Star Trek: Discovery

[MoneySpider]

She is The Burnham. Her path differs from the others.

[Jokerz79]

The man built the first warp drive engine from scratch out of an old ballistic missile. He didn't do that with welding torches and slide rules. Of course there were computers and reasonably advanced communications. The movie didn't show those things to the audience because they had no relevance to the plot, and I suspect the creative team could reasonably assume that rational people would know those things must exist.

He had technology protected in a shielded government silo look above the silo and the most advance tech was a 50's juke box. During nuclear war the EMP will take out modern tech in range of blast zones that is not shielded which most tech especially civilian isn't shielded. There will be some tech from our current world but most people are going back to about the 50's.

[Enterprise E]

After watching the first two episodes, I thought that Discovery was pretty good. I did not like what they did with the looks of the Klingons, but I could look past that and enjoy the story for what it was. It still seemed like Star Trek, or could be Star Trek. After the third episode, though, I don't know what to think about the series. For me, Star Trek has never been anywhere close to being an R-rated franchise, but that's what we got in the third episode of Discovery, and it doesn't look like that will change in future episodes. Now I'm willing to watch the next couple of episodes and see if it gets back into the spirit of Star Trek, but if not, then I'm done. It is a good sci-fi show, in my view, but it's not Star Trek, at least not as of episode 3, and I came in wanting to see Star Trek. We have enough grim dark in media nowadays. We don't need it in a franchise that is about optimism, hope, and a better future for humanity. Discovery doesn't seem to have these things as of Episode 3, and if it doesn't change back to being more Star Trek-like, then I see this show having problems as time goes on.

[Carabas]

What, specifically, is grimdark about it?

[ChrisIII]

The Klingons seem to be one of the most retconned races in fiction; apart from the forehead thing, I think that early seasons of TNG strongly implied that the Klingons were actually part of the Federation now, and not a sort of separate power with an alliance.

Also "Yesterday's Enterprise" strongly seemed to indicate that the Klingon alliance was actually much younger than the events in "Star Trek VI". (I think this was later retconned by saying there were actually two separate peace treaties).

[Cel]

"Yesterday's Enterprise" strongly seemed to indicate that the Klingon alliance was actually much younger than the events in "Star Trek VI". (I think this was later retconned by saying there were actually two separate peace treaties).

It was ultimately the same treaty, the Khitomer Accords. In DS9, then Chancellor Gowron briefly pulled the Klingon Empire out of the Khitomer Accords, paving the way for resumed hostilities with the Federation. It seemed as if the Khitomer Accords originally was meant to just stop the fighting between the Klingons and the Federation, but after the Battle of Narendra III, it was amended or expanded to become an actual alliance. "Yesterday's Enterprise" showed a timeline where the Khitomer Accords unraveled after Narendra III.

[Iron Fist]

So I finished episode 3 and I'm pretty much confused.

Michael committed mutiny, but she was right, there were klingons, they were organising and they had to fight or show force otherwise they were gonna die.

Yet everyone is acting like she did this huge horrible unforgivable thing. Her captain pretty much got over it right away and the crew saw that.

So I don't quite get why she is infamous as a traitor when she was right about everything and her entire crew can attest that she was right and had the best intentions.

I know its a plot device but it doesnt make sense to me =/

[Carabas]

So I finished episode 3 and I'm pretty much confused.

Michael committed mutiny, but she was right, there were klingons, they were organising and they had to fight or show force otherwise they were gonna die.

She would have been right if this was your run of the mill Klingon encounter. This was an extremist who was there for just one thing: start a war. And Starfleet shooting first wouldn't have mattered one bit.

Yet everyone is acting like she did this huge horrible unforgivable thing. Her captain pretty much got over it right away and the crew saw that.

Tell me: in what kind of military is knocking out your superior officer and trying to stage a mutiny not a huge, horrible, unforgivable thing?
Nevermind the she destroyed the only chance for making peace with the Klingons when she took the time to switch her Phaser from stun to kill, and and murdered T'Kuvma instead of capturing him.

So I don't quite get why she is infamous as a traitor when she was right about everything and her entire crew can attest that she was right and had the best intentions.

Intentions don't matter in these things. And she's not considered a traitor, she's a mutineer. The only one ever. And her crew can attest to nothing except her going completely nuts. She wasn't right, but nobody on the Starfleet side has any way to know if she was right or not. By Starfleet rules and such she was about as wrong as it is possible to be.

[Guardian]

My first Star Trek show that I watched regularely was TNG, I didn't really love the first 2 seasons but I stuck with it and I began to love Star Trek as a whole and I loved it ever since. That was around 1992.

DS9 is my alltime favourite Star Trek show (I've seen all episodes around 5 times), followed by TNG, ENT and VOY. Yes, for me ENT was much better and nearly equal to TNG and VOY is at the bottom. I never really got into TOS, I watched a few episodes but did not really like it.

The new movies in the Kelvin Timeline are good action/scifi flicks but for me they are far from Star Trek and I am glad, that Discovery is being placed into the Prime Timeline and not the Kelvin.

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY has some visuals from the Kelvin Timeline yes, but that is just a natural thing because this show is produced in 2017. It would just be so silly if the technology would look similar to the TOS technology. Yes it looks way more modern now, they have hologram-communication and all those flat touchscreens but I like it. They still went with some things from TOS like the pistols or the comm unit.

I really like this dark, shadowy approach. Maybe the Discovery Crew and Captain are working for Section 31? Or they are some kind of predecessor to it? I quite like it and I like Michael as a character.
The klingon redesign is nice and I don't really know why some people are questioning the klingon language. They speak it flawlessly. Yes it seems slow (probably because of their mouthpieces) and "hacked" but the pronunciation is fantastic.

Very exited to see where this is going and I really hope the show will not suffer because of that CBS All Access crap. A lot of people seem to boycot the series because of that and thats a shame because the show looks so promising. Don't get me wrong: I understand you guys completely, it is a disaster to have to sign on to so many different streaming services... Luckily I am Swiss and I can download any show I want to for free. Even torrents are not illegal in Switzerland which is a very good thing.

So yeah, I LOVE Star Trek Discovery so far, finally a new Star Trek show that is in the prime timeline but still got a bit of a modern (seen as we are in 2017) vibe to it.

[Powertool]

This show is flat, derivative and poorly written. My problem with it ultimately comes down to three things:

I) Unlikable protagonists. We have no positive traits for the protagonists other than "Protagonist". Watching Michael Burnham feels like watching X-Men 1...without the Holocaust scene and with Magneto as the protagonist. Tilly is an insufferably clingy climber and kiss-ass, Stamet is unbearably catty, and Lorca is anviliciously always in dark lighting and delivers clunkers like, 'I like to think it makes me look mysterious.' I'm sure the writers do too. And the twist at the end of the third episode with Lorca was eyeroll-inducing. The sort of twist you'd expect from a really third-rate TV show's hack writers.

II) Lack of nuance. This reads like a Trek fanfic--in fact, a specific kind of Trek fanfic that sprang up in the late '90s and early 2000s in Star Trek vs. Star Wars forums. This kind of fanfic shows the Federation pushed to the edge (usually in a new conflict after the Dominion War) and becoming a totalitarian s**thole because the only thing wrong with DS9 is that pesky optimism and striving to do good. Discovery feels like it was written by someone who watched Star Trek and didn't like it. Our protagonist's sole personality trait is xenophobia motivated by personal trauma. And I'm not even the kind of fan who thinks that 'grittier and edgier' reimaginings are bad per se, but they've got to establish enough reason in-universe for why it's become that way! It was well-established how high the stakes were in the Dominion War. Christ, it was better established than DSC how high the stakes were during the freakin' Xindi arc when Archer resorted to piracy. Even Yesterday's Enterprise did a better job with some statistics-laden dialogue in one episode conveying how desperate things were.

And that's just the tone. Why is Burnham quoting Lewis Carroll when she's scurrying along Jefferies Tubes away from a monster? Why is she committing mutiny when she seemingly hasn't even thought through what she's trying to accomplish? Why was she, as Saru noted, 'a good officer until she wasn't' given her years of experience working effectively as part of a crew and under her captain? And only to self-destruct in a moment of adolescent tantrum. She had no proof that she surely knew better than everyone else.

III) Aesthetics, specifically the Klingon aesthetics. These amplify the problems by making the Klingons inhuman non-threats. Klingons used to move fast, speak loudly and boisterously, move dramatically and make great threatening movements because they were raised in a society that values bombastic warriors. These Klingons? They move like big beetles crawling around the landscape and they look like Uruk-Hai. These aren't threats! They're a joke!

IMO, it should've been a story about Captain Gheorgiou, a model Federation officer in every way, betrayed by her trusted executive officer and wondering, deep in her heart, if she did something wrong. Make her the hero and Burnham the antagonist. Heck, Burnham already feels more appropriate as an antagonist! That's a set-up I'd like to see developed, even if the Klingon makeup still sucked.

Since I have much better things to do to spend my spare time, my experience with Star Trek: Discovery is officially over.

[Carabas]

This show is flat, derivative and poorly written. My problem with it ultimately comes down to three things:

I) Unlikable protagonists. We have no positive traits for the protagonists other than "Protagonist". Watching Michael Burnham feels like watching X-Men 1...without the Holocaust scene and with Magneto as the protagonist. Tilly is an insufferably clingy climber and kiss-ass, Stamet is unbearably catty, and Lorca is anviliciously always in dark lighting and delivers clunkers like, 'I like to think it makes me look mysterious.' I'm sure the writers do too. And the twist at the end of the third episode with Lorca was eyeroll-inducing. The sort of twist you'd expect from a really third-rate TV show's hack writers.

I liked most of them. Tilly may yet grow on me if she's toned down a bit.

Also, what twist?

II) Lack of nuance. This reads like a Trek fanfic--in fact, a specific kind of Trek fanfic that sprang up in the late '90s and early 2000s in Star Trek vs. Star Wars forums. This kind of fanfic shows the Federation pushed to the edge (usually in a new conflict after the Dominion War) and becoming a totalitarian s**thole because the only thing wrong with DS9 is that pesky optimism and striving to do good. Discovery feels like it was written by someone who watched Star Trek and didn't like it. Our protagonist's sole personality trait is xenophobia motivated by personal trauma. And I'm not even the kind of fan who thinks that 'grittier and edgier' reimaginings are bad per se, but they've got to establish enough reason in-universe for why it's become that way! It was well-established how high the stakes were in the Dominion War. Christ, it was better established than DSC how high the stakes were during the freakin' Xindi arc when Archer resorted to piracy. Even Yesterday's Enterprise did a better job with some statistics-laden dialogue in one episode conveying how desperate things were.

I have seen nothing of this in this show so far.
At worst you have a Captain played by Lucius Malfoy, that the writers are having fun with. He has not actually done anything shady yet.

And that's just the tone. Why is Burnham quoting Lewis Carroll when she's scurrying along Jefferies Tubes away from a monster?

Same reason Picard quoted Shakespeare at every opportunity.

Why is she committing mutiny when she seemingly hasn't even thought through what she's trying to accomplish? Why was she, as Saru noted, 'a good officer until she wasn't' given her years of experience working effectively as part of a crew and under her captain? And only to self-destruct in a moment of adolescent tantrum. She had no proof that she surely knew better than everyone else.

Because she is mentally ill.
Due to not one but two Klingon-related childhood traumas she has severe untreated PTSD (the Vulcan method "just supress it and it'll go away" doesn't really work for humans). And when she was suddenly faced with the source of her trauma she predictably completely fell to pieces.
It's Sarek's fault, really. Damn space elves.

[Agent Z]

I liked most of them. Tilly may yet grow on me if she's toned down a bit.

Also, what twist?


I have seen nothing of this in this show so far.
At worst you have a Captain played by Lucius Malfoy, that the writers are having fun with. He has not actually done anything shady yet.


Same reason Picard quoted Shakespeare at every opportunity.


Because she is mentally ill.
Due to not one but two Klingon-related childhood traumas she has severe untreated PTSD (the Vulcan method "just supress it and it'll go away" doesn't really work for humans). And when she was suddenly faced with the source of her trauma she predictably completely fell to pieces.
It's Sarek's fault, really. Damn space elves.

I got to ask, are there no therapists in the Star Trek universe? You'd think Starfleet would better screen people who join them.

[ZeroBG82]

I got to ask, are there no therapists in the Star Trek universe? You'd think Starfleet would better screen people who join them.

Vulcan upbringing. Burnham has quite literally been trained to repress her emotions. She has hidden her trauma behind the shield of logic, and only when confronted with the childhood monsters who destroyed her parents is she truly forced to face what that means to her, and the effect it has had on her.

Burnham is a deeply unlikable character. But her almost PTSD response to the Klingons isn't why. It's one of the few nuanced, well written components of this show, which is otherwise pretty standard fare.

[G. Boney]

.
At worst you have a Captain played by Lucius Malfoy, that the writers are having fun with. He has not actually done anything shady yet.

Secretly beaming aboard the creature that just tried to kill members of your crew is pretty shady.

[Iron Fist]

She would have been right if this was your run of the mill Klingon encounter. This was an extremist who was there for just one thing: start a war. And Starfleet shooting first wouldn't have mattered one bit.


Tell me: in what kind of military is knocking out your superior officer and trying to stage a mutiny not a huge, horrible, unforgivable thing?
Nevermind the she destroyed the only chance for making peace with the Klingons when she took the time to switch her Phaser from stun to kill, and and murdered T'Kuvma instead of capturing him.


Intentions don't matter in these things. And she's not considered a traitor, she's a mutineer. The only one ever. And her crew can attest to nothing except her going completely nuts. She wasn't right, but nobody on the Starfleet side has any way to know if she was right or not. By Starfleet rules and such she was about as wrong as it is possible to be.

I just don't buy it.

The people on the bridge will have seen her rapor with the captain and seen the events surrounding what happened. I just don't buy she'd be demonised and loathed as much as she is in the show, especially given the crew would probably have to testify and assuming they didn't lie, Burnham's behaviour wasn't super crazy. She forewarned of danger and wanted to avoid it, that much was obvious, she just failed.

As for killing T'Kuvma no one knows about that but her pretty much.

I just dont buy her so infamous but no one seeing it from her side, especially given all her predictions were correct.