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

27-09-2017 9:57am

I'm not entirely sure why they did that, but it seems to have become a thing now. If you watch Fear the Walking Dead, they've started to do the same thing by releasing two episodes back-to-back instead of a single extended feature-length episode -- at least for the season and mid-season opening episodes. I would wonder whether advertising would come into play with that.

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 10:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

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

maybe we will be using it in a few years, but the point was that it's lagfree across a massive distance and uses a massive amount of data to send/receive (live datastream with no lag across millions/billions of miles)

Why has nobody ever used it before the dominion war in DS9?

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

heh, maybe in the final episode it'll all just be a dream.

27-09-2017 10:10am

You do realise you're complaining about holograms in a show where people have gone so fast that they've turned into lizards -- because, SCIENCE!, where omnipotent beings exist that can make anything happen with the flick of their fingers, and where people have sex with ghosts.

So... yeah ... maybe you're taking it a little too seriously if you're getting bogged down like that.

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 10:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise you're complaining about holograms in a show where people have gone so fast that they've turned into lizards -- because, SCIENCE!, where omnipotent beings exist that can make anything happen with the flick of their fingers, and where people have sex with ghosts.

So... yeah ... maybe you're taking it a little too seriously if you're getting bogged down like that.

you don't have to read or respond to my posts if you think i'm complaining. I'm discussing my thoughts on the episodes i've watched. Just because they're contrary to your opinions doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

pixelburp · 27-09-2017 10:17am

degrassinoel wrote: »

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

But the lore has been sh*t on all the time in previous show, we've just chosen in the past to either forget it (the Ferengi as aggressive warmongers in Season 1 TNG; Worf's sudden, then utterly forgotten step-brother; Enterprise's entire premise never been mentioned before IIRC; the pretty jarring tech. leap between ToS & TNG highlighted in 'Relics'; the technological step back from Enterprise's 'navals' vessels to ToS!; the Klingons - ho boy, the ever changing Klingons), or else retconned into something frankly laughable (The Klingons)

And that's probably the tip of the iceberg; I'm fairly sure TNG nearly constantly contradicted its own technical details on a regular basis, particularly with Data's own limitations & capabilities.

I do get why some people find Discovery a bit jarring, cos ... well, it is! But when you step back from the franchise as a whole, as much as Star Trek likes to think of itself as this tonally, technically consistent tome of perfect continuity - it never has been, yet this myth persists.

Mickeroo · 27-09-2017 10:24am

Skype and tablets wouldn't look futuristic anymore. It's not a mess up it's moving with the times and making a new show for a new audience. Technology in the old shows was a product of its time and completely incidental.

Goodshape · 27-09-2017 10:25am

pixelburp wrote: »

I think were it a feature-length, single episode it might have been a bit more understandable;

At the official show premiere it was shown as a single feature-length episode, and in any case the second episode started exactly where the first left off.

The only reason this is episode 1 and 2, and not an extended first episode like TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent's pilot episodes, is so CBS could force viewers onto their streaming service for the concluding part.

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 10:29am

pixelburp wrote: »

But the lore has been sh*t on all the time in previous show, we've just chosen in the past to either forget it (the Ferengi as aggressive warmongers in Season 1 TNG; Worf's sudden, then utterly forgotten step-brother; Enterprise's entire premise never been mentioned before IIRC; the pretty jarring tech. leap between ToS & TNG highlighted in 'Relics'; the technological step back from Enterprise's 'navals' vessels to ToS!; the Klingons - ho boy, the ever changing Klingons), or else retconned into something frankly laughable (The Klingons)

And that's probably the tip of the iceberg; I'm fairly sure TNG nearly constantly contradicted its own technical details on a regular basis, particularly with Data's own limitations & capabilities.

I do get why some people find Discovery a bit jarring, cos ... well, it is! But when you step back from the franchise as a whole, as much as Star Trek likes to think of itself as this tonally, technically consistent tome of perfect continuity - it never has been, yet this myth persists.

This is what i'm talking about though, technobabble flaws aside, there has always been fundamental and cardinal rules that the lore never pushed too hard on.

each incarnation of the show would explain or leave enough for one to guess at why this or that happened - and that's reasonable enough, not my major issue with it. My issue with it is when they double back on something like, for instance, the hologram comms. It just shouldn't exist in a show set prior to it being invented lol

And even that's forgivable provided the writing explains why this happens, but that's not been explained, not yet at least.

Honestly, if they can mess up that badly with just this one minor thing in the writing of the pilot episodes, i'm not holding out much hope for the rest of the series. And the thing is, it's not just one little thing that wrong about it, it's quite a lot of little things.

Johnny Storm · 27-09-2017 10:33am

I enjoyed the way the Admirals holo-image jerked around when his ship was attacked. It worked for me.
I also liked:-
- the bridge of the Shenzou being on the underside of its saucer section
- "their greatest lie: "we come in peace""

PhiloCypher · 27-09-2017 10:46am

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.

Yep . The two episodes are all about getting us in Burnhams heads pace for the series proper . DS9 did something similar with Siskos Orb visions of Jennifer and Wof 359 , they just did it more concisely rather then showing Sisko being assigned to the Saratoga engaging the Borg and losing a loved one(Jennifer/captain Georgiu) before moving onto a new assignment in episode 3 (DS9/Discovery) with some emotional issues to deal with. I'd argue DS9'S was the better solution in that it gave it's main character emotional context while still setting up the world they were going to inhabit , but so long as discovery does this in episodes 3&4 it's much of a muchness to me.

Zillah · 27-09-2017 10:48am

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

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 10:52am

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Yep . The two episodes are all about getting us in Burnhams heads pace for the series proper . DS9 did something similar with Siskos Orb visions of Jennifer and Wof 359 , they just did it more concisely rather then showing Sisko being assigned to the Saratoga engaging the Borg and losing a loved one(Jennifer/captain Georgiu) before moving onto a new assignment in episode 3 (DS9/Discovery) with some emotional issues to deal with. I'd argue DS9'S was the better solution in that it gave it's main character emotional context while still setting up the world they were going to inhabit , but so long as discovery does this in episodes 3&4 it's much of a muchness to me.

that's a pretty big gamble to have after 90 minutes of origin story, i hope you're right though

Goodshape · 27-09-2017 10:54am

degrassinoel wrote: »

there has always been fundamental and cardinal rules that the lore never pushed too hard on.

Such as what exactly?

Because it's not technology. Or the appearance of alien races. Or the capabilities of alien races. Or the appearance or capabilities of starships. Or the function of Starfleet.

Is it the bright top-down lights? The coloured jumpers?

I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

And I think that's just the first 20 minutes. What an awful dreadful film. A pox on the good name of consistent never-changing Star Trek.

Or, maybe those things don't really matter and it's actually the best Trek film in the series.

The holo-communications were a little jarring in that it's definitely something we haven't seen before (in this era of Trek anyway) but I appreciated that they were drawing that line in the sand with regards to updating technology. We have TuPac and Elvis performing concerts in 2017. I think holo-coms in 200 years isn't a huge stretch.

Although I do hope we get to see the other side of those experiences. What is the admiral seeing when he's talking to Georgiou and Burnham? Is he in a holodeck kind of thing, or have their images "projected" into his eyes? Hope they have a good explanation for it.

Greyjoy · 27-09-2017 11:05am

degrassinoel wrote: »

each incarnation of the show would explain or leave enough for one to guess at why this or that happened - and that's reasonable enough, not my major issue with it. My issue with it is when they double back on something like, for instance, the hologram comms. It just shouldn't exist in a show set prior to it being invented lol

And even that's forgivable provided the writing explains why this happens, but that's not been explained, not yet at least.

Honestly, if they can mess up that badly with just this one minor thing in the writing of the pilot episodes, i'm not holding out much hope for the rest of the series. And the thing is, it's not just one little thing that wrong about it, it's quite a lot of little things.

Completely agree. On the face of it the issue with the holograms is really trivial. But it's a very obvious indicator of how little continuity means to the writers. Sure stuff has been retconned before in earlier series but it usually happens as the timeline advances.This is another problem arising from setting Discovery as a prequel. What did the holograms accomplish that a viewscreen couldn't? It felt like the writers thought it would look cool but gave zero thought to how this tech actually fits or rather doesn't fit in the timeline.

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 11:17am

Goodshape wrote: »

Such as what exactly?

Because it's not technology. Or the appearance of alien races. Or the capabilities of alien races. Or the appearance or capabilities of starships. Or the function of Starfleet.

Is it the bright top-down lights? The coloured jumpers?

I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

And I think that's just the first 20 minutes. What an awful dreadful film. A pox on the good name of consistent never-changing Star Trek.

Or, maybe those things don't really matter and it's actually the best Trek film in the series.

The holo-communications were a little jarring in that it's definitely something we haven't seen before (in this era of Trek anyway) but I appreciated that they were drawing that line in the sand with regards to updating technology. We have TuPac and Elvis performing concerts in 2017. I think holo-coms in 200 years isn't a huge stretch.

Although I do hope we get to see the other side of those experiences. What is the admiral seeing when he's talking to Georgiou and Burnham? Is he in a holodeck kind of thing, or have their images "projected" into his eyes? Hope they have a good explanation for it.

lol but yeah

Like i said, the theme doesn't change and that's good. That's trek to everyone. Nobody cares about minor aesthetic changes, (unless there's a billion of them...) it's the major ones that trip everyone up, and without explanation they're even worse.
It's like an actual FcukYou to every other ST show, "hey we're doing it this way now because it's more popular and fcuk the timeline too, and while i'm at it, fcuk the lore and the races and how they look and you too, especially you, for liking trek!"

Thanks JJ Abrams.

Do you not think that if done within the not-so constraining parameters of the old shows that this (being set prior to kirk's command of the enterprise) would have worked just as well?

PhiloCypher · 27-09-2017 11:28am

degrassinoel wrote: »

maybe we will be using it in a few years, but the point was that it's lagfree across a massive distance and uses a massive amount of data to send/receive (live datastream with no lag across millions/billions of miles)

Maybe, idk, the subspace relays of the 23rd century are better then our 21st century networks and don't suffer as much from lag, even over huge distances ?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Why has nobody ever used it before the dominion war in DS9?

Did you expend as much thought on why they never used it again after that ONE episode ? Did that inconsistency ruin the show for you ?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Fair enough if you can forgive messups like that - i think personally it's part of a larger problem with the show, that the lore of the original, tng, ds9, voyager, enterprise will all be shat on from on high and it will eventually **** all over something you find fundamentally awesome about star trek.

heh, maybe in the final episode it'll all just be a dream.

"A part of a larger problem with the show " we're 2 episodes in mate , you'd swear we were a season in and you had anything like a big enough sample size to make these assumptions. As things stand, 2 episodes in, you're coming across a tiny bit shrill. Let's just see how the season pans out .

_Kaiser_ · 27-09-2017 11:36am

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.

This.. Spot on IMO. This (like the JJ movies) is supposed to appeal to the "casual" fan, who's more interested in fancy effects, "edgy" characters, and 'splosions than actual content.

.. and there's nothing with that either - except that it's supposedly in the same timeline as the 4 series and TOS/TNG movies when it just clearly (visually and tonally) doesn't fit.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So far at least, it's a generic but yes very well-made/lots of money spent Sci-Fi show "based on" Trek for names/general outline.. but that's where the similarity ends.

Of course, I seem to remember reading/watching a video somewhere which suggested that later episodes were being reworked/reshot so maybe these issues will be fixed as they go on.

The bigger issue here though is the reliance on CBS All Access as a distribution method. What happens if enough Americans won't cough up for a season's worth? Can Netflix's rest of world distribution (and the money they paid) sustain this show long term? Will they want to?

_Kaiser_ · 27-09-2017 11:39am

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

pixelburp · 27-09-2017 11:41am

Goodshape wrote: »

[...]
I watched Wrath of Khan last night and holy hell those inconsistencies were stark. Did they just forget TMP even existed? Seti Alpha 6 exploded 10 years ago and the scientific survey team didn't even notice it was missing??? Captain Terrell and his first office beam down alone to an unknown dangerous planet? How did Checkov and Khan recognise each other? Where did Khan get that movie era Starfleet insignia? Why does his "crew" look nothing like they did in Space Seed?

I think it ultimately comes down to: is the show any good? Yes? Then it's canon. If not, let's pretend it never happened and maintain that illusion that Star Trek has no flaws in its continuity.

No sir.

So despite the reality that the Motion Picture was technically a purer vision of Rodenberry's vision for Trek - eventually manifest in the equally dramatically inert first seasons of TNG - the fact the actual film was a bloated exercise in tedium made it easier to simply pretend all those bizarre onsies never happened.

Wrath of Khan was a submarine thriller in space, and as you say took a lot of liberties with the mythology, yet the small point that it was a demonstrably good film helped sooth the wrinkled brows of canon junkies. Even the suddenly different uniforms were accepted because, well, they looked good.

Hell, by 1980s standards, Wrath of Khan was an explosive action-adventure film that placed set-pieces & excitement over tedious naval gazing. Hey what does that sound like?

pixelburp · 27-09-2017 11:43am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

That ball bounces both ways, 'cos offence is easy to come by when there are snide insinuations of sanctimony or smugness over people that enjoyed the more overtly visceral moments.

degrassinoel · 27-09-2017 11:43am

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Did you expend as much thought on why they never used it again after that ONE episode ? Did that inconsistency ruin the show for you ?

"A part of a larger problem with the show " we're 2 episodes in mate , you'd swear we were a season in and you had anything like a big enough sample size to make these assumptions. As things stand, 2 episodes in, you're coming across a tiny bit shrill. Let's just see how the season pans out .

it was used in more than one episode of DS9 - i've seen you make this same comment to someone else too, and it's false. There were a good few occasions were it was used in DS9.

I'm not not your buddy, guy, i'm not your friend, buddy, i'm not your guy, friend.

Yeah, well, ye know.. discussion forums bro.

Goodshape · 27-09-2017 11:58am

degrassinoel wrote: »

Do you not think that if done within the not-so constraining parameters of the old shows that this (being set prior to kirk's command of the enterprise) would have worked just as well?

Well, I'd have a watched it – but then I watch and love the Star Trek Continues fan series, a few podcasts, lots of good fan-service stuff. I wouldn't expect a wide audience to be interested though, and I'm at least realistic in my expectations when it comes to big studios throwing really big wads of cash at the thing.

And ultimately I just think you're missing the woods for the trees on this one. None of what you're seemingly so upset about stands in the way of a telling a good story in the Star Trek universe – and for me, this was very much a Star Trek universe. It felt like Trek. It looked like Trek. It sounded like Trek.

It was just as unmistakably Star Trek as The Motion Picture, or Wrath of Khan, or TNG's Encounter at Farpoint – despite this and those each looking considerably different to each other on a surface level.

And people talking about how close Discovery looked to Star Trek '09... go watch Wrath of Khan again. I think they took just as many queues from that as they did from JJ.

PhiloCypher · 27-09-2017 12:01pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

One more point I'll add folks... it's OK for us not to agree on this y'know. Some posters seem to be getting very offended that others aren't as blown away by this latest effort as they are.

Ah that old chestnut. That somehow if you disagree and decide to debate a point on a forum designed for such discussions, that you are somehow a sensitive snowflake . But the person triggered by what amounts to very little ie. Holograms and are making sweeping statements off the back of it are not, by any means, being precious about their Star Trek .

Zillah · 27-09-2017 12:41pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Hell, by 1980s standards, Wrath of Khan was an explosive action-adventure film that placed set-pieces & excitement over tedious naval gazing. Hey what does that sound like?

But...Wrath of Khan was well written and had fantastic pacing to guide its action along. Discovery has none of that. Discovery also has plenty of navel-gazing, with the cliched flashbacks to the Vulcan academy and all the pointless scenes with Sarek.

It's like we watched different shows. Make your show all about space battles if you want, make it all about the characters' backstories, make it about exploration - whatever, but for the love of God make it make sense. Make people behave like they're real people rather than characters who exist purely to create exciting scenes with little connecting them.

I just remembered another horrible moment: when they were taking damage the Captain suddenly looked dramatically upset when she heard the brig level had taken damage. I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

_Kaiser_ · 27-09-2017 12:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That ball bounces both ways, 'cos offence is easy to come by when there are snide insinuations of sanctimony or smugness over people that enjoyed the more overtly visceral moments.

Hey I like fancy effects and 'splosions too.. but on their own they're not enough for me. I've long since passed the point of being impressed by expensive CGI.

Agree or not, I personally view this series (what we've seen of it so far - and I include the "coming this season" trailer in that), as being more concerned with style over substance, and "flawed" people and conflicts because it's "realistic"

That's all good and I liked BSG too.. but Trek to me is supposed to be optimistic, positive and make you think as well as entertain. So far - in my view anyway - DSC does none of this.. it's setup lots of conflict (with the Klingons, between the crew) and sure it looks very impressive.. but I don't see the "heart of Trek", and if I want BSG, I'll watch BSG.

In my view, as I've said. DSC is JJ Trek the series - it might be based on Trek, but that's as far as it goes.

Compare it to SGU - it too was a radical departure from what came before in SG1 and SGA. Many fans hated it as it was a completely different tone to those earlier shows. Now personally I thought it was getting very good by the end.. but the similarity to SG1/SGA was really only in terms of names/events for the most part.

But hey, maybe when they bed in a bit more it'll get better in those other respects. Despite everything I've said, it would be great if that happened .

Bacchus · 27-09-2017 12:45pm

Watched the second episode last night. Didn't enjoy it as much... mostly due to the Klingon scenes. Whether it's the stunted way in which they talk, or the whole idea of uniting 24 houses against a common enemy. I do kinda like the (not so subtle) parallels to various anti-islam, anti-liberalism movements around the world. That right there is Star Trek... taking on big societal topics of the time and putting it in the context of aliens in space. This episode just didn't click much with me. The bit of space action was fun but there were no real stakes. What exactly was the plan to capture the head Klingon guy? They achieved nothing beaming over to his ship... killed a few randoms, only stunned yer man, captain died... ? ... profit?

27-09-2017 12:47pm

Whatever about people's opinions, I do hope it won't keep going this confrontational for the rest of the series. It'll put pretty much anyone else off engaging.

Perhaps we should do something similar to GoT and have two threads - people who want to discuss the lore/who are trekkies, and people who just want to discuss the show?

Goodshape · 27-09-2017 12:47pm

Zillah wrote: »

I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

She's had an almost maternal relationship with the character, also her first officer, for the past seven years.

Maybe we did watch different shows.

_Kaiser_ · 27-09-2017 12:47pm

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Ah that old chestnut. That somehow if you disagree and decide to debate a point on a forum designed for such discussions, that you are somehow a sensitive snowflake . But the person triggered by what amounts to very little ie. Holograms and are making sweeping statements off the back of it are not, by any means, being precious about their Star Trek .

It's ironic that you're talking about snowflakes and triggered and other such nonsense when you're accusing posters of being shrill and such because they don't agree with you.

You enjoyed what you saw.. great! Others are perhaps not decided or not impressed so far... that's OK too.

Ultimately, it's JUST a TV show

Bacchus · 27-09-2017 12:50pm

Zillah wrote: »

I just remembered another horrible moment: when they were taking damage the Captain suddenly looked dramatically upset when she heard the brig level had taken damage. I imagined her saying "But that's where the main character is!" She's responsible for the whole crew, they're dying around her, but the traitorous second-in-command gets undue concern for no reason other than being the main character in the TV show.

In fairness, it wasn't just any crewmember in the brig. It was her friend and protegee. Not only that, but she was right about the Klingon threat all along so there might have been a moment of "I should have listened to her".

That said, the mini-mutiny was ridiculous and Michael deserved the brig (and subsequent lifetime imprisonment... which I feel will be somehow undone by the end of the next episode).

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

Comments

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