Discovery 2x01 – "Brother" [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

Goodshape · 21-01-2019 12:06pm

GSPfan wrote: »

I think you guys just have to accept that the technology and visual aspect of Star Trek has been rebooted but they are leaving the characters and timeline events in tact.

I'm fine with that in principle. I just thought the execution of it in this episode leaned far too often on what might look "cool" with no regard to what might make sense in the world they've created.

And I wish the camera would settle down for a while and let us get a sense of place. Too many "dutch angles" and constant camera motion. Is it just me, or has it been really difficult to get a sense of what the Discovery actually looks and feels like to live and work in?

Stuff just appears when and where it's needed.

Catch an asteroid? Oh yeah, we have this little disk that'll magic-expand into exactly what we need!

Encoded message in an audio log? Oh yeah, we can grab light from a panel one "piece" at a time and magic a hologram into the room while the look-at-this-cool-vfx music plays and the camera twirls in wonder. Sure a button would just be dull looking.

Need to fly through a dense asteroid field? Oh yeah, we have these glass pod things that'll spin out of some crazy twirly light tubes at breakneck speed because... looks cool?

Stranded on an exploding asteroid with a gammy leg and no hop... oh nevermind! Here's superman Pike to save you! How did he get here? "IT'S SCI-FI!!!"

For comparison, Battlestar Galactica felt like a real place – and that was 15 years ago. Discovery, so far, feels like a special effect. I appreciate that they're expanding on and fleshing out the characters now. Wish they'd do the same for the ship.

Hope it doesn't continue to bother me so much going forward because there's a lot to love here otherwise.

pixelburp · 21-01-2019 12:16pm

James Frain is excellent as Sarek; he's definitely not trying to copy Mark Lenard's performance, who I thought brought a colder, more patriarchal tone to the performance, while Frain instead brings an approach that hints towards the obvious affection & emotion he feels for his wife and (foster) daughter. Definitely more of a mentor figure.

It's actually quite a unique take with Vulcans and one never quite explored enough: we know how intentionally repressed they are, and more often than not that has amounted to anger, frustration, passion bubbling up to the surface. All very Melodramatic. But clearly the opposite would be true as well, where Vulcans have to repress their empathy, compassion and love for other individuals, in turn demanding a different kind of acting. Frain's Sarek sometimes looked like someone who could, just for a moment, smile or hug his daughter, yet knew he can never do.

Sad Professor · 21-01-2019 2:05pm

I actually dislike Frain's Sarek. I find he lacks poise and presence and is too emotional. I agree that Vulcans outside of Nimoy/Lenard tend to lean too much toward being wooden, but I think Frain's Sarek goes too far the other direction, albeit one consistent with the Vulcans of the JJ movies.

Part of my problem with him might just be that nearly all of his scenes are with Burnham. Maybe Frain is trying to compensate for how wooden and boring she is.

pixelburp · 21-01-2019 3:34pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I actually dislike Frain's Sarek. I find he lacks poise and presence and is too emotional. I agree that Vulcans outside of Nimoy/Lenard tend to lean too much toward being wooden, but I think Frain's Sarek goes too far the other direction, albeit one consistent with the Vulcans of the JJ movies.

Part of my problem with him might just be that nearly all of his scenes are with Burnham. Maybe Frain is trying to compensate for how wooden and boring she is.

Only in Trek would the discussion tend towards degrees of emotion

I dunno, I think Frain nails the balance between stoicism and the obvious empathy under the surface. As I said, there have been plenty of Vulcans (well, actors) who played the species with barely concealed contempt, it's intriguing to see the balance of that.

TheIrishGrover · 21-01-2019 4:11pm

I think Frain's version of Sarek would probably be considered... more accurate than Lenard's interpretation. (Y'know, for a Sci-Fi series and a fictional species

)

I loved Lenard (Especially in TNG) but wouldn't it be right to consider Sarek more emotional than your regular Vulcan. He has a human wife, and foster daughter, was probably chosen as Vulcan's liaison with Earth based on his overly emotional (for a Vulcan) leanings.

It seems that he's considered a bit of an odd-ball by Vulcan standards and also, as has been said, most of his scenes are with Burnham where his guard is probably a little lower than they would normally be.

Plus, could have been worse......

Awww. Can't skip to 1 min 28 secs in.....

pixelburp · 21-01-2019 4:20pm

I may be rusty on TOS, but IIRC Sarek being Spock's father was a twist, and their relationship pretty much non-existent, right? If so, for all Discovery's continuity 'faults', I liked that scene between Burnham & Sarek where they bonded over a brother/son who has basically forsaken them both. Felt like emotional continuity with the Spock from TOS - though the real test will be when Spock actually turns up.

Inviere · 21-01-2019 4:35pm

Watched it last night, and was unpleasantly surprised. Wasn't my cup of tea at all at all. Felt like I was watching Attack of the Clones during the asteroid landing scene. I hated the CG effects, didn't at all feel like I was watching Trek. The humour was obvious and forced. And this whole Spock/Burnham thing seems a bit convoluted, but it remains to be seen how it turns out.

I still like Burnham, Tilly, Stamets, and Saru. Pike seems ok, though I thought the mystique around Lorca was better. But after a wait this long, I was hoping for something better. Perhaps like S1, S2 will improve with time...it is a soft-reboot after all.

Goodshape · 21-01-2019 4:38pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I may be rusty on TOS, but IIRC Sarek being Spock's father was a twist, and their relationship pretty much non-existent, right? If so, for all Discovery's continuity 'faults', I liked that scene between Burnham & Sarek where they bonded over a brother/son who has basically forsaken them both. Felt like emotional continuity with the Spock from TOS - though the real test will be when Spock actually turns up.

This was addressed on the Reddit "Canon References" thread for this episode (those threads are usually interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/ah7s93/canon_references_s02e01_spoilers/)

[in Disco S02E01] Sarek discusses his estrangement with Spock. "Journey to Babel" (2267) establishes Spock had not been home in four years (about five years after this episode) and had not spoken to Sarek "as father and son" in eighteen (nine years before this episode). Presumably the two men will not meet in any significant way as the season progresses.

Sad Professor · 21-01-2019 7:48pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I loved Lenard (Especially in TNG) but wouldn't it be right to consider Sarek more emotional than your regular Vulcan. He has a human wife, and foster daughter, was probably chosen as Vulcan's liaison with Earth based on his overly emotional (for a Vulcan) leanings.

It seems that he's considered a bit of an odd-ball by Vulcan standards [...]

A similar point often occurred to me re: the differences between Nimoy's and Quinto's Spock. That maybe the fact that Spock was half-human meant he should have being more prone to emotion than the way Nimoy played him. However, it could also be argued that the Vulcans were suppressing far greater emotion than humans and that being half-human actually gave Spock an advantage in controlling his emotions.

Part of this issue is probably due to the fact that the Vulcans in TOS were initially meant to have no emotions at all except in the distant past. The idea of them still suppressing very intense emotions was developed gradually over the course of the series and movies. Had Nimoy known everything about Spock from the beginning he might have played the character differently.

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 21-01-2019 9:00pm

I'll weigh in on the discussion, since I did watch the episode, but fair warning I am one of those who think Discovery is Star Trek in name only, and when you strip that away it's any generic CGI heavy Sci-Fi series, with some nods here and there.

I gave up on the first season halfway through. I had enjoyed the first 3 episodes, and after that it went downhill fast for me, but was told to go back and finish since it "got better" - which yeah, I suppose it did, marginally, but since the point at which I had dropped off was so underwhelming, that's not saying a lot. The second half of Season 1 had some solid moments, and ultimately I did enjoy the whole Lorca arc, but it still felt like a bit of a chore to watch, so I was happy to leave it there and not come back to watching Season 2 - I don't enjoy hate watching something, but I do like to give things a fair shot, and Season 1 was more miss than hit for me. However, Season 2 was marketed as a soft reboot, so I had no reason not to at least give it a go, hoping it would offer something more.

"Brother" was not a reassuring episode that Season 2 will be any better though. They've doubled down on making Michael Burnham one of the most insufferable characters on television and a complete Mary Sue if ever there was one (give me Wesley Crusher over her any day of the week). Why can't she just be a strong character with likable weaknesses, and not the absolute best at everything and always the one who solves all the problems and has all the answers like some unbearable God, it just makes her unwatchable and I had hoped she'd take a bit more of a backseat this season and allow some of the other characters a chance to shine through. Of those other characters though, Saru, Stamets, and Tilly seem to have lost any of the charm they had in the first season and were overshadowed by the recurring Bridge Crew who I actually would like to learn more about - thank Pike (I'll get back to him in a minute) for actually doing a roll call, but I fear that's the most development they're going to get. I didn't entirely dislike Jet Reno's introduction, but not enough to make me invested in the character.

Thankfully there's no Ash Tyler or Voq in sight, but I'm guessing he'll show up again at some point since Shazad Latif is still attached to the show, and a massive "ugh" to that. Dr. Culber will be back too in some way or another, and that's a positive because Wilson Cruz is a very likable actor and Culber was one of the best Season 1 characters, but I'm guessing we won't be getting the same Culber, so possibly not so great. James Frain's Sarek bugs me and I'm not sure if it's the interpretation of the character or James Frain himself as an actor, but I'd rather see much much less of Sarek either way. I'm not looking forward to this iteration of Spock either - I'd prefer if he didn't show up at all and that they'd just leave the character be, or if he had to appear be more of a fleeting cameo, but looks like they intend to make him a big part of the series given the weight of the mystery attached.

Before I talk about Pike, the "humour" they injected in to this episode was poorly delivered, poorly placed, and since it was all essentially cut and copied from season 1 of The Orville (great show) doesn't bode well going forward. The Red Angel or whatever the f**k it is arc doesn't give me any promise or reassurance of something good either.

The introduction of Pike might be the one saving grace. If you're going to use a character from Star Trek's past who plays an important role in the lore, Pike is the perfect choice, since he only appeared in one episode of TOS so there's not a huge attachment to the character, but he still has such a big impact. Anson Mount seems perfect for the part, injects a bit of life into the show, and shows a lot of promise, but if the majority of scenes are going to be him and Burnham, she'll suck the life out of the character fairly lively - the scene where she's insubordinate in front of the entire Bridge Crew and his acceptance of that, as well as him fawning over how great a pilot she is or whatever it was he said before and after smug science officer was killed, were his least likable moments in this episode.

I may or may not watch more if word that it becomes more of Trek show (or even just a good Sci-Fi show with likable characters) this season gets back to me, but there's a good chance this is the end of the road for me and Discovery, after the Season 2 premiere...

LLAP

Goodshape · 21-01-2019 9:15pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

A similar point often occurred to me re: the differences between Nimoy's and Quinto's Spock. That maybe the fact that Spock was half-human meant he should have being more prone to emotion than the way Nimoy played him.

I think though that Nimoy did play Spock as having emotions beneath the surface. If anything he just did it better than Quinto.

Nimoy was far more subtle, outside one or two instances like seeing Kirk again at the end of Amok Time, and he'd always deny it... but you could tell the man had feelings all the same.

Quinto just let it rip at times – with sly smirks, clear annoyance, or outright tantrums – and didn't do the subtleties nearly as well. Maybe excusable because he's a younger Spock though. I suspect Discovery's Spock will be similarly emotional, or even more so, judging by the trailers.

Part of this issue is probably due to the fact that the Vulcans in TOS were initially meant to have no emotions at all except in the distant past. The idea of them still suppressing very intense emotions was developed gradually over the course of the series and movies.

Yeah, I guess you're right there. Any emotions Spock might have had in TOS would be explained by his half-human side, rather than it being a characteristic of Vulcans. But I've always liked the idea of Vulcans mastering their emotions, rather than having none at all, so happy to see that explored more in Discovery.

Goodshape · 21-01-2019 9:33pm

Really not getting the hate for Michael Burnham, or seeing the "Mary Sue" thing.

I mean, she's a gifted Starfleet officer – and the star of the show! – but she's not perfect. Seem to remember something about a mutiny, getting her captain killed, starting a war? Not to mention her inability to actually be a normal, emotional, human being.

It's not comparable for instance to Star Wars' Luke or Rey, going from farm to near-enough Jedi over the course of a movie. Burnham was first officer of the Shenzhou before that was stripped (thanks to her "perfect" actions?). She's earned her way.

And people calling her wooden or lifeless.... yeah, maybe a bit, but that's kinda a plot point isn't it? She's as close to Vulcan as a human could get. It's a major part of who Michael Burnham is!

I do have a problem with this show getting characters out of scrapes by wizarding some technology or knowledge into existence at the last moment, but I've not noticed that it's exclusive to Burnham at all. Or if it is more her solving things than others – then again, she is the star of the show. It stands to reason.

Sad Professor · 21-01-2019 10:34pm

I think the issue with Burnham is not entirely down to the character/actress but also to who that character/actress has being matched up with. Her relationship with Ash Tyler last season was like watching paint dry.

I found her better with some of the other characters, but it's not exactly a big crew. I mean, the main reoccurring cast/crew members are Burnham, Saru, Stamets, and Tilly. 4 characters. That's it. Everyone else is either dead, a guest star, or barely has any lines.

AMKC · 22-01-2019 1:57pm

Well I finally seen this episode and I did not think they could do it but they did. They made it worse. I have tried to like Discovery I really have but I just don't. If it was just called Discovery maybe the things I do not like like the silly magic the Red Angel and the silly new spinning ships I might be ok with then but I am not. This is not Star Trek. I had no problem with some of the technology being more modern now even do its based before TOS as lets face it most of that we have and use everyday now anyway or have advanced beyond what they imagined in the 60s except for holodecks, transporters, Warp and phasers maybe.
I think the writers and producers must be watching to much ''Lost In Space'' as this is what Discovery is more like.
I did not like Pike either but I do like Tilly. Tilly and Saru are the only ones in the crew I do like.

I really think its such a pity that CBS did not go with the Star Trek idea that Seth Mcfarlane had as The Orville has been brilliant so far and is way more like Star Trek than this. I think his Star Trek could have been brilliant and would have done way better for them.

Sonics2k · 22-01-2019 4:45pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Really not getting the hate for Michael Burnham, or seeing the "Mary Sue" thing.

I mean, she's a gifted Starfleet officer – and the star of the show! – but she's not perfect. Seem to remember something about a mutiny, getting her captain killed, starting a war? Not to mention her inability to actually be a normal, emotional, human being.

It's not comparable for instance to Star Wars' Luke or Rey, going from farm to near-enough Jedi over the course of a movie. Burnham was first officer of the Shenzhou before that was stripped (thanks to her "perfect" actions?). She's earned her way.

And people calling her wooden or lifeless.... yeah, maybe a bit, but that's kinda a plot point isn't it? She's as close to Vulcan as a human could get. It's a major part of who Michael Burnham is!

I do have a problem with this show getting characters out of scrapes by wizarding some technology or knowledge into existence at the last moment, but I've not noticed that it's exclusive to Burnham at all. Or if it is more her solving things than others – then again, she is the star of the show. It stands to reason.

I actually quite like Burnham, but she's not a great character at all.

Even if we take your first example, she committed a mutiny on her instinct she was right. Shock horror, she was right.

Her flaws are just generic flaws. "He/she is a badass but they can't communicate with others so they can be closed off." That's poor writing 101.

For example, you could safely say Picard was the 'star' of TNG. But there were entire episodes just about other characters, Worfs battle with his Klingon heritage and warped ideas of their way of life. Data and the struggle to be more human. Rikers insatiable sexual appetite which got him in a lot of trouble.

Hell, even Wesley Crusher had more character building in season 1, and they quickly worked back on him as the episodes went on.

She's a Mary Sue in the context that everything she does, she's great at. She just happens to be a test pilot and took it to 9G's. She took on how many Klingon warriors single-handedly and won?

In TNG, Wesley was an incredibly smart kid, and while we all disliked his chirpy little face we took satisfaction knowing he was a weakling. He couldn't fight at all.

Also, who the hell is now captaining the Enterprise now that they've just shoe-horned Pike into the role of Captain of Discovery?

AtomicHorror · 22-01-2019 5:05pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Also, who the hell is now captaining the Enterprise now that they've just shoe-horned Pike into the role of Captain of Discovery?

Enterprise is laid up in dry dock for the foreseeable. Presumably the end of this season.

Goodshape · 22-01-2019 5:09pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

She's a Mary Sue in the context that everything she does, she's great at. She just happens to be a test pilot and took it to 9G's. She took on how many Klingon warriors single-handedly and won?

I promised myself I wouldn't get into this silly argument

But... how the hell does Kirk, Picard, Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Jason Bourne, Harry Potter, every Marvel hero ever, or basically any star of a show without tits get away this stuff without being labelled a "Mary Sue" or whatever?

When were any of those characters ever not perfect at everything they tried to do?

Okay, maybe Kirk in the 2009 film got a little flak for going from "oh wow, that's a spaceship!" to captain in ~3 years, but it was very bloody little in comparison. And in the interim he was acing the academy tests, banging all the babes, and looking cool as a cucumber doing it.

But Michael Burnham – the fully qualified first officer of a Starfleet ship – god help her if she shows any competence, right?

I'm not saying the writing or the character is perfect here. I'm just saying... **** sake, like. Give it a rest.

Also, who the hell is now captaining the Enterprise now that they've just shoe-horned Pike into the role of Captain of Discovery?

It's out of commission during repairs, I think. That's why Pike needed a new ship.

Sonics2k · 22-01-2019 5:30pm

Goodshape wrote: »

I promised myself I wouldn't get into this silly argument

But... how the hell does Kirk, Picard, Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Jason Bourne, Harry Potter, every Marvel hero ever, or basically any star of a show without tits get away this stuff without being labelled a "Mary Sue" or whatever?

When were any of those characters ever not perfect at everything they tried to do?

Okay, maybe Kirk in the 2009 film got a little flak for going from "oh wow, that's a spaceship!" to captain in ~3 years, but it was very bloody little in comparison. And in the interim he was acing the academy tests, banging all the babes, and looking cool as a cucumber doing it.

But Michael Burnham – the fully qualified first officer of a Starfleet ship – god help her if she shows any competence, right?

I'm not saying the writing or the character is perfect here. I'm just saying... **** sake, like. Give it a rest.

It's a fair thing to point out and I do agree with you, where do you draw the line exactly? And I won't give it a rest, I really really want Discovery to work out as the Star Trek my daughter will grow up watching, much like how TNG is for me.

But let's take a look at Picard. He's a thinker, rarely a fighter and overall a great officer. But, he's not as intelligent as LaForge for example. He throws out ideas to the crew and will frequently be shot down by Data and LaForge.

Hell, seeing as you threw the tits comment in there, let's compare her to Captain Janeway. Janeway was great, if not a bit too optimistic. Not a fighter by far, but a scientist at heart and core who was deeply flawed and took things at face value. She was a great captain, but certainly not a mary sue.

Harry Potter frequently cocks up, get's many things wrong, is a decent but not great wizard who often loses to others. Hermione is the better wizard by far. Even the Weasley twins are better at a lot of magic than Harry.

I'm not going to run through the rest, especially the Marvel stuff because yknow, there's a lot of them.

My only complaint about Burnham, as I've said from the beginning is that she is too good at literally everything she does. That is a mary sue.

I like the character, I like the idea of her character arc. I just never have a moment wondering if she'll win.

Goodshape · 22-01-2019 5:57pm

Yeah, I guess I just find that "Mary Sue" label pretty insulting to be honest. And yes, pretty sexist when you consider how selectively it's applied (i.e. to women, always).

The writing in Discovery has so far failed to give that sense of teamwork that was so great about previous Treks. And they definitely have a problem with last-minute out-of-nowhere solutions saving the day. Not denying that at all.

Burnham's great at every/most things she does; but so was Kirk, Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, etc.

It's unfair to think this "Mary Sue" is the problem there. The over reliance on a single character might be a problem. Or the deus-ex machina plot devices throughout the show.

I was pretty bored during the action scenes in this episode – but not because I thought Burnham was destined to save the day. She didn't, she nearly died. They just had some special effect to come rescue her. *shrug*.

AtomicHorror · 22-01-2019 6:06pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

My only complaint about Burnham, as I've said from the beginning is that she is too good at literally everything she does. That is a mary sue.

Not really. It's what the term has come to mean- albeit with the unpleasant edge that Goodshape and I have both alluded to previously- but the main defining feature is not meant to be universal competence. Instead it is wish fulfillment on behalf of the author. A kind of cringey, fan-fic level of self-insertion into the story that goes far beyond offering a conduit for the reader to immerse themselves.

Burnham dominates too much of the story, but she doesn't fit this bill. Tilly would be a better candidate, but she's too self-aware.

Out of Discovery's large writing room and revolving door of producers and show-runners, what one writer or creator's wish-fulfillment could either character really represent?

Sonics2k · 22-01-2019 6:25pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, I guess I just find that "Mary Sue" label pretty insulting to be honest. And yes, pretty sexist when you consider how selectively it's applied (i.e. to women, always).

The writing in Discovery has so far failed to give that sense of teamwork that was so great about previous Treks. And they definitely have a problem with last-minute out-of-nowhere solutions saving the day. Not denying that at all.

Burnham's great at every/most things she does; but so was Kirk, Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, etc.

It's unfair to think this "Mary Sue" is the problem there. The over reliance on a single character might be a problem. Or the deus-ex machina plot devices throughout the show.

I was pretty bored during the action scenes in this episode – but not because I thought Burnham was destined to save the day. She didn't, she nearly died. They just had some special effect to come rescue her. *shrug*.

I'm honestly not a fan of the Mary Sue term either.

I'd have to disagree with Picard, Riker, Data and Geordi being Mary Sue's. Especially the latter two who both have obvious flaws which counted as restrictions for them. I honestly can't think of a time I saw Geordi in fight.

Kirk was a total Mary Sue but we're talking about the 60's, I think we expect a much higher standard now.

I'd agree about the action scenes. Burnham and Tilly clearly have plot-armour attached to them, and while characters like Picard did too, when he became Locutus we all collectively shat ourselves that we'd lost the Captain. After all, Riker was now in charge and they'd even gone so far as to cast a new First Officer (totally forgotten her name).

Star Trek has literally always been great for writing strong characters, both men and women, Discovery is just trying too hard to make it's lead character too perfect. They kinda did the same with Jonathan Archer in Enterprise too.

I don't know really. I like the show, but it's not really about the crew. Hell, they even did a roll call in episode 1 to remind people of the characters name because so many of them had been forgotten.

AMKC · 22-01-2019 7:26pm

GSPfan wrote: »

I think you guys just have to accept that the technology and visual aspect of Star Trek has been rebooted but they are leaving the characters and timeline events in tact.

You can’t really be too critical of holograms and fancy collapsing helmets when the one single most miraculous bit of technology is the transportor. Even artificial gravity, warp speed, and spore drives are so far fetched that I’ll accept a folding helmet in a universe where those other things exist.

Even artificial gravity, warp speed

I disagree on them being far fetched and think in the future humans will invent something like them and the Transporter eventually too but I agree that the magic spore drive is far fetched.

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

I'll weigh in on the discussion, since I did watch the episode, but fair warning I am one of those who think Discovery is Star Trek in name only, and when you strip that away it's any generic CGI heavy Sci-Fi series, with some nods here and there.

I gave up on the first season halfway through. I had enjoyed the first 3 episodes, and after that it went downhill fast for me, but was told to go back and finish since it "got better" - which yeah, I suppose it did, marginally, but since the point at which I had dropped off was so underwhelming, that's not saying a lot. The second half of Season 1 had some solid moments, and ultimately I did enjoy the whole Lorca arc, but it still felt like a bit of a chore to watch, so I was happy to leave it there and not come back to watching Season 2 - I don't enjoy hate watching something, but I do like to give things a fair shot, and Season 1 was more miss than hit for me. However, Season 2 was marketed as a soft reboot, so I had no reason not to at least give it a go, hoping it would offer something more.

"Brother" was not a reassuring episode that Season 2 will be any better though. They've doubled down on making Michael Burnham one of the most insufferable characters on television and a complete Mary Sue if ever there was one (give me Wesley Crusher over her any day of the week). Why can't she just be a strong character with likable weaknesses, and not the absolute best at everything and always the one who solves all the problems and has all the answers like some unbearable God, it just makes her unwatchable and I had hoped she'd take a bit more of a backseat this season and allow some of the other characters a chance to shine through. Of those other characters though, Saru, Stamets, and Tilly seem to have lost any of the charm they had in the first season and were overshadowed by the recurring Bridge Crew who I actually would like to learn more about - thank Pike (I'll get back to him in a minute) for actually doing a roll call, but I fear that's the most development they're going to get. I didn't entirely dislike Jet Reno's introduction, but not enough to make me invested in the character.

Thankfully there's no Ash Tyler or Voq in sight, but I'm guessing he'll show up again at some point since Shazad Latif is still attached to the show, and a massive "ugh" to that. Dr. Culber will be back too in some way or another, and that's a positive because Wilson Cruz is a very likable actor and Culber was one of the best Season 1 characters, but I'm guessing we won't be getting the same Culber, so possibly not so great. James Frain's Sarek bugs me and I'm not sure if it's the interpretation of the character or James Frain himself as an actor, but I'd rather see much much less of Sarek either way. I'm not looking forward to this iteration of Spock either - I'd prefer if he didn't show up at all and that they'd just leave the character be, or if he had to appear be more of a fleeting cameo, but looks like they intend to make him a big part of the series given the weight of the mystery attached.

Before I talk about Pike, the "humour" they injected in to this episode was poorly delivered, poorly placed, and since it was all essentially cut and copied from season 1 of The Orville (great show) doesn't bode well going forward. The Red Angel or whatever the f**k it is arc doesn't give me any promise or reassurance of something good either.

The introduction of Pike might be the one saving grace. If you're going to use a character from Star Trek's past who plays an important role in the lore, Pike is the perfect choice, since he only appeared in one episode of TOS so there's not a huge attachment to the character, but he still has such a big impact. Anson Mount seems perfect for the part, injects a bit of life into the show, and shows a lot of promise, but if the majority of scenes are going to be him and Burnham, she'll suck the life out of the character fairly lively - the scene where she's insubordinate in front of the entire Bridge Crew and his acceptance of that, as well as him fawning over how great a pilot she is or whatever it was he said before and after smug science officer was killed, were his least likable moments in this episode.

I may or may not watch more if word that it becomes more of Trek show (or even just a good Sci-Fi show with likable characters) this season gets back to me, but there's a good chance this is the end of the road for me and Discovery, after the Season 2 premiere...

LLAP

Thankfully there's no Ash Tyler or Voq in sight, I agree. I hated both of them characters and I hate the stupid magic spore drive too.

Sonics2k · 22-01-2019 9:04pm

I honestly think the show would be much more enjoyable overall if it was based sometime -after- the events of Voyager.

You could get over all the technology jumps and all that and it could end up being a great show in it's own right.

uncleoswald · 22-01-2019 9:07pm

How do you over-design an asteroid? It's a small issue but it's symbolic of my major issue with the show, nothing is subtle. Everything about it, right down to the art design, it is telling you to be excited all of the time which has the effect of making everything boring.

Still don't care for Burnham, still too angsty and constantly on the verge of tears. Like above, if she is so intense in every scene no matter how small, when the show actually does something to earn it it falls flat because it is all so samey.

Pike is great, seems more Kirk like than Kirk in the J.J. films and a nice nod to "The Menagerie" at the end.

The death of the smug guy seemed oddly mean spirited for Star Trek, particularly when we just had another overly-earnest speech on the bridge about how every Starfleet life was important.

FutureGuy · 22-01-2019 9:52pm

I said last year that they could use this season to launch a Star Trek: The Pike Years series. After seeing Pike in action, I’d be absolutely stunned if we don’t see one. People can correct me if I’m wrong, but the Enterprise was captained by pike from 2250 to 2265 so we have 7 years before Kirk takes over.

In addition, I think the Enterprise is due to go on a 5 year mission around 2260 so there is a huge story to tell.

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 22-01-2019 10:41pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, I guess I just find that "Mary Sue" label pretty insulting to be honest. And yes, pretty sexist when you consider how selectively it's applied (i.e. to women, always).

The writing in Discovery has so far failed to give that sense of teamwork that was so great about previous Treks. And they definitely have a problem with last-minute out-of-nowhere solutions saving the day. Not denying that at all.

Burnham's great at every/most things she does; but so was Kirk, Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, etc.

It's unfair to think this "Mary Sue" is the problem there. The over reliance on a single character might be a problem. Or the deus-ex machina plot devices throughout the show.

I was pretty bored during the action scenes in this episode – but not because I thought Burnham was destined to save the day. She didn't, she nearly died. They just had some special effect to come rescue her. *shrug*.

Just to be clear, "Mary Sue" does not only apply to females. Two of the biggest Mary Sue's of the last decade or so of TV (as far as I'm concerned anyway) are Jack Sheperd from LOST and Michael Schofield from Prison Break. The reason I liked those shows and am struggling with Discovery a bit more is the rest of the characters in LOST and Prison Break were layered and likable which made up for the Mary Sue-ness of the leads. With Discovery, the other characters are pretty awful too so it makes Burnham that much more unbearable as a character.

The name Mary Sue just comes from a Star Trek fanfic fro. Back in the day where the main character, Ensign Mary Sue was just always perfect and right in everything they did.

Just to take the people you've mentioned, I don't agree with the idea that Picard, Riker, Geordie, Data, or Kirk were perfect at everything they did. Picard was a great leader (and a appreciator of the finer things) but he was in no way a fighter, adept pilot, and always relied on Geordi or Data when it came to science. Geordi had Science and Engineering, but again not much of a fighter or anything else. Kirk was a brawler, but not a Scientific mind, a great mind, and was a good leader only because he listened to Spock and Bones. Data is an android so is meant to be pretty great at everything, but not without flaws either - his lack of understanding of humans being the most obvious. And as for Riker, aside from bedding anything that crossed his path, what exactly was he good at? Burnham by comparison has been portrayed as a great scientist, fighter, engineer, and always knows whats the right thing to do is at any given moment, and that's why she's a poor character and the definition of what a Mary Sue is - gender doesn't come in to it.

Sad Professor · 22-01-2019 10:52pm

I don't consider idealised or merely very capable protagonists to be Mary Sues. There has to be an element of author self-insertion to it that upstages the main protagonists and ends up feeling out of place. Wesley Crusher is the closest thing in Star Trek to the original concept of a Mary Sue IMO. Roddenberry (whose middle name was Wesley) even admitted that he modelled the character on himself at that age but made him a genius.

There's nothing unusual about idealised protagonists by themselves. When people describe Rey etc as Mary Sues they are responding to something else - the relatively recent concept of a strong female protagonist who tends to be largely defined by their professionalism and/or ability and not their relationship to a man because that's what the (mostly male) writers see as an idealised form of femininity in the modern world. Such skills/abilities were not necessarily a hallmark of idealised male protagonists because idealised masculinity tended to be defined by other traits, like fighting and love making (see Kirk and Riker).

Anyway, there's obviously being a redefinition of Mary Sue and that's fine, people can call stuff whatever they want. However, the problem with Burnham isn't that she can do lots of stuff IMO, it's that due to a combination of actor and character she's boring and wooden.

muckwarrior · 23-01-2019 12:21am

I didn't particularly like that episode and hope it doesn't set the tone for the season. Too much style and too little substance. Felt like watching a JJ movie with the action sequences that went on too long, OTT special effects, and forced humour and witty quips.

seamus · 23-01-2019 12:34pm

Spear wrote: »

And was the fortune cookie an easter egg reference to the Cage episode starring Pike?

Absolutely, though it may also be a foreshadowing of what's happening with Spock.

I actually enjoyed the fact that this episode was absolutely littered with easter eggs.
The lift scene, while it probably felt out of place for a trek cutscene, I think is actually a homage to a homage.

TNG had lots of scenes that took place in the turbolift, some serious, some lighthearted.
The Orville pays homage to these by taking them up another notch; you always end up with some bizarre looking alien making things really uncomfortable.

I think the lift scene was actually a nod to the Orville. And the later comment about "having a little fun along the way", maybe an acknowledgement that season 1 was a bit too gritty and serious. Maybe.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

- Why would Pike switch to the old uniform, rather than the Discovery crew adopt the new one? (although arguably Voyager's crew should have updated too once regular contact with Starfleet was established)

I did think of this one, though I expect someone can probably dig up some maritime practice that requires everyone on a ship to wear the same uniform, and a ship only changes uniform when they've been officially told to, or something.
In which case, it's more correct for Pike to change into old uniform than Disco to change into new.

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

The guy who died should have been wearing a Redshirt.....just saying...

I think that was another easter egg. The random red shirt on the away mission doesn't die.

I enjoyed it, but I do agree with the above that there was a little too much style and movie dramatisation; too much dialogue that was over the top and profound.

I don't get the hate for Burnham really, but I do agree that she's difficult to relate to as a person. Maybe that's deliberate because of her time on Vulcan, but it's very difficult to find yourself genuinely concerned for her welfare or sympathetic to her dilemmas.

pixelburp · 23-01-2019 12:45pm

Just on the uniforms, seeing the 'modern' recreation of TOS made me a little more bullish when it comes to recreating the era - certainly sartorially anyway. Those bright primary colours just didn't work for me, even if they were a cute nod to the original show. I still like those Discovery uniforms, and the original ones should be consigned to the 1960s and those early days of colour TV.

Discovery 2x01 – "Brother" [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Comments

Discovery 2x01 – "Brother" [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]