nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Discovery 3x04 - 'Forgot Me Not' Spoilers Within

corkie

Star Trek Discovery Season 3 Episode 4 - 'Forgot Me Not'.

Sorry AMKC, just posting before duplicates start to appear.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

breezy1985

GreeBo wrote: »

It really doesnt matter who is in charge or running the ship or indeed Starfleet, nothing happens without a black female, so everything is ok in the world.

Wow never heard that insightful comment on a Discovery thread. Well done sir let's all discuss

~Rebel~

seamus wrote: »

And I'm sure others felt the same at times, without allowing it to spoil the entire show for them. Burnham is a pain in the hole, but the growth of the rest of the cast is more than making up for that IMHO.

This I suppose is still where I struggle... of the crew, Saru is still the only character I actively like, and the only one that feels well explored. Stamets has his moments too. I don’t necessarily dislike the others... I mostly just don’t really anything them..

I loved Lorca, and I liked Book for the brief period he was around... both seemed much more fleshed out in much less time. I guess they burned bright as focal points while they were in episodes.

Hopefully we start getting some Airiam-esque episodes where we do a deep dive into a character and just set the priority on learning who they are.

breezy1985

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This I suppose is still where I struggle... of the crew, Saru is still the only character I actively like, and the only one that feels well explored. Stamets has his moments too. I don’t necessarily dislike the others... I mostly just don’t really anything them..

I loved Lorca, and I liked Book for the brief period he was around... both seemed much more fleshed out in much less time. I guess they burned bright as focal points while they were in episodes.

Hopefully we start getting some Airiam-esque episodes where we do a deep dive into a character and just set the priority on learning who they are.

I really like Detmer. Hope we get an episode all about her relaxing on Riza

But ya Saru, Stamets, Lorca pre BS reveal were easily the stand outs. Culber and the grumpy engineer are good when used as side characters for Stamets but too one dimensional on their own

~Rebel~

breezy1985 wrote: »

I really like Detmer. Hope we get an episode all about her relaxing on Riza

But ya Saru, Stamets, Lorca pre BS reveal were easily the stand outs. Culber and the grumpy engineer are good when used as side characters for Stamets but too one dimensional on their own

I’ve always been ready to like Detmer, same as i was with Airiam, as they’re both inherently interesting. There’s clearly an intriguing history to dive into. I find it a bit mad that we’re only beginning to learn about Detmer this far in, and still a bit clunkily, but there’s a ray of hope there.

Also, it’s mad how often the writers use “person stares into space, oblivious of the world around them, for bloody ages”, as a character thing to show something is wrong. First Airiam, then Detmer, then Giorgiu.

Banana Republic 1

breezy1985 wrote: »

How dare you belittle Vic

I did like the mirror universe one where Vic took several disrupter blasts to the chest, his best work :cool:

mikhail

breezy1985 wrote: »

I really like Detmer.

Can I ask why? She was a nothing character before the scene at the dinner a couple of episodes ago (this episode, the one this thread is about). I can't remember anything about her beyond the signature prosthetic and that she's helmsman. There's nothing to like or dislike, really. What am I missing?

breezy1985

mikhail wrote: »

Can I ask why? She was a nothing character before the scene at the dinner a couple of episodes ago (this episode, the one this thread is about). I can't remember anything about her beyond the signature prosthetic and that she's helmsman. There's nothing to like or dislike, really. What am I missing?

I just think shes really hot. Cant do emojis on phone boards to make that more obvious sorry

mikhail

breezy1985 wrote: »

I just think shes really hot. Cant do emojis on phone boards to make that more obvious sorry

Thanks for the straight answer.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, that's just not cool

?

Whats "not cool" about it?

GreeBo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wow never heard that insightful comment on a Discovery thread. Well done sir let's all discuss

Apologies, I didn't realise that only brand new content was allowed :rolleyes:

breezy1985

GreeBo wrote: »

Apologies, I didn't realise that only brand new content was allowed :rolleyes:

Every thread about Discovery some genius pops his head up with a statement like that. Its like the motorists who think they are the first legend to ever go on the cycling forum harping on about helmets. It gets boring after a while

AMKC

GreeBo wrote: »

?

Whats "not cool" about it?

Well for one it sounds racist and sexist. Not sure if the poster meant it that way or not or if the are racist but that's how it sounds to me.

Stark

AMKC wrote: »

Well for one it sounds racist and sexist. Not sure if the poster meant it that way or not or if the are racist but that's how it sounds to me.

Going by the poster's history in other forums, that's exactly how it was meant.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

?

Whats "not cool" about it?

Its the implication that Michael only got the role because she was Black and Female, rather than the role was written and she was the most suitable actor to play the character after auditions. this might be something that you could apply to a modern or classical drama where there are groups in society that have a predominant race or gender, and that is reasonable as it takes you out of the moment if you have Mick Wallace playing Oodgeroo Noonuccal. It would take you out of the moment somewhat. Whereas to imply that you can say the same thing about a science fiction show set in the future, with a federation of many alien species, many more not in that federation, to imply that there is some influence of race or gender in a human characters role is stupid (unless its part of the story), particularly in Trek where its made very clear we are supposedly past all that.

GreeBo

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't think there will be a Lower Decks in 30 yrs about Discovery

I think there will be and it will consist of them all bitching about Burnham taking over everything.

GreeBo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Every thread about Discovery some genius pops his head up with a statement like that. Its like the motorists who think they are the first legend to ever go on the cycling forum harping on about helmets. It gets boring after a while

Gotcha, so now one is allowed mention yet another episode where its the Burnham & Friends show, even though it happens every week?

I'll try to up my posting to your high standards.

breezy1985 wrote: »

I just think shes really hot. Cant do emojis on phone boards to make that more obvious sorry

GreeBo

AMKC wrote: »

Well for one it sounds racist and sexist. Not sure if the poster meant it that way or not or if the are racist but that's how it sounds to me.

Its not at all that way, in fact its the opposite.
My point was that it seems like Discovery writers/directors decided that having the main character be a minority and having her as the main (only!) protagonist absolves them from having to develop anyone else.

Stark wrote: »

Going by the poster's history in other forums, that's exactly how it was meant.

Excuse me?!

CramCycle wrote: »

Its the implication that Michael only got the role because she was Black and Female, rather than the role was written and she was the most suitable actor to play the character after auditions. this might be something that you could apply to a modern or classical drama where there are groups in society that have a predominant race or gender, and that is reasonable as it takes you out of the moment if you have Mick Wallace playing Oodgeroo Noonuccal. It would take you out of the moment somewhat. Whereas to imply that you can say the same thing about a science fiction show set in the future, with a federation of many alien species, many more not in that federation, to imply that there is some influence of race or gender in a human characters role is stupid (unless its part of the story), particularly in Trek where its made very clear we are supposedly past all that.

I wasn't talking about the actress personally at all, my point was directed at the writers/producers and the world they are building.
We are supposedly "past all that" yet the StarFleet/Federation characters are basically human and white.

Then we sprinkle in a gay black man, a lead black woman and most recently some trans/gender neutral characters as if to show how diverse we are. Humans should make up a tiny, tiny percentage of Starfleet/Federation being that there is 1 earth and 100+ other planets in the federation, black humans should be smaller % again.
Hell even Burnham's new friend is black, like what are the chances! :rolleyes:
Then add in the fact that we cant have a scene without Burnham, its just too much, to unrealistic.

In this regard Star Wars is much more accurate.

At least they have a significant % of women, which is accurate (at least for Earth)

GreeBo

pah wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they wanted to vest a black female from the start, no?

Correct.

"The decision to cast a nonwhite woman in the lead role was inspired by Mae Jamison (the first black female astronaut), as well as Nichelle Nichols, the only recurring black and female cast member from the initial Star Trek series."

Rawr

Bloody hell....this whole argument about gender and race is bloody tiresome, both in criticism of the show and also in hollow celebration of the same in the Entertainment Press.

I couldn't care less about the gender, orientation, race, religion, nationality or zodiac sign of any given actor or character in any given scifi show. My only concern ever is: Are they any good?

They wanted to have black woman as their lead in the new Star Trek? That's nice, don't care as long as the character is good and well acted. Same goes for any sci-fi property where the Entertainment Press will trip over their own tongues in their excited scramble to celebrate a diverse casting choice. Don't care as long as this person is any good.

Sticking with recent Star Trek, I think we have a very good contrast between 2 characters who fit onto the same demographic checklist.
On one hand we have Michael Burnham, and on the other Beckett Mariner.
Discovery's Michael is someone I've ranted about ad-nausium. I don't think she is a good character and having Discovery focus on her acts as a mill-stone around the neck of what might have otherwise been a decent Trek show. She is a poorly developed and realized character.

Lower Deck's Mariner on the other hand turned out to actually be quite a good character. She started off annoying, but then it appears that this was part of a season-long character development arc that actually worked. She is a well developed and realized character. In both cases, the race and gender of these characters never really played into my enjoyment of the show (or lack thereof). It was all down to character development.

So...if CBS turn around in a few years and declare with great fan-fare that the next Captain of the Enterprise will be a gender-fluid pan-sexual person belonging to various ethnic backgrounds....I won't care. All I want is *good* Trek. The rest is just noise for the Entertainment Press.

GreeBo

^ 100% agree and that was they point I was (clearly) making badly.
They have gone into overdrive on the "look how inclusive and woke we are" and have left character and plot development on the back burner.

How can we be halfway through the third season without anyone else getting some proper "main character" episodes in?
Other than the "Shorts" we dont ever get to learn much about anyone other than how lucky they are to have Burnham around.

It doesnt matter that she is not the Captain, she is the main char, what matters is that they have to have her front an centre of everything.
We had lots of TOS based on Troi or Ryker or even bloody Wesley, thats how you build a world, there is no Discovery world yet, its all through the eyes of Burnham so we dont care about anyone else, why would we when we dont know them!

Banana Republic 1

Im going to post this again a third time.

I think this whole controversy is as a direct result of very poor screenwriting. All the characters are cliques and those with more than one dimension have characteristics crowbarred in. Either the writers are incapable of being
subtle or they are under the impression the audience needs to be spoon fed.

If they are deliberately being woke then how they've portrayed characters like Stamets or Georgiu does nothing for the cause, if there is such a thing. Personally I thought Pike was constantly undermined and that is happening again with the admiral fella. Some could say there is an agenda in this show because it is a woman who is doing the undermining mostly but I think its just bad screenwriters who have only seen trailers of the Star Trek.

Yes there banging the inclusivity drum very badly as Ive said but things change TNG had a whole planet that could be called whore island, riza, this would not happen nowadays.

GreeBo

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Yes there banging the inclusivity drum very badly as Ive said but things change TNG had a whole planet that could be called whore island, riza, this would not happen nowadays.

There should be no reason it couldn't though, to deny the Risian's their culture because "you" dont like it is just as bad if not worse imo.

GreeBo

seamus wrote: »

And I'm sure others felt the same at times, without allowing it to spoil the entire show for them. Burnham is a pain in the hole, but the growth of the rest of the cast is more than making up for that IMHO.

I agree, however the main problem with Discovery is that if you dont like Burnham, you cant like the rest of the show as she is the show.

3 seasons in and other than Saru, what do we know about the rest of supporting cast?
Mudd is probably one of the more rounded characters.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

^ 100% agree and that was they point I was (clearly) making badly.
They have gone into overdrive on the "look how inclusive and woke we are" and have left character and plot development on the back burner.

I don't think that is an issue though, Trek has always had a diverse range of human characters. They haven't went into overdrive on anything in that regard, the human component of the crew are representative of what you might get if you picked some humans to do something, saying that its an attempt to over promote diversity is just BS, in regards issues with the show as the race, gender or preference of any human character has not affected the story line at all. I cannot pick out a member of the main crew where you could not easily change any of these factors and it not affect the show, it might affect some people watching it but that's about it. Somewhat lacking in the alien side of things as most of them are fairly humanoid as well although TNG did try to explain that away.

How can we be halfway through the third season without anyone else getting some proper "main character" episodes in?
Other than the "Shorts" we dont ever get to learn much about anyone other than how lucky they are to have Burnham around.

Again, that's nothing to do with her being Black or Female, that's a writers issue, a directors issue but it is neither a race nor gender issue.

It doesnt matter that she is not the Captain, she is the main char, what matters is that they have to have her front an centre of everything.
We had lots of TOS based on Troi or Ryker or even bloody Wesley, thats how you build a world, there is no Discovery world yet, its all through the eyes of Burnham so we dont care about anyone else, why would we when we dont know them!

And this is the main issue with the show, everything else you said is rubbish and sounds like someone trying to pick holes and blame race or gender when in fact they have nothing to do with the issues in the show. Your intention or not, that's what your first posts come across as.

breezy1985

GreeBo wrote: »

There should be no reason it couldn't though, to deny the Risian's their culture because "you" dont like it is just as bad if not worse imo.

I agree. I don't ever remember any mention of money or goods handed over on Riza. Russian culture is polygamous and Risians love sex no mention of them being whores

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't think that is an issue though, Trek has always had a diverse range of human characters. They haven't went into overdrive on anything in that regard, the human component of the crew are representative of what you might get if you picked some humans to do something, saying that its an attempt to over promote diversity is just BS, in regards issues with the show as the race, gender or preference of any human character has not affected the story line at all.

Why is it a bunch of humans picked to do something from a federation where humans make up < 1%?

Discovery has I think 5 black "main" characters out of how many, 12? Purely from the numbers that doesnt seem correct.
And would you really expect to have a gay black man in a group of ~characters, nevermind 2 gay characters.
What about some mixed genders?

Based on the numbers it seems *very* convenient, really most of the human crew should be Indian or Chinese.

I cannot pick out a member of the main crew where you could not easily change any of these factors and it not affect the show, it might affect some people watching it but that's about it. Somewhat lacking in the alien side of things as most of them are fairly humanoid as well although TNG did try to explain that away.

You seem determined to believe that I am talking about the actors, I am not, I am talking about the characters.

Again, that's nothing to do with her being Black or Female, that's a writers issue, a directors issue but it is neither a race nor gender issue.

And yet again I am not talking about the actors, I am talking about the characters that the showrunners created.
If you take the time to actually read what I am typing and not what you are thinking about me you will see that I have stated that its an issue with the show runner sand not the actors.

And this is the main issue with the show, everything else you said is rubbish and sounds like someone trying to pick holes and blame race or gender when in fact they have nothing to do with the issues in the show. Your intention or not, that's what your first posts come across as.

And this is the main reason why I blocked you in the past as a poster before and shall now do so again. You are determined to pick something up the worst possible way and frankly its a pain in the arse to deal with, thats before you start calling someone elses opinion "rubbish" :rolleyes:
You are repeatedly saying and implying that I am being racist/sexist in my comments despite, on multiple occasions, me saying that I am blaming the writers and NOT, in any way the actors themselves.

I am saying that the showrunners have deliberately picked actors/characters of specific race, sex, gender & sexual persuasion in a vain attempt to show diversity rather than build solid, well rounded characters and then pick the best actor for the job.

Sure they bloody started with the idea of a black female lead and then filled in the story afterwards!

breezy1985

They didn't start with the idea of a black female. They wrote the character as a man hence Michael but when they decided to go for a woman kept the name as a joke. Also they had to have 2 gay characters because it's very hard to have a gay guy and his straight boyfriend.

And they could have picked a mixed cast and still have well written characters but you seem to think one stopped the other

Stark

It was Bryan Fuller who gave Michael Burnham a man's name. It's like his trademark calling card thing. He's done similar in other shows.

breezy1985

Stark wrote: »

It was Bryan Fuller who gave Michael Burnham a man's name. It's like his trademark calling card thing. He's done similar in other shows.

Your right. Don't know where I heard that other story but I assumed it was true till now

pixelburp

Like a show. Don't like it, but patronising those who do with "pity" for "swallowing" the show's noted flaws doesn't contribute anything except make the person look like an a$$ TBH. Nobody wants or is looking for anyone else's pity. It's entirely possible to like something despite its cons. What a hot mess this forum has become. The tedious, boring circular shíte about what's woke or not woke.