|
|
Post by dgcatanisiri on Oct 10, 2017 4:59:59 GMT
im enjoying it so far, but is it really a prequel, meaning happens beofre even kirk is born or when? that kinda lessened my enjoyment, i hate prequels urgh I believe it's set 10 years before the original series. It is technically a prequel in that it supposedly is set in the timeline of Trek Prime, but with all of the changes it might as well be something new. Yeah, Discovery is taking place in the 2256, while Kirk's five year mission begins some time in 2265, with the bulk of the first season taking place in 2266. And Michael's mentioned being raised by Sarek and Amanda, even bringing up 'her foster brother' in one conversation. Honestly, I'm good with the whole prequel thing. Sure, the visuals of Discovery slant more towards the AOS movies and look way more updated than anything that TOS was capable of, in some cases even more advanced than DS9/Voyager, but that's really just nature of the beast with a franchise that's been around fifty plus years, and has literally influenced the development of our technology. I mean, there's been a contest to develop actual tricorders, and Voyager has this really great teaser sequence of orders being made on the bridge and hand-delivered down to the bottom-most deck that is entirely anachronistic in the era of wireless (to say nothing of the 'mail deliveries' done when they get letters from home). Technology has gone in directions that 1966 could never have expected. Like, we've always just gone along with the idea of internal consistency within the universe of Star Trek, from the earliest days of the series. From major stuff (Voyager has 38 torpedoes in a season one episode, stating explicitly they have no way to replace them, while theyfire nearly one hundred in the course of the series, the episode 'The Emperor's New Cloak' hinges on the Mirror Universe not developing a cloaking device when the earlier episode 'Through The Looking Glass' featured ships decloaking in the Mirror Universe, and the Enterprise Mirror Universe episode has the Terran Empire utilizing a cloaking device) to minor stuff (Troi's 'I never kissed you with a beard before' in Insurrection is factually incorrect, Picard line of 'centuries ago, a disastrous encounter with the Klingons led to centuries of war, and it was decided to monitor species before making contact,' meant in reference to first contact specifically, was proven false by Enterprise...) We just kinda pretend it's all internally consistent and wave our hands and try to make sense of it all. So just because there are minor inconsistencies in terms of visual appearance or contradicting previously believed ideas of what was happening at this point in time, etc.... That's all nothing new for Star Trek. What matters most to me is are they telling a Star Trek story, and so far, I think the answer is a resounding yes. Based on the most recent episode, it looks like the central question of this season is about the way we handle war, specifically reconciling our morality with the acts that war leads us to do, and that's a really timely question, considering that the US has been at war for nearly twenty years, and is staring the start of World War III in the face, waiting to see it blink, right now. Plus the rhetoric that we see coming from the Klingons is uncannily like a certain tiny handed would-be dictator with delusions of competency. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 20:32:18 GMT
BansheeOwnage I've been reading that Discovery is actually on cable in Canada. It's on the Space and Z channels up there. Have you been watching?
|
|
|
|
Post by BansheeOwnage on Oct 11, 2017 4:43:08 GMT
Oh, and what are people's thoughts on the gay couple already being a couple? The negative part of me thinks it's because they either don't want to show - or don't think the audience will want to see - them actually courting and having a budding romance. Well they haven't even appeared yet, have they? I've only seen the first episode that was on TV, so I don't know. I don't see what the problem would be if it were depicted in the same vein as O'Brien + Keiko in DS9. It was obvious they were a married couple, and there were references to sexy fun times. Yet their marriage was hardly the focus of O'Brien as a character. To me that is a model of such a relationship in a show such as this. A couple that is coming together, as we saw with Worf/Jadzia, will be portrayed differently than an already established couple. I think the difference in setting also has to be considered. DS9 was a space station where people could live out, more or less, standard lives. A lot of the day-to-day activity was portrayed as a 9-5 job for many people. But that is not the case with a show like this, with heavy emphasis on the major conflict. I have to admit I've never actually watched DS9 in its entirety (and it was a long time ago as well) so I can't comment on the intricacies of the relationships. All I'm concerned about/hoping for is consistency. That is, they treat the same-sex couples the same way as their straight couples, whatever their actual approach to showing relationships is. And not directly related, but there is a character discussion-point I wanted to chime in on: People are saying that much of the story focuses on just one character. While it's true that historically, the Captains of the shows have had the most spotlight-time (and I believe Discovery's MC is the XO?), from description it sounds like it's a bit more lopsided this time. I have to say I'm not a huge fan of that. I want all the main characters to have relatively even importance/depth/screentime, even if one has a bit more than others. And frankly, gay or straight, I prefer that personal issues be kept to a minimum anyway. DS9 was just enough for me as far as that's concerned. If by "personal issues" you mean "romance issues" then I agree; I don't need to see a lot of that, though since having them is inevitable (and by no means always bad) I would want them to take advantage of one of the main aspects a TV series has over movies - runtime - and make sure any relationships are fleshed out enough to be believable and maybe even interesting. Whew, sentence. And if you mean all personal issues than I'll disagree, as I enjoy exploring the characters and developing them. Not that I want it to eclipse the scientific and exploratory angles, mind. Ideally, they'd be intertwined a lot of the time in a fluid way. I probably wasn't clear enough, sorry. My point was that as we learn more about human behaviour, we are beginning to understand that, with the exception of psychopathic individuals, locking people up for crimes does little good either for society or the individual being punished. I would expect that in several hundred years, and especially given the other advances in Federation society, the idea of penal incarceration for life would seem as barbaric to them as burning people at the stake does to us. But I suppose that limits dramatic options.  That is what I thought you meant originally, and I have to say I agree. I think the Federation would have moved past incarceration as the primary means of dealing with criminals. I also think it would be a very interesting thing to explore, and something very Trek-y to explore as well. It's something I wish all scifi did more often to be honest; explore what a different society would be like, not just transpose the contemporary one at the time of writing into a world with better tech (one specific example I've discussed in the past is properly showing the lack of homophobia that the ME verse ostensibly has and what it would mean to society). Sadly, it's probably too late for this to be the case in the lore at this point, unless we have an actual sequel series again. A small science nitpick about episode 4: First of all, O-type stars are extremely rare. Randomly materializing above one is an almost negligible possibility. Secondly, O-type stars are blue-white, so someone clearly goofed on the research here. Thirdly, O-types are the largest main-sequence stars so there is no way the Discovery would be visible at that scale. Zooming in on the discovery with the star below should probably not reveal such a pronounced curvature of the star itself. The star would just be too big for that to happen. Fourthly, they are the hottest stars on the scale. Being so close to one is almost certainly fatal. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Discovery would survive that encounter, regardless of whatever primitive shielding it possesses.  A tiny part of me dies inside every time a science show makes a rudimentary research failure  As you say, it's not a big deal, but it's still annoying that they couldn't just do a google search, you know? I was having a similar discussion recently about ME:A's "hazards". BansheeOwnage I've been reading that Discovery is actually on cable in Canada. It's on the Space and Z channels up there. Have you been watching? Oh, no, I didn't know that! So no, I haven't been. In fact, it's been busy lately and I forgot about this thread for a few days. I'm still iffy on the show, and I rarely watch things by myself, but we'll see. I want it to be good... |
|
|
|
Post by yourfunnyuncle on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:21 GMT
I am beginning to get the feeling...
...that the end-point for this season is redemption for Burnham leading to her regaining rank and taking over command of the Discovery, with Lorca either dead, disgraced, promoted or moved to another ship. Perhaps a more standard Trek to follow, but with resentments over her past still lingering among the crew (assuming the show gets renewed, of course.)
It goes without saying that this is speculation and I am probably completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgcatanisiri on Oct 11, 2017 10:00:40 GMT
I am beginning to get the feeling...
...that the end-point for this season is redemption for Burnham leading to her regaining rank and taking over command of the Discovery, with Lorca either dead, disgraced, promoted or moved to another ship. Perhaps a more standard Trek to follow, but with resentments over her past still lingering among the crew (assuming the show gets renewed, of course.)
It goes without saying that this is speculation and I am probably completely wrong.
That kinda ties into my own theory - thematically, the death of Georgiou represents those people trying to say 'silly rabbit, idealism is for kids,' which is why she dies and is functionally replaced with Lorca, this guy who is embracing this idea of 'I'm doing what I have to do to win the war,' and Michael's arc, as well as the season's focus, is to say 'no, this goes beyond any one person, this is what we are fighting to defend, we will still lose if we sacrifice it in the name of winning the war.' |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 14:58:06 GMT
And not directly related, but there is a character discussion-point I wanted to chime in on: People are saying that much of the story focuses on just one character. While it's true that historically, the Captains of the shows have had the most spotlight-time (and I believe Discovery's MC is the XO?), from description it sounds like it's a bit more lopsided this time. From everything I've read, it seems as if it's currently the Michael Burnham show, with everyone else acting as secondary characters. I'd liken it more to TOS than anything else, which was essentially the Kirk, Spock, (and sometimes) McCoy show, and everyone else was a secondary character. I love TOS, and the relationship between those guys, but I prefer the ensemble style of the later shows. This changed dramatically in TNG and DS9 (I haven't seen hardly any of Voyager and Enterprise) when the show turned into a true ensemble. There were entire episodes that focused on a single character where other characters (including the captain) were virtually ignored, or shown to just be going about their duty. All of the primary characters got multiple episodes that featured them, and all of those actors had their time to shine. Heck, there were several episodes of DS9 that Avery Brooks (Capt. Sisko) was hardly in because he directed them. I just don't see that happening with Discovery because it's all about Michael Burnham. |
|
|
|
Post by yourfunnyuncle on Oct 11, 2017 16:19:47 GMT
Yeah. While the main focus of the overarching story is clearly Burnham, I don't get the feeling so far that the other characters will be sidelined to the extent that they won't develop and have their own interesting storylines. I'm not hugely concerned on that front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Fox on Oct 16, 2017 0:07:48 GMT
Should be interesting today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Fox on Oct 16, 2017 1:38:00 GMT
I liked it. I don't really have any specific criteria for what I consider good, as long as it keeps my attention. yea .
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Fox on Oct 16, 2017 13:59:55 GMT
It was really good. That last shot freaked me out. For real It went from a loving shot between the two characters to that face in the mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by dgcatanisiri on Oct 17, 2017 3:52:50 GMT
So, question for you all.
I saw someone complain about how Stamets is a pretentious standoffish jerk, that him being "Problematic but Lovable" is a bad stereotypical trope to fall in to for a marginalized character. Personally, I disagree - his worst 'standoffishness' has revolved around Michael, who much if not all of Starfleet blame as the one who started the war with the Klingons, because with her conviction for mutiny, she is effectively the face of the war. The rest of it comes from a scientist being called upon to turn his exploration and examination of the galaxy into weapons of war, a man of peace drafted into being a soldier. Both of these are valid characterizations to be seen at this point in the war, and are important and valid viewpoints that are best expressed by a main character so that they have nuance.
I also think that, with representation as it is, it's a catch-22, because no matter what, a queer character played by a queer actor is going to be called on to be everything a queer character can be, including the contradictions. Like... To use another example, I've never railed against Dorian Pavus AS A CHARACTER for having stereotypical traits, just a stereotypical STORYLINE. Okay, yes, I've also pointed out that he's a character archetype that we've seen plenty of times in BioWare games, but this is not the case in Star Trek, as Stamets is the first character who is in a continuous relationship on a Star Trek series (because I'll always call Jadzia Dax Star Trek's first queer character and Hikaru Sulu has only been established as queer in Beyond). So this isn't something that Star Trek has done many times over, it's a new character, new territory for Star Trek.
What's your take, everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Fox on Oct 17, 2017 3:57:35 GMT
He rubbed me the wrong way at first but I like him more now. Thats about all I have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 4:45:35 GMT
I saw someone complain about how Stamets is a pretentious standoffish jerk, that him being "Problematic but Lovable" is a bad stereotypical trope to fall in to for a marginalized character. Personally, I disagree - his worst 'standoffishness' has revolved around Michael, who much if not all of Starfleet blame as the one who started the war with the Klingons, because with her conviction for mutiny, she is effectively the face of the war. I get that "first impressions" are a thing, but isn't it a bit early for all that? With any character, it's important to show them being different ways, in different situations, with different people. I don't expect him to act toward his boyfriend the way he acts toward Burnham, and other such things. There is also the possibility for him to grow as a character as the audience sees more of him, as the actor gets a greater feel for being the character, as the writers get a feel for who he IS as a person. A good existing example of a Star Trek character that had quite a bit of growth from his early days was Worf. He was initially just the gruff, standoffish Klingon character, more of a secondary role because of the presence of Tasha Yar. When she left at the end of the first season, Worf's role expanded, as did his characterization. He was still mostly gruff and standoffish, but also showed a (very!) dry sense of humor, true friendship with his comrades, and a deep romantic streak. It's difficult to believe that the same Worf we see in season one is the same that is quoting Klingon poetry to Dr. Pulaski in the following season, and seemed to grudgingly appreciate his adoptive parents' teasing. However, I think his characterization might suffer from the focus on Brunham. If the show is focused around and being told from her POV, the audience will be expected to sympathize with her and see her treatment by Stamets and others in a negative light. In addition, there is less time for secondary characters in that situation to develop outside of their interaction with the main character. If Stamets dislikes Burnham, then most of the Stamets we see will be him clashing with Burnham because of the show's format. But the flip side of the coin is that he could be the lovable, friendly gay dude. Which would be worse? That stereotypical characterization, or one that has him be a bit of a jerk? (I should reiterate again that I haven't seen the show beyond the first episode, so everything I know about it has been gleaned from online sources.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:21:22 GMT
omg i squealed when i saw dwight in new ep ahaha his geek wish got true  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:34:59 GMT
omg that klington captain is having an alien kink |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:58:57 GMT
wtf was that ending??? creepy.... the ep was 5 stars, really loved it! they let the creature free, my weak heart couldnt handle its sufferings any more  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Fox on Oct 17, 2017 20:32:20 GMT
omg that klington captain is having an alien kink I get the situation is less than ideal but I don't think I'd turn down some hanky panky with a klingon. Gotta stay true to the X-philia |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 5:39:55 GMT
Here is a Polygon article addressing timeline continuity.Here is one interesting quote: As much as I prefer the episodic format, I do agree with this idea and see the merit in it. In a way, heavy episodes like City on the Edge of Forever (where Edith Keeler is featured) have less of a lasting impact when everything is forgotten about the following week. Kirk comes away from that traumatized; McCoy is as well because of his role in the whole thing; it's awful. The following episode has Kirk deal with the death of his brother and sister-in-law and the near-death of his young nephew. In a way, it's good that these two emotionally heavy episodes are at the end of the season so you can imagine the off-season as him working through that if you want. But the fact remains that it's never addressed in the series again. In fact, I believe the only other time Kirk's brother's death is alluded to is in the Star Trek V film (where it has a double meaning as he is also referring to Spock as his brother -- Shatner's delivery is flawless in this scene).
|
|
|
|
Post by dgcatanisiri on Oct 19, 2017 7:37:59 GMT
Here is a Polygon article addressing timeline continuity.Here is one interesting quote: As much as I prefer the episodic format, I do agree with this idea and see the merit in it. In a way, heavy episodes like City on the Edge of Forever (where Edith Keeler is featured) have less of a lasting impact when everything is forgotten about the following week. Kirk comes away from that traumatized; McCoy is as well because of his role in the whole thing; it's awful. The following episode has Kirk deal with the death of his brother and sister-in-law and the near-death of his young nephew. In a way, it's good that these two emotionally heavy episodes are at the end of the season so you can imagine the off-season as him working through that if you want. But the fact remains that it's never addressed in the series again. In fact, I believe the only other time Kirk's brother's death is alluded to is in the Star Trek V film (where it has a double meaning as he is also referring to Spock as his brother -- Shatner's delivery is flawless in this scene). I remember TNG's writers said that it wasn't until after writing 'The Inner Light' that they realized just how affecting those events would be for Picard, experiencing another man's life, several decades worth of life and memories and experiences, only after they'd written the episode and moved on, and so they ended up giving it follow up a season later, and even then, they really only focused on it in one single episode. Otherwise Picard was the same man. (Also, like City, it was at the tail end of the season, the next episode being the cliffhanger between seasons, so we could imagine a gap of a month or two between episodes, since the two episodes that followed it would have to connect to each other, even as they're explicitly, by way of the stardates at the start of the episode, in two different years). So yeah, for emotional follow up and processing, the serialized writing is definitely a point in Discovery's favor. Especially the way they're doing it, which includes episodic plots for the episodes while having the emotional beats drive the story as much as the season's overall storyline, when we check back in - The first two episodes take place back to back, then episode three jumps six months forward, the fourth episode follows shortly after, and then there's clearly been a week or two between four and five, given Lorca referring to additional missions with Discovery's drive that we didn't see. The time passed, but the emotional processing and development is still happening at a reasonable pace, we're just skipping the parts that would repeat or are less definitive in the course of watching that processing. |
|
|
|
Post by yourfunnyuncle on Oct 19, 2017 15:41:01 GMT
One reason I loved and continue to love Babylon 5 is that they mixed the five-season story and the character development that went with it with self-contained episode storylines. That does seem to be what Discovery is attempting. So far, we're gradually learning more about the characters (not just Michael, we got a good insight into Captain Lorca's motivations this last episode) but each episode does also have its own situation with which the crew is dealing.
|
|
As you say, it's not a big deal, but it's still annoying that they couldn't just do a google search, you know? I was having a similar discussion recently about ME:A's "hazards".
Much love right back at ya!
