Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Discovery 3x13 - 'That Hope Is You, Part 2' ~~ { ** Spoilers Within ** }

1234568

Comments

  • #352
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I have enjoyed all three seasons so far. To varying degrees.
    It was a good idea to jump it into the future but I'm still at a loss as why we can't just have a series in present day trek. Same time line as Picard. To my mind would allow more freedom plot wise.
    Though I remember someone here saying prequels are a marketing thing.
    I will watch season 4 discovery but not season 2 of Picard.
    Stewart is just too old and the plots of that series were too convulated.

    You will watch discovery, but not Picard, because Picard is too convoluted?!:eek:


  • #353
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Yes I prefer discovery over Picard. To be honest I think most of you would sneer at anything they bring out. Like those two guys on the muppets on the balcony!
    The critics are generally positive on all three seasons. So I'm in the overall majority.


  • #354
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    Yes I prefer discovery over Picard. To be honest I think most of you would sneer at anything they bring out. Like those two guys on the muppets on the balcony!
    The critics are generally positive on all three seasons. So I'm in the overall majority.

    Both shows had great potential but squandered by poor editing and some stupid writing (which could have been helped, not fixed, by a good editor). Not sure what reviews you are looking at but the reinforcement ones on the likes of reddit are tough to read when any criticism is rebuffed as impossible.


  • #355
    ilovesmybrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭ilovesmybrick


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Not sure what reviews you are looking at but the reinforcement ones on the likes of reddit are tough to read when any criticism is rebuffed as impossible.

    In fairness, a lot of the reviews I've seen have been incredibly glowing, to a fault. Bobtheman is right that there are some that would sneer at anything they brought out, but I think that there is a lot of incredibly deserved criticism of this season of Discovery.

    I think that overall Picard was pretty good, but they failed to stick the landing. I thought Lower Decks was fantastic, really fun and really nailed the balance of pulling the piss while being reverential to the source material. Discovery looked great (though I wasn't a fan of some of the camera work), started with an interesting conceit that I was interested in, and went completely off the rails from around Reunification III. As with previous seasons (and Picard had this too), they set up a series long arc with unbelievably massive consequences and just failed to write scripts to the level required.

    Honestly, next season Discovery needs to scale back the core story to something a bit more manageable. This is the second season in a row where they set up universe ending/changing consequences and it's just not believable the routes they choose to get there. I thought season two did a lot to try and rectify the issues with season one, and overall I enjoyed it. For me season three was a step backwards (while the show jumped forwards) and I think the issue was with poor writing, and poor direction of Martin Green. Get some better script writers or scripts and perhaps tone down some of the more questionable acting choices (I'm looking squarely at you, whispered breathless dialogue!).


  • #356
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    100%, to a fault, I heard reviews on Irish radio from confessed Trek fans and none of them gave it a glowing review, and fully admitted it was fan boy nostalgia that made them give decent scores. This said, I have said it time and time again, with a good editor, a lot of the individual episodes were saveable. You could easily crush the seasons down to half their size and get what would be decent to good TV. You can't edit out all of it but there are huge chunks that, particularly here you hear it, where the overacting, lingering, timewasting didn't really pay off. You could also edit out the really inconsistent things that any writer, director or on set consistency person should have picked up. Burnham and tracking the origin of the Burn down was a prime example. Tons of posters here pointed out the huge error in her plan and I doubt many of us are advanced mathematicians or physicists. You had Tilly point out what a moron she was as a side note in the next episode but those two scenes just needed to be cut. As much as I like leave my brain at the door TV, it simply made no sense based on what we had been led to believe about Burnham up until that point. A good editor would have made these decent episodes, and you can leave the few that were overall good as they were. Picard's main issue wasn't really the story, although as said above, they failed to land what promised to be this behemoth of a story properly, but the other main issue is Picard himself was not the person to be doing the live action running and jumping. He is past it as an actor in regards the physicality. They should have done what Logan done and play to that. I liked Picard as it asked some interesting sci fi questions but it did fail to land a lot of things that showed so much promise.

    By the way, I'll watch next season of both, I still need my fix and there are enough good bits that if I turn off enough I can tolerate the show with ease.


  • #357
    ilovesmybrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭ilovesmybrick


    CramCycle wrote: »
    As much as I like leave my brain at the door TV, it simply made no sense

    Actually I think this is a good point.

    I enjoy Snowpiercer, it's fun but you just need to shut off any thought completely about what's going on and take it for what it is. If you think about any of it in a logical sense it falls apart, but it's fun and knows it's completely mad and shouldn't take it seriously! They know they're making a pretty mad sci fi show.

    On the other side I also love The Expanse, it's a show that works incredibly hard to make a realistic, believable universe and demands that you take it seriously and pay attention. They intended to make a pretty serious hard sci fi show and put the work in.

    Discovery seems to be falling into an awful middle ground, where they've made something completely ridiculous in parts, but write it as if it should be taken seriously. It can't scratch the enjoyable mad sci fi itch that Snowpiercer scratches, and it fails completely in the serious world building involved in a hard sci fi show like The Expanse.


  • #358
    Morathi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 291 ✭✭Morathi


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    Yes I prefer discovery over Picard. To be honest I think most of you would sneer at anything they bring out. Like those two guys on the muppets on the balcony!
    The critics are generally positive on all three seasons. So I'm in the overall majority.

    You are absolutely not in the overall majority.

    https://www.metacritic.com/tv/star-trek-discovery

    Also, I don't care what you enjoy, if you're happy, fine, more power to you.

    However, try not to validate your own opinion based on how many people agree with you. You'll be an even happier person for it.


  • #359
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    ilovesmybrick wrote: »
    Actually I think this is a good point.

    I enjoy Snowpiercer, it's fun but you just need to shut off any thought completely about what's going on and take it for what it is. If you think about any of it in a logical sense it falls apart, but it's fun and knows it's completely mad and shouldn't take it seriously! They know they're making a pretty mad sci fi show.

    On the other side I also love The Expanse, it's a show that works incredibly hard to make a realistic, believable universe and demands that you take it seriously and pay attention. They intended to make a pretty serious hard sci fi show and put the work in.

    Discovery seems to be falling into an awful middle ground, where they've made something completely ridiculous in parts, but write it as if it should be taken seriously. It can't scratch the enjoyable mad sci fi itch that Snowpiercer scratches, and it fails completely in the serious world building involved in a hard sci fi show like The Expanse.

    watch snow piercer also and it’s coherent unlike STD. When you watch it do the arguments against STD come into your mind, diversity, woke, all that stuff, no because it’s done well (ish)

    Yes the story is contrived but When you think about it the it achieves easily what STD have to force. They rail against establishment rich white class in first. A lot of the most evil Bastards9 are white men. A black guy leads the rebellion against the rich whites. A woman runs the whole train behind closed doors.

    STD is just dog****e and all those critics are bought and paid for.


  • #360
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    watch snow piercer also and it’s coherent unlike STD. When you watch it do the arguments against STD come into your mind, diversity, woke, all that stuff, no because it’s done well (ish)

    Yes the story is contrived but When you think about it the it achieves easily what STD have to force. They rail against establishment rich white class in first. A lot of the most evil Bastards9 are white men. A black guy leads the rebellion against the rich whites. A woman runs the whole train behind closed doors.

    STD is just dog****e and all those critics are bought and paid for.

    Things like snowpiercer are easy to watch since you just have to accept the basic premise of the show and then its consistent and coherent.
    If you are ok with the idea of the winter/train then the rest of it makes sense, Discovery had too many things that you had to just accept for the story to make sense and they seemed to just randomly appear mid season so were awkward and jarring.

    I had much less of an issue with Picard but even still they did throw in a few at the end (the whole 7of9 twist for example)
    I'm willing to give Picard a pass as I presume they were using JL (argh!) as an old man as a bridge to start something new.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Morathi wrote: »
    You are absolutely not in the overall majority.

    https://www.metacritic.com/tv/star-trek-discovery

    Also, I don't care what you enjoy, if you're happy, fine, more power to you.

    However, try not to validate your own opinion based on how many people agree with you. You'll be an even happier person for it.

    I looked at rotten tomatoes.. Consensus there its good. And I do hold my own opinions. It was just the over the top nit picking that is on display here. I was just curious to see if established critics agreed with the anti discovery views here. They didn't.


  • #362
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,641 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    Ah now, people here have problems with the script, the acting, the plot, the sets. None of that is really nit-picking. Those are the main components of a TV show.


  • #363
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Part of a thing I'd like to see in trek is the return of the stand alone episode or story arcs of at max 3 episodes.


  • #364
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    Part of a thing I'd like to see in trek is the return of the stand alone episode or story arcs of at max 3 episodes.

    ah but that would require knowing how you are going to end a story arc when you start it...


  • #365
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I looked at rotten tomatoes.. Consensus there its good. And I do hold my own opinions. It was just the over the top nit picking that is on display here. I was just curious to see if established critics agreed with the anti discovery views here. They didn't.

    I'll agree its nit-picking if you agree Discovery is akin to a nit infested infants head?


  • #366
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    . I was just curious to see if established critics agreed with the anti discovery views here. They didn't.

    Wonder woman 1984 has a fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. That's all you need to know about critics at this stage of the game.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    I just watched the first episode of the latest season of the Expanse. No spoilers but within the first few minutes they had a data core location that made sense, lifts that moved in logical ways and a science vessel performing science. And after that things like plot and rounded characters.


  • #368
    Rawr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭Rawr


    GreeBo wrote: »
    ah but that would require knowing how you are going to end a story arc when you start it...

    I feel this is key.

    I actually have no major issue with a Trek show that spreads a story over a season-long arc. But for that to work it needs to be worth the viewer's time, and for it to be worth the viewer's time the pay-off at the end of the arc needs to be well written.

    Another case of comparing to Lower Decks, which although had an episodic structure also managed several season-long arcs including one revolving around Mariner's relationship with her mother (somewhat resolved by season's end), and another about Mariner's fear of command (resolved with her taking command of the ship during a crisis). In both cases they built up those arc over the season and ended them well. That made the experience satisifiying and worth a re-watch.

    At the moment I'm doing another bing of Voyager and I'm on Season 2. The whole season has an arc seeded into it about the Kazon, Seska and various other plot threads leading up to the Season ending of Basics. It was done fairly well, and despite any failings Voyager had, it did manage some good stuff like this.

    This brings me back to Discovery and quality of the writing. Seasons 2, 3 and Picard all suffer from some kind of manic mish-mash of good ideas that never seem to get resolved. It's like these writers are great with coming up new ideas but have never been tasked with writing a show to it's conclusion. So when we get to the end of a season I get the sense of them reaching the final episodes, panicing, and then trying to patch up their plotholes with anything at hand (Kelpian Figher Pilots?).

    A season-long arc could certainly work in a Trek show....just not with these writers.


  • #369
    liamtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I looked at rotten tomatoes.. Consensus there its good. And I do hold my own opinions. It was just the over the top nit picking that is on display here. I was just curious to see if established critics agreed with the anti discovery views here. They didn't.

    Wandered back on to this thread, a few weeks after Disco ended

    See i acknowledge that there are simple 'haters' and 'detractors' - and nit picking annoys me to a serious degree. All of the arguing against the use of Holo Communications in S1 was ridiculous in my view.

    I should also say that i loved Picard - regardless of Stewart's age i thought it was amazing, and the best new Trek In Years!

    I also would love to like discovery - but i dont. IMHO opinion the show began deteriorating toward the end of season 1. And season 3 was its worst outing in my view. Star Trek used to be a show where a problem/foil/danger would become apparent and the good guys would work out a way to deal with it. Regardless of whether you are going for a 'Dark/Intense/Thrones-esque' plot, the main elements would remain consistent.

    Discovery works on different parameters -
    • The Entirety of the Federation/Galaxy/Sentient-Life/Existence is going to be destroyed/wiped out etc
    • All of the resources of the various groups and blocks cannot avert this
    • ONE PERSON CAN - and that person, is Michael Burnham - every time - just ask the Guardian of Forever! She cannot return to her own time. The 31st century NEEDS her:cool:
    • She doesn't do things by the book - but we are so lucky to have her
    • Its also vital that she narrates her thoughts, opinions, feelings to us, just so we know how utterly legendary she is

    IMHO, this is killing the show. Its beyond a joke at this stage. The third season is ACTUALLY worse than S2 Enterprise in my mind. And that is saying a lot.. And we just know, given the track record that Season 4 will be more of the same. Now that she is captain its probably going to be EVEN more Burnham oriented. and the Foil/Danger will be even MORE terrible next time.

    "Space itself is being destroyed. The Space time continuum is literally being erased from existence!!! The Borg, The dominion, Other Galaxies have already fallen - the Q, have ceased to exist!! ONE STARFLEET OFFICER HOLDS THE KEY THE SALVATION OF EXISTENCE ITSELF..." ... yawn

    Like i said at the beginning of this thread, its not only terribly written, it is now boring , which for a show set in the 31st century, is incredible really

    As to the Critics     - like someone else said, when critics like Wonder women 1984; When apologists pop up to defend even the most absurd films (ghostbusters 2016 for example) - i just ignore it. Im life long Trekkie, iv watched every minute of star trek that has ever aired - and the good episodes i have repeatability gone back too. I will make my own mind up, as will you, and others

    But for me this season is probably the first that has literally no rewatchability- what few half decent outings it had, are spoiled cause the over arching story was so ludicrous

    EDIT - oh i nearly forgot - Spock, was so LUCKY to have Michael Burnham too - its clear he wouldnt have been the legend he was, without her as a half sister (my blood boiled when this was implied btw)

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • #370
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    liamtech wrote: »
    Wandered back on to this thread, a few weeks after Disco ended

    See i acknowledge that there are simple 'haters' and 'detractors' - and nit picking annoys me to a serious degree. All of the arguing against the use of Holo Communications in S1 was ridiculous in my view.

    I should also say that i loved Picard - regardless of Stewart's age i thought it was amazing, and the best new Trek In Years!

    I also would love to like discovery - but i dont. IMHO opinion the show began deteriorating toward the end of season 1. And season 3 was its worst outing in my view. Star Trek used to be a show where a problem/foil/danger would become apparent and the good guys would work out a way to deal with it. Regardless of whether you are going for a 'Dark/Intense/Thrones-esque' plot, the main elements would remain consistent.

    Discovery works on different parameters -
    • The Entirety of the Federation/Galaxy/Sentient-Life/Existence is going to be destroyed/wiped out etc
    • All of the resources of the various groups and blocks cannot avert this
    • ONE PERSON CAN - and that person, is Michael Burnham - every time - just ask the Guardian of Forever! She cannot return to her own time. The 31st century NEEDS her:cool:
    • She doesn't do things by the book - but we are so lucky to have her
    • Its also vital that she narrates her thoughts, opinions, feelings to us, just so we know how utterly legendary she is

    IMHO, this is killing the show. Its beyond a joke at this stage. The third season is ACTUALLY worse than S2 Enterprise in my mind. And that is saying a lot.. And we just know, given the track record that Season 4 will be more of the same. Now that she is captain its probably going to be EVEN more Burnham oriented. and the Foil/Danger will be even MORE terrible next time.

    "Space itself is being destroyed. The Space time continuum is literally being erased from existence!!! The Borg, The dominion, Other Galaxies have already fallen - the Q, have ceased to exist!! ONE STARFLEET OFFICER HOLDS THE KEY THE SALVATION OF EXISTENCE ITSELF..." ... yawn

    Like i said at the beginning of this thread, its not only terribly written, it is now boring , which for a show set in the 31st century, is incredible really

    As to the Critics     - like someone else said, when critics like Wonder women 1984; When apologists pop up to defend even the most absurd films (ghostbusters 2016 for example) - i just ignore it. Im life long Trekkie, iv watched every minute of star trek that has ever aired - and the good episodes i have repeatability gone back too. I will make my own mind up, as will you, and others

    But for me this season is probably the first that has literally no rewatchability- what few half decent outings it had, are spoiled cause the over arching story was so ludicrous

    EDIT - oh i nearly forgot - Spock, was so LUCKY to have Michael Burnham too - its clear he wouldnt have been the legend he was, without her as a half sister (my blood boiled when this was implied btw)

    This is unfair. How many times did Picard save all humanity. The Borg attack? The last episode of STNG but i do take your point about Discovery being ALWAYS at the centre of things. It could do with more stand-alone episodes.
    But you must acknowledge that TREK has always been about the centrality of one ship or station to the entire Galaxy.


  • #371
    ilovesmybrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭ilovesmybrick


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    This is unfair. How many times did Picard save all humanity. The Borg attack? The last episode of STNG but i do take your point about Discovery being ALWAYS at the centre of things. It could do with more stand-alone episodes.
    But you must acknowledge that TREK has always been about the centrality of one ship or station to the entire Galaxy.

    I think the thrust of their point is that while the other shows centred around very capable protagonists, they were not the exception. They were surrounded and supported by several equally capable officers. Riker was a very capable first officer and could easily take command from Picard, which he did in BoBW. Dax, Worf, Kira all took over for Sisko at several times and were capable of leading. Chakotay, Tuvok, while dull, were good officers.

    The issue is that the way Discovery is structured only Burnham can solve the issue and only Burnham can lead. Even her promotion to Captain was only achieved by making Saru look incapable, which was an appalling assasination of one of the most interesting characters in the show. There is literally no one in Discovery who can step up and replace Burnham. Burnham succeeds at the expense of others, rather than succeeding with the support of her crew, which has always been at the core of Trek shows.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    liamtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    This is unfair. How many times did Picard save all humanity. The Borg attack? The last episode of STNG but i do take your point about Discovery being ALWAYS at the centre of things. It could do with more stand-alone episodes.
    But you must acknowledge that TREK has always been about the centrality of one ship or station to the entire Galaxy.

    Star Trek has always had heroes you are quite correct - but the plot and or universe never revolved around them. And by the time they achieved almost legendary status, it was through genuinely striving to 'make a difference'

    And as 'ilovesmybrick' stated - They had help -
    • Sisko didnt defeat the Dominion single handidly in the Defiant - he had fleets of ships working together
    • Riker didnt kick the Borg out in BOBW - he had the crew of his ship working together - and a whole fleet wiped out which gave him time to come up with a solution
    • Kirk saved the earth many times - but with help - with capable compelling characters working together

    In discovery, Burnham is always the solution - she always knows what to do. The story is about how everyone must eventually realize that she is right - and i dont even KNOW the names of some of the supporting cast - which 3 seasons into a Trek show - says a lot

    OH AND

    When TNG started, Picard wasnt revealed to be Kirks grandson, who was mentored by him as a kid. The retconning of Burnham into Trek Canon is APPALLING - it amounts to the writers TELLING US, we must like her, and value her - she hasnt earned any of it, we have just been told shes a legend.

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • #373
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,740 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    One thing I always loved about Trek, was the Team. It was usually a team effort, every crew member had a unique talent or skill they could bring and help save the day or solve the mystery. It wasnt just one magic person saving time and space each week and rest of the crew twiddle their thumbs and join the cult of Michael .

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • #374
    Rawr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭Rawr


    TheValeyard wrote: »
    One thing I always loved about Trek, was the Team. It was usually a team effort, every crew member had a unique talent or skill they could bring and help save the day or solve the mystery. It wasnt just one magic person saving time and space each week and rest of the crew twiddle their thumbs and join the cult of Michael .

    Which I think is the reason many of us barely know the names of the crew. We remember them before because in any given Trek episode you'd have input from Dr. Crusher, Gordie, Data, Dax, Paris, Kim, Torres, Worf or even Plain Simple Garek (Yes, we even remembered the Special Guest Star characters).

    The result of this team-work meant that we got to know and remember multiple crews across Trek. I don't think the Discovery writers ever got to grips with this aspect of Trek.


  • #375
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Rawr wrote: »
    Which I think is the reason many of us barely know the names of the crew. We remember them before because in any given Trek episode you'd have input from Dr. Crusher, Gordie, Data, Dax, Paris, Kim, Torres, Worf or even Plain Simple Garek (Yes, we even remembered the Special Guest Star characters).

    The result of this team-work meant that we got to know and remember multiple crews across Trek. I don't think the Discovery writers ever got to grips with this aspect of Trek.

    I always found the Dax stories and character to be most insufferable, they are pretty good at copying that element.


  • #376
    pah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭pah


    liamtech wrote: »
    Star Trek has always had heroes you are quite correct - but the plot and or universe never revolved around them. And by the time they achieved almost legendary status, it was through genuinely striving to 'make a difference'

    And as 'ilovesmybrick' stated - They had help -
    • Sisko didnt defeat the Dominion single handidly in the Defiant - he had fleets of ships working together
    • Riker didnt kick the Borg out in BOBW - he had the crew of his ship working together - and a whole fleet wiped out which gave him time to come up with a solution
    • Kirk saved the earth many times - but with help - with capable compelling characters working together

    In discovery, Burnham is always the solution - she always knows what to do. The story is about how everyone must eventually realize that she is right - and i dont even KNOW the names of some of the supporting cast - which 3 seasons into a Trek show - says a lot

    OH AND

    When TNG started, Picard wasnt revealed to be Kirks grandson, who was mentored by him as a kid. The retconning of Burnham into Trek Canon is APPALLING - it amounts to the writers TELLING US, we must like her, and value her - she hasnt earned any of it, we have just been told shes a legend.

    You read my mind


  • #377
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,641 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    Just think about what an interesting show Disco would be WITHOUT Michael. Saru as a new captain, first Kelpian captain ever, in an experimental ship, thrown into the future, nice ensemble crew. Even Tilly would be less annoying without Michael as her bff.


  • #378
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,690 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Mollyb60 wrote: »
    Just think about what an interesting show Disco would be WITHOUT Michael. Saru as a new captain, first Kelpian captain ever, in an experimental ship, thrown into the future, nice ensemble crew. Even Tilly would be less annoying without Michael as her bff.

    You are a bit optimistic I think :D , this isnt a show that went down a few plot holes as it were

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #379
    Mollyb60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,641 ✭✭✭Mollyb60


    Maybe :D:D
    I just think the writers twisted themselves in knots trying to ensure Michael was the GOAT every episode. A lot of the problems could at least start to be resolved if they're not forcing situations to show how wonderful she is and why we all should really love her.


  • #380
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Have been saying it since almost the start of the show, the best thing they could do with it is kill off Michael.


  • #381
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I'm thinking cheap, lazy ret con writing. Sort of a, what happened if someone killed Hitler as a baby style writing. A brief flash into all her major storylines as to how they would have went differently. A nice 2 hour one off episode, that leaves a slightly different crew in whatever century they are in now.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,018 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I looked at rotten tomatoes.. Consensus there its good. And I do hold my own opinions. It was just the over the top nit picking that is on display here. I was just curious to see if established critics agreed with the anti discovery views here. They didn't.

    On rotten tomatoes the audience score is 42%

    As for the critic score - it's high at 82% but the rotten tomatoes scoring doesn't mean that's 82% positive, it means 82% of critics said it was alright. RT critics score is basically each critic saying "watch" or "don't watch". and then a tally of that. Also most of the reviews for this season for instance only actually reference the first episode. In short, RT critics score is a good reference for movies, but a really bad reference for tv.


  • #383
    Morathi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 291 ✭✭Morathi


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    On rotten tomatoes the audience score is 42%

    As for the critic score - it's high at 82% but the rotten tomatoes scoring doesn't mean that's 82% positive, it means 82% of critics said it was alright. RT critics score is basically each critic saying "watch" or "don't watch". and then a tally of that. Also most of the reviews for this season for instance only actually reference the first episode. In short, RT critics score is a good reference for movies, but a really bad reference for tv.

    And even then it's highly questionable.


  • #384
    podgeandrodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,859 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    I gave up watching Discovery after season 2, just couldn't get all the forced 'diversity/woke' stuff and continual "you go girl" nonsense. Why they feel the need to force this down your throat, when excellent star trek series like Voyager could portray strong women without such complete horse manure messaging.


  • #385
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    I gave up watching Discovery after season 2, just couldn't get all the forced 'diversity/woke' stuff and continual "you go girl" nonsense. Why they feel the need to force this down your throat, when excellent star trek series like Voyager could portray strong women without such complete horse manure messaging.

    Maybe watch season 3 before commenting or simply don't comment on something you haven't seen.


  • #386
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,035 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Wish we could all give up having to read these ****ing "woke" culture war posts :rolleyes:


  • #387
    podgeandrodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,859 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    I gave up watching Discovery after season 2, just couldn't get all the forced 'diversity/woke' stuff and continual "you go girl" nonsense. Why they feel the need to force this down your throat, when excellent star trek series like Voyager could portray strong women without such complete horse manure messaging.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    Maybe watch season 3 before commenting or simply don't comment on something you haven't seen.

    Eh, I specifically commented on what I watched up to season 2. Point out where I commented on something I hadn't seen?

    I'm taking from your comment that they changed their tune and abandoned all the forced diversity in season 3? If so, great.


  • #388
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Maybe watch season 3 before commenting or simply don't comment on something you haven't seen.

    Haven’t seen? They’ve watched 2 full series of the show and are as entitled to an opinion as anyone, even if it doesn’t align with what you think is the correct opinion.


  • #389
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Eh, I specifically commented on what I watched up to season 2. Point out where I commented on something I hadn't seen?

    I'm taking from your comment that they changed their tune and abandoned all the forced diversity in season 3? If so, great.

    Don’t bother watching it it worse.


  • #390
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Eh, I specifically commented on what I watched up to season 2. Point out where I commented on something I hadn't seen?

    I'm taking from your comment that they changed their tune and abandoned all the forced diversity in season 3? If so, great.

    I wouldn't worry about it, some folk on here get triggered easily...


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    This is a specific episode thread about season 3 episode 13, so yes, watch the episode before commenting on something that has nothing to do with it. I'm sure there is a general thread for Discovery.


  • #392
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    General season 3 thread is here for getting a pulse of the show: weirdly as it would have been more recently updated, one'd have to read past that thread to get to this one?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058020771


  • #393
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Maybe watch season 3 before commenting or simply don't comment on something you haven't seen.

    Why would s3 change his mind? Its just more of the same rubbish


  • #394
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Why would s3 change his mind? Its just more of the same rubbish

    Because this is a thread about a season 3 episode, not a general discovery thread or even one related to season 2. Opinions aside, it's simply the wrong thread for it.


  • #395
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    On no, marginal thread drift. Quick call the mod.police :rolleyes:


  • #396
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    On no, marginal thread drift. Quick call the mod.police :rolleyes:
    But there is literally a thread for this. They also didn't comment to see whether they should tune, in, something they only mentioned when it was pointed out it was a episode specific thread. The Original post was:
    I gave up watching Discovery after season 2, just couldn't get all the forced 'diversity/woke' stuff and continual "you go girl" nonsense. Why they feel the need to force this down your throat, when excellent star trek series like Voyager could portray strong women without such complete horse manure messaging.
    It is nothing to do with season 3 episode 13, it isn't even to do with season 3. The post would make sense in the general thread, or in the season 2 threads but it isn't thread "drift" when they just seagull in looking for a reaction. There point maybe valid, it may not and certainly worth a discussion but seagulling in here on this thread could only be construed as either accidentally picking the wrong thread, easily done, or just looking for a reaction rather than a discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Because this is a thread about a season 3 episode, not a general discovery thread or even one related to season 2. Opinions aside, it's simply the wrong thread for it.

    It’s all a giant fat berg anyway shur!


  • #398
    Need a Username
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭Need a Username


    A great end to a great season.

    The turbolift sequence shouldn’t have been in there though. It was fun but it made the ship look way bigger than it is. A more old fashioned lift tube like we see in Final Frontier would have been better.


  • #399
    corkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭corkie


    Need a Username wrote: »
    A great end to a great season.

    The turbolift sequence shouldn’t have been in there though. It was fun but it made the ship look way bigger than it is. A more old fashioned lift tube like we see in Final Frontier would have been better.

    ^^^ You forgotten to include sarcastic emoji?? Why resurface a thread with the above?

    https://youtu.be/OAqsU-BY58w?t=16

    tumblr_mcdbxpCvvc1qh2xv0o1_640.jpg

    {Youtube} The Biggest Onscreen Mistakes In Star Trek TV Shows


  • #400
    Need a Username
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭Need a Username


    corkie wrote: »
    ^^^ You forgotten to include sarcastic emoji?? Why resurface a thread with the above?

    https://youtu.be/OAqsU-BY58w?t=16

    tumblr_mcdbxpCvvc1qh2xv0o1_640.jpg

    {Youtube} The Biggest Onscreen Mistakes In Star Trek TV Shows

    I wasn’t being sarcastic. I lived the episode and I live the show.

    I didn’t “resurface a thread” - I simply posted in the thread about the topic.

    Is that not allowed?

    A better question to ask yourself is why did you get upset by my post?


  • #401
    pah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭pah


    I'm glad you enjoyed it.

    I thought it was absolute muck.

    The idea of the TARDIS turbolift is just insulting.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement