Star Trek Discovery

[I am Belch II]

There are a lot more Star Trek in the newest episodes. That makes me happy. Even if they redo a show or two from the earlier series.

[gyedid]

I think that is what annoys me the most about ST:D.

Yeah Star Trek and consistency are two words not likely to be in the same sentence in a positive way but it does really feel like this show is not Star Trek save the name and maybe a couple visual elements and the people behind it don't actually want it to be Star Trek either.

I don't think it is actually a bad show though from what I've been able to see for how it has developed so far.  Just not Star Trek, certainly not prime continuity Star Trek at least.

I have finally gotten around to watching the first couple of episodes, and this is my take on it.

Basically, I see this as a complete re-imagining of the Trek universe, more radical in some ways than even the JJverse.  I think the best way to swallow it is to look at it like you would the comics:  both DC and Marvel have multiverses in which things unfold differently, or are even realized completely differently, from a main-focus "Prime" continuity, and so does Star Trek.  This series just takes place in one of the many parallel universes where some things are similar, but many others are completely different.

Put another way, if the continuity represented by TOS and TNG/DS9/Voyager is your original _Squadron Supreme_ series, then ST:D is your _Supreme Power_ re-imagining.  Or, ST:D has about as much to do with that Prime continuity as _Maleficent_ had to do with the original Sleeping Beauty (both the fairy tale and the classic Disney cartoon).

Having said that, yeah, the new Klingons are pretty awful.

cheers,

Gabe

[monbvol]

*nod*

Just them saying it is supposed to be Prime does make me rather disappointed with a lot of the changes they have made and done in a way that frankly seems disrespectful of what has come before but at the same time I actually wouldn't have too much trouble head canoning each series is it's own continuity.  Maybe even each movie.  Everything makes a lot more sense that way.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Even if they redo a show or two from the earlier series.

I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

[gyedid]

I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

"The Naked Then"  ...?

What I would like to see...

Burnham:  You mean...it was YOU, Captain?  *You're* the one who's been making the spore drive work?
Lorca:  Of course it was me!
           [accent changes from southern U.S. to upper-class English]
           You Muggle nincompoops, the lot of you!  Who ever heard of a mass of fungus able to teleport a vessel instantly over dozens of light-years?  Have you any idea what it takes me to make this ship Disapparate over such distances?  I don't know how many wands I'll have to burn out, or how many house-elves I'll need to go through this year!

 ;D  >:D

(there really ought to be a blooper reel that shows Jason Isaacs saying just that...)

cheers,

Gabe

[Kentares]

I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

It wont take long... I bet it will happen this season...

[Weirdo]

I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

I predict a spore drive breach, and in addition to their other properties, the spores are that virus. :)

[skiltao]

Burnham:  You mean...it was YOU, Captain?  *You're* the one who's been making the spore drive work?

Y'know, I'd been wondering about his eye.

sure they have.  Tribbles, dude.  Instead of being an example of an irresponsible commercial explorer selling them without first knowing anything about them (the reproductive and eating habits especially) we've got one on the desk of Captain Lorca in episode 3 of Discovery-a bit more than a decade before they were discovered.  Second is the Gorn skeleton in Lorca's closet, also more than a decade out of step with the first encounter with the Gorn. 
<snip>
1. Sarek-having a loving and supportive relationship with ANY of his kids?? does this fit with ANY prior appearances? 
<snip>
2. Harcourt Fenton Mudd.  Transformed by Discovery from a somewhat greedy, somewhat incompetent rogue and ne'er-do-well out to make money and have a good time flouting the law, to a dangerous covert agent and outright psychopath. 
<snip>
ten years from now, a mutation that began a hundred years ago is going to become really quite visible, when it's largely completely invisible here, in spite of having been explained already. 

Lemme preface all this by saying that, although I disagree with you on some points, my disagreements are of a different nature and tenor than Lorcan Nagle's.

0. Technically, the Gorn bones and Tribble only point to Starfleet remaining unfamiliar with Lorca's experiences - which seems to be an intentional and ongoing theme. Given how Discovery (its timeframe, visual style, possibly its narrative and thematic choices) falls between Enterprise and nuTrek, it's also possible that time travel has a role in those anachronisms.
1. I don't think we have any grounds to judge that. Sarek has specific well-established reasons to be distant from Spock, and the other son has barely any screentime. I think they're posing the relationship with Burnham as the cause of Sarek's later emotional disturbances; it's an interesting choice, if not a necessary one.
2. I agree that these are two different characterizations, but it could be argued - and I think not unreasonably so - that a person can have different attitudes and outlooks at different phases in their life.

If your final point refers to Enterprise's explanation for human-looking Klingons, I have to point out that Enterprise was riddled with temporal meddling from start to finish, so their explanation isn't automatically valid outside of their own show. That said, I'm mostly with you on Discovery's Klingons, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned their aberrant funerary practices yet.

[Cannonshop]

Y'know, I'd been wondering about his eye.

Lemme preface all this by saying that, although I disagree with you on some points, my disagreements are of a different nature and tenor than Lorcan Nagle's.

0. Technically, the Gorn bones and Tribble only point to Starfleet remaining unfamiliar with Lorca's experiences - which seems to be an intentional and ongoing theme. Given how Discovery (its timeframe, visual style, possibly its narrative and thematic choices) falls between Enterprise and nuTrek, it's also possible that time travel has a role in those anachronisms.
1. I don't think we have any grounds to judge that. Sarek has specific well-established reasons to be distant from Spock, and the other son has barely any screentime. I think they're posing the relationship with Burnham as the cause of Sarek's later emotional disturbances; it's an interesting choice, if not a necessary one.
2. I agree that these are two different characterizations, but it could be argued - and I think not unreasonably so - that a person can have different attitudes and outlooks at different phases in their life.

If your final point refers to Enterprise's explanation for human-looking Klingons, I have to point out that Enterprise was riddled with temporal meddling from start to finish, so their explanation isn't automatically valid outside of their own show. That said, I'm mostly with you on Discovery's Klingons, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned their aberrant funerary practices yet.

I considered it.  Really, I'm kind of 'done with' the whole bleeping debate, honestly-because my objections really don't have a single solitary impact and I know it.

why is this?

2 reasons.

1. It doesn't matter what I think, because CBS owns the IP, and if they say something is so with their IP, even if it means everyone has to wear a pink Tutu to walk in space, then that's what is so in that IP.  'Consistency' is only extant so far as the owner says something is consistent.  CBS says "This is Prime Timeline" then it's prime timeline, even when it makes absolutely zero sense, because CBS owns the property and in th e end, they're the ones with editorial/authorial control.

2. Star Trek has crested that point where the IP owners are more interested in looking backward than forward.  It's a Prequel, and it's a reboot, and it's a retcon, and it's their right to do it because (1).

once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.

and that's what's really bothering me (that, and the crap writing, acting, direction, storyline, plots...but hey, I don't have to watch it, it's optional now.)

[Lorcan Nagle]

once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.

Of course, when they did look forward, they got a whole load of crap from the fans for years.  There was a vocal faction of Trek fans that wouldn't shut up about TNG, but they mostly died out by the end of series 3.

Their complaints sounded a lot like the ones raised on this thread, oddly enough.

[skiltao]

*[Edit: Sorry, misread "series" for "season." Strike my statement about TNG and replace it with the assertion that DS9 isn't 'forward-looking.' /Edit]

The first three seasons of TNG had a lot of looking backward. They didn't really start looking forward until midway into season 2.* I'd argue that DS9 is actually the root of the forces troubling Cannonshop, and - I expect you'll disagree with me on this next point - that Enterprise was the most forward-looking of Trek since TOS.

once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.

I'm with you. I can quibble the exact mechanics of it, but I agree about the overall, cumulative effect.

(That said, I enjoy what I've seen so far. I've certainly enjoyed much, much worse sci-fi.)

[Lorcan Nagle]

The first three seasons of TNG had a lot of looking backward. They didn't really start looking forward until midway into season 2.

Roddenberry definitely saw TNG as TOS with a different skin, and it wasn't until he was out of the picture that the show grew into its own

I'd argue that DS9 is actually the root of the forces troubling Cannonshop, and - I expect you'll disagree with me on this next point - that Enterprise was the most forward-looking of Trek since TOS.

Yeah, I see Enterprise as the point where Trek ultimately failed.  TNG found a formula early on and stuck with it, and to differing degrees DS9, Voyager and Enterprise followed through.  But that meant that by the time Enterprise started, the formula had been in use for 14 consecutive years, and 21 series of TV - and it was sorely out of date.  Personally, I was so bored of Star Trek that I had quit watching in 1997 or so.  DS9 is the only series that I didn't finish watching that compelled me to fill in the blanks.  I've seen fewer than 10 episodes of Enterprise in total.

Within 2 years of Enterprise premièring, Battlestar Galactica was on the air, and it showed how creatively bankrupt Star Trek had become.  Enterprise was a relic even before this.

[skiltao]

I edited my post while you were writing yours (and then edited again to make the edit more obvious). I could quibble the nature of the different Trek series, but instead I'll say this:

The Trek IP "looks forward" by focusing on exploration, discovery, and high-minded resolutions to social conflict. It's focused outward in a generally positive way.

DS9, although certainly engaging, dwells much more on personal conflicts and lower-minded resolutions. It's focused inward, often ("often" relative to the rest of Trek) in a generally negative way.

[roosterboy]

Personally, I was so bored of Star Trek

So very much this. I watched a little longer than you did but Trek had become so boring by the time Enterprise came along that I’ve only seen maybe half a season. And I didn’t even bother with the new movies until much later after their release (and I still haven’t seen the third one). I just didn’t care anymore.

But Discovery actually has me interested in Star Trek again.

Now, maybe it too will eventually fall victim to the same forces of mediocrity and repetition that doomed the rest of the franchise but at the moment it’s a breath of fresh air.

And at least the Klingons no longer look like cheap KISS cosplayers.

[skiltao]

Eh... Discovery only has me interested in Discovery - not in "Star Trek."

And at least the Klingons no longer look like cheap KISS cosplayers.

The thing I always liked about Klingons was their sense of humor.

[Kentares]

DS9 was for me the high point of the Star Trek franchise (I know that it was made to compete with Babylon 5 but I truly loved it and still see a random episode here and there).

Up until Enterprise they moved the setting forward (and parallel if want to take into account the mirror episodes). Starting with Enterprise they seem to have lost any kind of objectiveness. Could be my fault but I enjoy a setting that tells a story (or stories) moving forward (like Battletech). Telling a past event could be interesting of course but force fed it to viewers is a big mistake that they didnt learned with Enterprise (I know that the franchise is old but maybe thats the idea - let the old stuff be old and stop giving a ton of facelifts so that the old timers cant recognize it anymore). Theyre trying again with better prodution values and more... creative freedom but... to be polite... its a big pile of crap.

Ill be very surprised if this show gets past 2 or 3 seasons without some setting turn of events...

Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.

[roosterboy]

Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.

De gustibus non est disputandum

[Lorcan Nagle]

I edited my post while you were writing yours (and then edited again to make the edit more obvious). I could quibble the nature of the different Trek series, but instead I'll say this:

The Trek IP "looks forward" by focusing on exploration, discovery, and high-minded resolutions to social conflict. It's focused outward in a generally positive way.

DS9, although certainly engaging, dwells much more on personal conflicts and lower-minded resolutions. It's focused inward, often ("often" relative to the rest of Trek) in a generally negative way.

I get where you're coming from, but I think that Trek is better served when it's a compelling drama first, and fitting inside the idiom second.  For example, In The Pale Moonlight is one of my favourite episodes of Trek ever.  And it's focused inwards in a way that even DS9 didn't do that often.  But at the core of the episode is Sisko putting the Vulcan maxim of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one.  The last lines of the episode: "I can live with this, I can live with this" is him saying that he sold his soul to save the Federation, and that's a good price.  The same way Spock saved Kirk and the Enterprise at the cost of his life in Wrath of Khan.

To me, that's far more in the idiom of Star Trek than any episode of Voyager or Enterprise that I've seen.

DS9 was for me the high point of the Star Trek franchise (I know that it was made to compete with Babylon 5 but I truly loved it and still see a random episode here and there).

Allegedly made to compete with Babylon 5.  (I say this as a much bigger fan of B5 than DS9, but there's only JMS' allegations to go on that the show was put into production after Paramount's execs read his treatment)

[Maingunnery]

Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.

And it is more then just looks, their character has also taken a turn for the worst.

But one of the larger problems for this show is that Burnham is completely unlikeable as a character, which is a huge problem as it is more of a character oriented show then a crew oriented show.

[Lorcan Nagle]

And it is more then just looks, their character has also taken a turn for the worst.

See, that's the thing I don't get.  There's been plenty of zealous Klingons, there's been plenty of cruel Klingons, and there's been plenty of manipulative Klingons who talk about honour but never actually are honourable.  How are T'Kuvma and Voq unlike all those hidebound Klingons like the ones who cloned Kahless, how is L'ress not like Kruge, and how is Kol not like Gowron?

[Cannonshop]

See, that's the thing I don't get.  There's been plenty of zealous Klingons, there's been plenty of cruel Klingons, and there's been plenty of manipulative Klingons who talk about honour but never actually are honourable.  How are T'Kuvma and Voq unlike all those hidebound Klingons like the ones who cloned Kahless, how is L'ress not like Kruge, and how is Kol not like Gowron?

completely absent; sense of humour, or sense of life.  Even Kruge had a dark, dry humour.  also absent are any sort of expression.  T'Kuvma, L'ress, Voq-you could replace all of them with text-to-speech engines and get more emotion in their voices as a result, you could replace the actors with claymation and get more expressive and fluid movements and body language.  (That's a transition that usually runs the exact opposite way, btw.)

Kruge-his views had context, there was his commitment, but he also had an existence beyond that commitment that made it clear it was a CHOICE for him.  It was clear all through sT3 that he was actively making a decision, right up to the point where he refused Kirk's aid in his final scene...and it was clear he COULD have chosen differently.  that's what MADE him zealous-the ability to understand there was another way, and to reject it.

(TBH I never read the novelization, I just base that on his appearance on screen.)

Gowron: Humour.  His humour might not have been particularly nice but it was there, along with a sense of cunning in how he operated. His motives were obvious and up-front, but he was also able to comprehend his enemies.  T'Kuvma had no sense of humour, Voq h as no sense of humour-they're just wind-ups in latex fetish gear covered in useless and excessive spike-and-scale motifs.

The Klingons of Discovery are humorless, senseless, soulless, mindless, lifeless collections of negative habits and attributes with no engaging or redeeming traits whatsoever to put their actions into context. 

[Lorcan Nagle]

So, basically, they have all the same personality traits except the part you chose to focus on to the exclusion of all others?

[Cannonshop]

So, basically, they have all the same personality traits except the part you chose to focus on to the exclusion of all others?

nope, I'm saying that they don't have personalities.  They have caricatures instead.

essentially being stripped of individuality, personality at all. They're as deep as a paper poster, and really only interesting AS paper posters.

[Lorcan Nagle]

But they do have personalities. You're claiming they have no individuality while ignoring how they are different.  You're claiming that the thing that stops them from having personalities is that L'Ress and Kol don't have a sense of humour.

And you're claiming that these are why they're different from "classic" Klingons, while ignoring that they're just the same as the Klingons in every other way.

And you're claiming this seven episodes into the series, when the Klingons have had a tiny amount of screen time compared to the Federation cast.  At this point in TNG Worf had about as much screen time as the Klingon cast of Discovery combined, and all we knew about him was "angry" and "honour".

[Cannonshop]

But they do have personalities. You're claiming they have no individuality while ignoring how they are different.  You're claiming that the thing that stops them from having personalities is that L'Ress and Kol don't have a sense of humour.

And you're claiming that these are why they're different from "classic" Klingons, while ignoring that they're just the same as the Klingons in every other way.

And you're claiming this seven episodes into the series, when the Klingons have had a tiny amount of screen time compared to the Federation cast.  At this point in TNG Worf had about as much screen time as the Klingon cast of Discovery combined, and all we knew about him was "angry" and "honour".

Lorcan, we're just going to disagree on this.  You're "hoping" for development, but while they've got a fraction of Worf's time at seven episodes, that's seven HOURS of television.  Gowron had less cumulative time, and got more development.  These are supposed to be the Main villains in the show, at seven hours, they've got as much development as your typical never-to-be-seen again faceless mook in prior series.  all ANY of them have gotten, is a single trait, amplified to 11, so you're comparing the wrong things here.

[Lorcan Nagle]

I'm not hoping for development, I'm recognising that they've done character work to begin with and have already expanded on this.  If you don't agree, that's one thing, but to make arbitrary declarations about how this isn't Star Trek because X, while ignoring or making excuses for every other Star Trek also doing X is intellectually dishonest.

It's clear you don't like the show, so at this point, instead of looking for problems with it, why not just stop watching it, and find something more productive to do than complain about it online?

[Triptych]

I watched the first episode on Netflix. I'm honestly getting tired of the usual cliches of placing the bridge of a starship on top of the hull where it can easily be targeted by the enemy and the usual exploding console bit.

I like the conflict between the crew (even though it goes into unrealistic insubordination territory punishable by firing squad) which was missing in all the TNG shows.

What I dont get is the continuity: this series is supposed to be set before TOS, yet everything is so much more advanced. What happened afterwards in Kirk's timeline? Was there a technological dark age or something?  ???

[Lorcan Nagle]

What I dont get is the continuity: this series is supposed to be set before TOS, yet everything is so much more advanced. What happened afterwards in Kirk's timeline? Was there a technological dark age or something?  ???

If they made it look like TOS, it would have made a small number of Trekkies happy, while alienating the general public.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The future of the 1960s isn't really sufficient for a big budget sci-fi series anymore.

[pensiveswetness]

If they made it look like TOS, it would have made a small number of Trekkies happy, while alienating the general public.

I guess you can look at it from GR's POV when the TMP Klingon's came to light (That's ALWAYS how they were supposed to look, if we had the same Special Effects back in the 60's)... does it matter? I totally love most the Fan Films made in the past decade that lavishes the TOS esthetic but if the TOS is out, then its merely Classic Coke... and people want New Coke(apparently)...