching their mouths strain to open and tounges trying to deal with it

The thing I don't get is all actors playing Klingons from TNG onward wore teeth prosthetics to some degree and all were able to talk clearly wearing them whether in English or Klingon. So either the art of good teeth prosthetics has been lost or they're intentionally hamstringing the actors in order to make them sound more alien.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

lets face it the klingon make up is terrible, I keep watching their mouths strain to open and tounges trying to deal with it

Absolutely agree - why don't they go back to this -

- where you can see Worf ending and Michael Dorn beginning

and this



How dare they change the look of the Klingons ...

... oh wait.

As mentioned previously - don't worry, we'll get our explanation in 14 years.

pixelburp

I think expectationlost isn't criticising the design in as much as the application; the prosthetics used seem incredibly restrictive and stiff. Doug Jones seems to have no trouble with the FX for Saru, yet the actors playing the Klingons appear hamstrung. Maybe Jones just has more experience playing characters with heavy make-up & FX.

It's not helped by their obviously stiff, over-designed costumes either; I don't think it's a coincidence that the most expressive & natural performance came from the female Klingon, whose prosthetics & clothes seemed a lot less OTT.

Evade

Deleted User wrote: »

This reminds me. If all the Klingon great houses are represented in STD will we get to see Kang, Koloth, and Kor in action again?

_Kaiser_

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I've really enjoyed the show so far - but I also aknowledge some of the issues (incredibly stupid sec officer, spore drive...).

However, what I can't reconcile the show I am watching and enjoying with the talk of it being an absolute disaster of a show with a replacement show already in the works.

The show has a few issues but it is far from what I was expecting given the pre-release fears for it.

We won't know until news comes out about whether it'll be renewed for a second season if it's a disaster - at least commercially.

CBS created this show to sell their online streaming service and while it saw record numbers sign up, from what I read it offered a trial period so until we hear how many of those paid real MONEY to watch Discovery, we can't judge it a success from the studio's perspective.

Critically it seems to be dividing opinion with the more casual GoT-type fan loving it, but many long term Trek fans still unconvinced or outright hostile

Goodshape

Evade wrote: »

This reminds me. If all the Klingon great houses are represented in STD will we get to see Kang, Koloth, and Kor in action again?

Possibly. The House of Kor is already represented in Discovery by Kol, who so far seems like the most interesting Klingon.

Also, it's been theorised that (spoilered but it's really just speculation)

Voq is the same "albino Klingon" who was tracked down by Kor, Koloth, Kang, and Dax in DS9's Blood Oath (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Albino). After the events in episode 4 I think that's even more likely

.

Stands to reason we may also see Curzon Dax in this show.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I think expectationlost isn't criticising the design in as much as the application; the prosthetics used seem incredibly restrictive and stiff. Doug Jones seems to have no trouble with the FX for Saru, yet the actors playing the Klingons appear hamstrung. Maybe Jones just has more experience playing characters with heavy make-up & FX.

It's not helped by their obviously stiff, over-designed costumes either; I don't think it's a coincidence that the most expressive & natural performance came from the female Klingon, whose prosthetics & clothes seemed a lot less OTT.

That's likely it - Jones has a very long history of make-up & FX. Jones is to make-up & FX what Andy Serkis is to motion capture.

Goodshape wrote: »

Possibly. The House of Kor is already represented in Discovery by Kol, who so far seems like the most interesting Klingon.

Also, it's been theorised that (spoilered but it's really just speculation)

Voq is the same "albino Klingon" who was tracked down by Kor, Koloth, Kang, and Dax in DS9's Blood Oath. After the events in episode 4 I think that's even more likely

.

Stands to reason we may also see Curzon Dax in this show.

Holy sh1t, I hope that's true.

_Kaiser_

Goodshape wrote: »

Stands to reason we may also see Curzon Dax in this show.

Was it not one of the previous hosts.. I seem to remember Jadzia talking about dating McCoy in an episode

Thinking about it, though, it might be nice for a Trek show to not have any cameos from past franchises. Off the top of my head, I think ... TNG had McCoy in the first episode, ... DS9 had Riker pretty early on (?), and I think Voyager had someone too. Can't think if Enterprise had anyone.

Might have been Picard in DS9?

Goodshape

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Was it not one of the previous hosts.. I seem to remember Jadzia talking about dating McCoy in an episode

Actually you're right, I think it would be Emony Dax, which is much less interesting and relevant.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thinking about it, though, it might be nice for a Trek show to not have any cameos from past franchises. Off the top of my head, I think ... TNG had McCoy in the first episode, ... DS9 had Riker pretty early on (?), and I think Voyager had someone too. Can't think if Enterprise had anyone.

Might have been Picard in DS9?

Yeah, Picard in the DS9 pilot. I was a bit disappointed they didn't continue the tradition in the Discovery pilot actually. Even Enterprise had Cochran on a viewscreen.

server down

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We won't know until news comes out about whether it'll be renewed for a second season if it's a disaster - at least commercially.

CBS created this show to sell their online streaming service and while it saw record numbers sign up, from what I read it offered a trial period so until we hear how many of those paid real MONEY to watch Discovery, we can't judge it a success from the studio's perspective.

Critically it seems to be dividing opinion with the more casual GoT-type fan loving it, but many long term Trek fans still unconvinced or outright hostile

What exactly is a GOT type fan?

Long term trek fans are not the same as fundamentalist Trekkies, though. Very few people know the "canon". Time be short.

And the canon they believe in is selective anyway. The Greek Gods should be around in this timeline, but they are not mourned. Theres also, if I recall, a planet full of Nazis around somewhere. And lots of other strangeness. The original series was all over the place. Literally, and figuratively.

If thats real Star Trek then screw canon, because none of the OS script writers knew Canon.

The instructions were: There is a federation which is mostly human, a nasty species called the klingons who are protagonists, and some logical lads with funny ears. But write what you want.

After a while the trekkies got their canon learned off, and that put paid to monsters of the week unless you reboot, or disappear into the delta quadrant. Which is what they had to do. To escape the Trekkies.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Thinking about it, though, it might be nice for a Trek show to not have any cameos from past franchises. Off the top of my head, I think ... TNG had McCoy in the first episode, ... DS9 had Riker pretty early on (?), and I think Voyager had someone too. Can't think if Enterprise had anyone.

Might have been Picard in DS9?

DS9 had Picard and Tom Riker (Q and Vash too)

Voyager had Quark, Riker, Troi and Barkley (Q again)

Enterprise had no one, never... ever.
There was no episode called These Are The Voyages
(It did have Zefram Cochrane in Broken Bow)

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Thinking about it, though, it might be nice for a Trek show to not have any cameos from past franchises. Off the top of my head, I think ... TNG had McCoy in the first episode, ... DS9 had Riker pretty early on (?), and I think Voyager had someone too. Can't think if Enterprise had anyone.

Might have been Picard in DS9?

Picard was in Emissary yep

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Was it not one of the previous hosts.. I seem to remember Jadzia talking about dating McCoy in an episode

Would have been a young McCoy as she had never met Spock (mentioned in the Tribbles episode) so Curzon is easily done to fit around here.
He could be the emissary to Klingon peace talks

Goodshape

server down wrote: »

The Greek Gods should be around in this timeline, but they are not mourned.

I guess that answers the question, "Who Mourns for Adonais?"


Nobody mourns for Adonais

smunchkins

Goodshape wrote: »

"Likeable" is a strange one. Not just you personally, Ivy, but lots of people saying they don't "like" Burnham and other characters.

Is it literally that you wouldn't want to hang out with them? That they don't seem to be friendly happy people? Or do you mean they're bad characters and/or badly portrayed or acted?

I'm not at all sure if I like Michael Burnham. Lorca's certainly a dick. Saru is so uptight I think he'd get on my nerves. Maybe I'd get on alright with the engineer, who seems like a right-minded and interesting guy, and Tilly, but otherwise I agree – they're not entirely likably people. (Although having said that, it is early days!).

But I do think they're good characters – so far at least, maybe the strongest characters we've had out of the gates on any Trek show – and I like watching them be slightly unlikeable.

It's bloody interesting. Each to their own but I'm finding it nice having some shades of grey in there for a change.

My problem with Burnham is how many of the crew seem to have to praise her innumerable skills a lot of the time. She seems just a trifle like a Mary Sue character. And the scriptwriters are just trying too hard with the "tell" part.

Being strongly directed to "like" this intelligent, logical, brave, moral, scientific and capable former officer just sends me in the opposite direction. I'm contrary like that!