Support NeoGAF

[Pegasus Actual]

Question now that people have already seen it: I'm fairly new to Trek, and I've been slowly working my way through the original series for a couple of months. I'm enjoying so far (early season 2 now), and I'll probably finish the original series + movies.

I'm debating with myself whether to watch the new show live, or to wait a little bit until I've seen more of the old Trek (at the very least the best episodes of each series, but I might just go through it all if I like it enough). I don't mind doing this at my own pace but I can see how following this live would be more fun. Would my enjoyment of the new show be significantly improved by having more of a grasp of a history of the franchise, or would hopping back between new and old be fine as well?

I know this is a bit of a silly question of course, but I was just wondering.

That's a perfectly reasonable question given the size of the Trek universe. I think you're fine jumping in on the new show and filling in the back catalog as you see fit. No need to watch the uhh... 600+ episodes. TOS plus the movies is a good starting point. And getting through Trek VI gets you somewhere with the Klingons, which is a major focus of the new show. Who knows how well it will all tie together in the end. But yeah. I vote hop right in.

 

[Ricker]

Good thing I recorded an extra 30min on Space (Canada) because they really fucked on the runtime. There's going to be a lot of unhappy trek fans in Canada today with ep2 cut off. I thought the first two eps were good.

Yep,did the same when I saw the fiasco last night...I always do that on Sunday anyway for any show that airs after a football game...I was lucky for Orville last week as it aired at the right time but thats because it was on CITY TV.

 

[Jackpot]

How about scientific evidence supporting that people who believe they are without bias actually have bias?

You have evidence that it's the "largest factor" and the driving force behind the negative posts about her in this thread?

I really don't see how she's responsible for the death of her captain, or the death of anyone else for that matter.

Even though she pulled the trigger on the gun that killed one of them?

Honestly, I could get past the mutiny as stupid and contrived drama. But she was the one who recognised what killing T'kuvma would do. Until she spoke everyone else was going along with the destroy the ship plan. And now 8000 people and counting are dead because of her bloodlust.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

^ I'm gonna watch it again, but to me it seemed the Klingon was in full kill mode. Not sure at the moment how killing a klingon who wants to murder you means you are now responsible for everyone dying.

You make a good point about killing T'kuvma. But by then T'kuvma already murdered starfleet members.

Yea, most people have enjoyed it. Same with social media overall.

 

[The Elite]

When someone is trying to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

I'm not sure I understand the point of all this. No one is suggesting that the Federation change it's policies to be more war-like to Michael's decree. The Federation's guiding principles are good and should be implemented in most scenerio's. But there's no guiding principle in the world that won't lead you wrong at some point, and this happened to be one of them. Michael's advice was the right course of action in this scenerio, and it was substantiated by a good foundation of knowledge, which was ignored because thems the federation rules.

The argument I was arguing against was to the people suggesting that Michael acted without reason or motivation, which is obviously wrong as we are shown multiple times that she has a special interest in Klingons for aforementioned reasons and her fear and trauma is founded in both personal experience and study of who they are as a culture. Even if she did call up Serak to confirm what she should do, it's clear that she knows the Klingons. Her reactions are extreme, but they match her backstory soundly. It's not about excusing her, it's about empathizing with her, because her reactions are very human. Instead people are being all "Bwah she made a mistake, burn the witch!" which is dumb.

The thing is, her solution only ends up making sense as the episode pans out, and because we as the audience are privy to T'Kuvma's thoughts. From Georgieu's perspective, at the time it's being argued, her First Officer is citing a centuries old example she just pulled out of nowhere. The Federation are not the Vulcans in terms of political stature or presumed power, nor is it truly first contact. Even the attack Burnham herself lived through isn't brought up as reference - why did the Klingons attack? Was it before or after contact was attempted?

Mind, in this regard T'Kuvma is intended as something of an anomaly and an exception, I'd say. Much like the Borg would be for the Federation a century or so later, he is a threat that cared nothing for coexistence with the Federation. Something alien to their ideals, and thus begging the question of how he and others like him should be dealt with. Gorkon, he is not.

 

[Goo]

My dvr stopped recording the show early so I didn't get to see the full first episode 😞

 

[Sir Doom]

The production value on this is high, but with a trade off of 30 minutes.

I was skeptical about the lead but I’m liking her.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Is a bunch I hate about JJ Trek in it, redesign of races for no good reason, pew pew phaser shots instead of the steady beam phaser, ignoring Trek history (There was a war with Klingons like 8-9 years before this is set). Technology way too advanced for the time period.

It all turns me off as I feel is no respect for existing Trek shown at all.

As to the rest, not enough main characters, are maybe 4 main ones, and two are now dead, of the two alive one seems to be an unlikable coward and the other unlikeable due to a bunch of shitty actions. Why are the ships so dark also? I'm not even sure what the bridge looked like.

Are a bunch of nitpicks but don't seem worth mentioning when such major problems exist.

 

[Veelk]

You have evidence that it's the "largest factor" and the driving force behind the negative posts about her in this thread?

No. But that wasn't Not's point. Not's point was that no one is exempt from bias to some degree. Whether it's the 'largest' factor is beside the point. The point is that it is a factor, and as such, greater scrutiny for such a factor is warranted.

Honestly, I could get past the mutiny as stupid and contrived drama. But she was the one who recognised what killing T'kuvma would do. Until she spoke everyone else was going along with the destroy the ship plan. And now 8000 people and counting are dead because of her bloodlust.

Bloodlust? It's a fucking combat situation where she was scrambling to save her captain from what the deathblow she saw coming. It was less of a decision and more of a pure training response that you should shoot an active threat. Even if the captain had said that taking him prisoner was a priority above even saving her life, you can't really think things through in moments like that.

 

[Effect]

Discovery is what would've happened if Deep Space Nine started in Season 5, with Sisko already turning away from Federation ideals.

I think this is a interesting way of looking at it. It doesn't feel at all like the start of a typical Trek show. We've all talked about how they need to hit the ground running and not waste a season 1 or 2 like previous series while keeping in mind the show is going to be serialized. I think that's what they did here. We jumped to a later season in a show that was aware it had to introduce characters and events. There was no wasting of time. It knows what it was to do and is doing it. Now it's a question does one really want that now after experiencing it.

I expect the show to slow down a little in the next few episodes since the first two episodes or just the premiere in general was so kinetic. I could be wrong though and it still has you holding on for the ride.

 

[DrBo42]

The production value on this is high, but with a trade off of 30 minutes.

I was skeptical about the lead but I'm liking her.

Yeah these really needed to be 1 hr. I think the series is going to do pretty well, at least critically. Not sure how many people are actually going to buy into that streaming service though. Seems like an insane gamble at first glance but if the Netflix international deal essentially paid for the whole thing who knows.

 

[Effect]

My dvr stopped recording the show early so I didn't get to see the full first episode 😞

That sucks. If you're in the US CBSAA gives you a week free or 2 days free depending on tier you get. Maybe more if you try to cancel I think. Need a credit card though and you could watch the first two episodes. Was hoping the first episode would be free to watch on their site but doesn't look like it. That or you might have to find another method.

 

[danm999]

I get the sense you are supposed to be questioning Michael in these first few episodes. She's questioning herself at her trial testimony.

She instinctively gets a lot of calls right, but her actions fall into an ends justify the means trap fairly often.

 

[Jackpot]

You have evidence that it's the "largest factor" and the driving force behind the negative posts about her in this thread?

No. But that wasn't Not's point. Not's point was that no one is exempt from bias to some degree.

erm...

I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's by far the largest factor in play for why people don't like or don't sympathize with said characters.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Is a bunch I hate about JJ Trek in it, redesign of races for no good reason, pew pew phaser shots instead of the steady beam phaser, ignoring Trek history (There was a war with Klingons like 8-9 years before this is set). Technology way too advanced for the time period.

It all turns me off as I feel is no respect for existing Trek shown at all.

As to the rest, not enough main characters, are maybe 4 main ones, and two are now dead, of the two alive one seems to be an unlikable coward and the other unlikeable due to a bunch of shitty actions. Why are the ships so dark also? I'm not even sure what the bridge looked like.

Are a bunch of nitpicks but don't seem worth mentioning when such major problems exist.

Source? (and books are not canon to tv Trek)

And he's not unlikeable or a coward - he's very much established that his race is a prey species.

 

[LiQuid!]

Of all the dumb nitpicks I see from people about this show my favorite is that the technology is "too advanced" compared to the older shows. The older shows are literal decades old. The technology in them has been eclipsed in some ways by our real world technology. I forgive this show for updating what it considers plausible technology in relation to ours rather than what was previously depicted. People need to get over it already.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Is a bunch I hate about JJ Trek in it, redesign of races for no good reason, pew pew phaser shots instead of the steady beam phaser, ignoring Trek history (There was a war with Klingons like 8-9 years before this is set). Technology way too advanced for the time period.

[...]


Are a bunch of nitpicks but don't seem worth mentioning when such major problems exist.

But those are like the most minor possible problems

 

[Boem]

That's a perfectly reasonable question given the size of the Trek universe. I think you're fine jumping in on the new show and filling in the back catalog as you see fit. No need to watch the uhh... 600+ episodes. TOS plus the movies is a good starting point. And getting through Trek VI gets you somewhere with the Klingons, which is a major focus of the new show. Who knows how well it will all tie together in the end. But yeah. I vote hop right in.

Thanks! I'll go for that then, otherwise it'd be years before I got to Discovery in my tempo. It'll be interesting to see if my opinion on Discovery changes before and after I've seen the majority of everything Trek.

 

[Z3M0G]

I loved it and I hope they bring

Spoiler

Michelle Yeoh

back,

Spoiler

there's seven years of adventures that can be mined for flashbacks.

Well that spoils that I guess...

 

[Seijuro]

Does this stream in 4K on Netflix? Getting a 4K TV in 2 days and consider waiting to watch Trek in glorious UHD.

 

[DBT85]

Of all the dumb nitpicks I see from people about this show my favorite is that the technology is "too advanced" compared to the older shows. The older shows are literal decades old. The technology in them has been eclipsed in some ways by our real world technology. I forgive this show for updating what it considers plausible technology in relation to ours rather than what was previously depicted. People need to get over it already.

No no.in 100 years when someone makes a tng prequel, tech had to stay exactly same. Errbody knows

 

[Veelk]

The thing is, her solution only ends up making sense as the episode pans out, and because we as the audience are privy to T'Kuvma's thoughts. From Georgieu's perspective, at the time it's being argued, her First Officer is citing a centuries old example she just pulled out of nowhere. The Federation are not the Vulcans in terms of political stature or presumed power, nor is it truly first contact. Even the attack Burnham herself lived through isn't brought up as reference - why did the Klingons attack? Was it before or after contact was attempted?

Why do we have to work from the position of doubt on Michael's perspective? There are endless reasons for why she could be wrong, because anyone can be wrong for hundreds of potential reasons. But there are hundreds of thousands of stories and characters who work out just fine because they follow through on a hunch they have (though I wouldn't call what Michael has a hunch. It's more of a theory). There is an unusual kind of scrutiny put on Michael that she has to be absolutely, 100% certainly, no room for doubt, correct about the situation. I mean, there are plenty of reasons why Kirk could have been wrong about the Romulan attack in the 2009 movie for arbitrary reasons too. Sure, even with Michael's knowledge, she could have been potentially wrong. But she wasn't.

The purpose of my pointing out that Michael had solid reasoning to believe what she believed. And her being right isn't the story bending toward her will arbitrarily, she just happened to be right in this instance while Georgieu was wrong. Which doesn't make Georgieu bad or dumb for not listening to her. She had reason to behave like she did too. But in the end, Georgieu didn't know who the Klingons were and Michael did. I don't see why people are blowing it up to be more than that, because this is all very circumstantial. In this instance, Michael was right for reasons she cited: The Klingons have a war based culture. The Klingons don't care for peace. They do not care for Federation ideals.

erm...

Yes, I saw that. Now do you want to read Not's whole post instead of cherrypicking a sentence you don't like? His/her point is that unexamined criticism of Michael will allow racism and sexism to bias people, so more scrutiny is warranted.

Besides, Not said right there that it's a belief he/she holds, an opinion. That's not something she needs to be true for her argument to be valid. She knows that sexism/racism is a factor, and while she may correctly or incorrectly believe it's the largest factor, it's the fact that it's a factor at all that makes His/her argument valid.

 

[LiQuid!]

No no.in 100 years when someone makes a tng prequel, tech had to stay exactly same. Errbody knows

How quaint is it going to be in the year 2117 when people in the latest Trek reboot are reading text off of electronic pads they have to hold in their hands instead of off a cerebral implants CUZ MAH PRESHUSS CANON?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

No no.in 100 years when someone makes a tng prequel, tech had to stay exactly same. Errbody knows

What would be fun is no more prequels. Maybe they could you know, move forward and explore new things...boldly go, ect.

 

[Aiii]

Does this stream in 4K on Netflix? Getting a 4K TV in 2 days and consider waiting to watch Trek in glorious UHD.

No.

 

[wetflame]

I get the feeling that the reason the Klingons were redesigned is less to put their own stamp on them or update them, and more just to separate them from these guys:

I feel like the TNG era onwards (especially in DS9) Klingons have been basically blunted to the point of being a bit of a joke. People are so used to them being portrayed as drunken warriors that I don't think they'd been seen as a true threat to the Federation if they used the old makeup. This helps to separate them from that era and makes them appear a lot more menacing. I like mixing it up in that way.

 

[RoninChaos]

So what's the best way to stream this? I'm interested and wanted to wait to binge it. It my mom called and was like "we should watch this new Star Trek show" so now I have to stream it.

 

[Superkewl]

I just could not get in to it at all. Seems too JJ trek(which I hate)for my liking. A couple times, I just left it running in the background while I was doing other stuff, and not to mention my DVR didn't even catch the end due to the delay.

I don't like the way everything is redesigned, especially the Klingons. Thought the acting was terrible, but then again, Trek has never really been known for it's acting. Aside from the nice effects, I just didn't find anything compelling about it.

I will trudge through the next couple episodes, and hopefully things will turn around, but I am not hopeful :-(

 

[Jackpot]

Well that spoils that I guess...

Spoils what? The episode has aired. There's no reason to turn the page into a barcode to cater to spoilerphobes who for some reason want to take part in a thread about an episode that's aired but don't want people to talk about its content.

 

[Effect]

So what's the best way to stream this? I'm interested and wanted to wait to binge it. It my mom called and was like "we should watch this new Star Trek show" so now I have to stream it.

That depends on where you are. In the US you have to use CBS All Access. In Canada it's on Space and CraveTV. Everywhere else it's on Netflix. The first 2 episodes are up on all services.

 

[danm999]

Why do we have to work from the position of doubt on Michael's perspective? There are endless reasons for why she could be wrong, because anyone can be wrong for hundreds of potential reasons. But there are hundreds of thousands of stories and characters who work out just fine because they follow through on a hunch they have (though I wouldn't call what Michael has a hunch. It's more of a theory). There is an unusual kind of scrutiny put on Michael that she has to be absolutely, 100% certainly, no room for doubt, correct about the situation. I mean, there are plenty of reasons why Kirk could have been wrong about the Romulan attack in the 2009 movie for arbitrary reasons too. Sure, even with Michael's knowledge, she could have been potentially wrong. But she wasn't.

The purpose of my pointing out that Michael had solid reasoning to believe what she believed. And her being right isn't the story bending toward her will arbitrarily, she just happened to be right in this instance while Georgieu was wrong. Which doesn't make Georgieu bad or dumb for not listening to her. She had reason to behave like she did too. But in the end, Georgieu didn't know who the Klingons were and Michael did. I don't see why people are blowing it up to be more than that, because this is all very circumstantial. In this instance, Michael was right for reasons she cited: The Klingons have a war based culture. The Klingons don't care for peace. They do not care for Federation ideals.

You can basically view the entire first two episodes as a story of two individuals on the ascent, Michael and T'kuvma, who had very good instincts about each other's culture trying to manipulate their enemies, and their own people, into doing what they wanted for reasons both personal and societal.

Michael was essentially right about most of the calls she made regarding the Klingons. She knew that if they bothered to send a torchbearer to guard the idol they'd probably show their hand to defend it if it looked like the Shenzou attacked it. She knew something symbolic and dangerous was happening when exactly 24 re-enforcements warped in, a significant number politically to Klingons. She knew killing T'kuvma would create a martyr. She just fucked up a lot of her execution.

Whereas T'kuvma was right in most of his calls about the Federation. He knew they'd bother to fix their beacon, knew they'd call for re-enforcements, knew they'd use the "come in peace" line, knew he could get a big enough scalp in an Admiral if he pretended to play their game and agree to a ceasefire, etc.

Whereas T'kuvma gets all his calls right and effectively everything he wants, though dead, and Michael is pretty powerless to watch herself and the Federation outsmarted by a smart enemy. Whereas T'kuvma is able to corral and manipulate the Klingons into uniting, into ignoring their prejudices against light skinned amongst their kind, Michael cannot get the Federation to understand the threat they face.

But she's alive, and may go on to fix that.

 

[FaustsBoon]

I get the feeling that the reason the Klingons were redesigned is less to put their own stamp on them or update them, and more just to separate them from these guys:



I feel like the TNG era onwards (especially in DS9) Klingons have been basically blunted to the point of being a bit of a joke. People are so used to them being portrayed as drunken warriors that I don't think they'd been seen as a true threat to the Federation if they used the old makeup. This helps to separate them from that era and makes them appear a lot more menacing. I like mixing it up in that way.

I would agree, if not for the fact that countless fantasy fiction writers, across every medium, make Dwarves bad-ass, drunken warriors/miners, just fine. Aesthetics, and previous history are a thing, sure, but a good writer can make anything work without a given production having to resort to more drastic lore/canon shenanigans.

 

[duckroll]

WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST WATCH?

 

[chrominance]

I get the sense you are supposed to be questioning Michael in these first few episodes. She's questioning herself at her trial testimony.

She instinctively gets a lot of calls right, but her actions fall into an ends justify the means trap fairly often.

I would agree with the first part. I wouldn't exactly agree with the part where "she instinctively gets a lot of calls right." We only really see two significant calls she makes, and only one of them is one she actually manages to follow through on, sort of kind of not really.

She realizes even before she gets off the ship that she was wrong. And it's worth noting here that both Sarek and Georgiou were right, though the writing can muddy this a bit. I know the show isn't trying to be TNG, but you would've thought that the show would at least try to have a discussion about why Starfleet principles matter in this case, despite whatever bizarre justification you might have for being the aggressor in a giant space war. Like, it's so far beyond your rank that the fact that you even think you get to make that call above the objections of your commanding officer and likely half the ship is galling.

And I think Sarek was 100% right when he said that what applies to the Vulcans doesn't necessarily apply to the humans, and that what worked back then may not work now. Shooting first in this case is essentially what the Klingons wanted; they needed a justification for war and that would give it to them. This isn't first contact and we're not talking about two species trying to figure out how to talk to one another. The Klingons literally believe the war is necessary to restore the Empire's former glory. And to some extent, I don't care how much training in Klingon culture Burnham has had; Georgiou is right in that nobody's really had much contact with the Klingons for a century and whatever we knew then may not apply now. The arrogance of Burnham to decide she knows how an entire species works after a century of political upheaval.

By that same token, there's a big part that's willing to forgive Burnham a lot of stuff because it seems clear the weird Klingon sect she runs into was gunning for war no matter what, and that any clever diplomatic move here was likely to be met by some minor adjustment to the plan that would still result in war. But let's not pretend that everything would've been alright if everyone had just followed Burnham's plan. Maybe that would've been true of her second big call, but she fucked that one up bigtime so she doesn't get any credit for that.

 

[berzeli]

Added another trio of reviews to the OT, anyone have one they feel should be there or any articles I missed?

WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST WATCH?

Hopefully Star Trek: Discovery or else you're in the wrong thread.

 

[duckroll]

Added another trio of reviews to the OT, anyone have one they feel should be there or any articles I missed?


Hopefully Star Trek: Discovery or else you're in the wrong thread.

More like Star Trek: War Criminals.

 

[Veelk]

WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST WATCH?

Is this a good "WTF DID I JUST WATCH" response or bad?

You can basically view the entire first two episodes as a story of two individuals on the ascent, Michael and T'kuvma, who had very good instincts about each other's culture trying to manipulate their enemies, and their own people, into doing what they wanted for reasons both personal and societal.

...

But she's alive, and may go on to fix that.

This is a pretty good analysis of the themes of the episode.

Though it made me realize I myself forgot another reason why Michael thought the Klingon's might be hostile. Because when she met one and tried to introduce herself, the first thing it did was try to kill her. So...yeah, how many times does she have to nearly die to these guys before we stop blaming her for assuming their hostility?

 

[CoffeeExpress]

I wanted to like it, but it was way too stupid and rushed.

things:

- Why did the captain and the main girl (is her name Micheal?) transport themselves into the enemy ship instead of a full squad team ?
- "We cant make him a martyr", 5 seconds later shoots him and kills him.
- Title sucks, has no theme and is just random stings. Boring.
- I like the new Klingon's, makes them look a little more impressive.
- Why didn't they send the Daft Punk robot into the pod thing when they were doing the 'I am going to sacrifice myself for everybody.... no wait fuck you I am.'
- The Daft Punk robot was awesome.
- WTF was with the editing ? the insane quick cuts and rotating scenes make me sick. It was just as bad as this:

This is actually my biggest complaint, it ruins the show.

- It was pretty.
- It was pretty brainless.

I'll keep watching, I don't want to be overly negative, but it has a lot to live up to and expectations are high.

 

[SteveMeister]

Episode 1: 2/5
Episode 2: 3.5/5
CBS should have had a two hour premiere for free. They probably lost a lot of potential subscribers not doing so.

 

[danm999]

I would agree with the first part. I wouldn't exactly agree with the part where "she instinctively gets a lot of calls right." We only really see two significant calls she makes, and only one of them is one she actually manages to follow through on, sort of kind of not really.

She realizes even before she gets off the ship that she was wrong. And it's worth noting here that both Sarek and Georgiou were right, though the writing can muddy this a bit. I know the show isn't trying to be TNG, but you would've thought that the show would at least try to have a discussion about why Starfleet principles matter in this case, despite whatever bizarre justification you might have for being the aggressor in a giant space war. Like, it's so far beyond your rank that the fact that you even think you get to make that call above the objections of your commanding officer and likely half the ship is galling.

And I think Sarek was 100% right when he said that what applies to the Vulcans doesn't necessarily apply to the humans, and that what worked back then may not work now. Shooting first in this case is essentially what the Klingons wanted; they needed a justification for war and that would give it to them. This isn't first contact and we're not talking about two species trying to figure out how to talk to one another. The Klingons literally believe the war is necessary to restore the Empire's former glory.

By that same token, there's a big part that's willing to forgive Burnham a lot of stuff because it seems clear the weird Klingon sect she runs into was gunning for war no matter what, and that any clever diplomatic move here was likely to be met by some minor adjustment to the plan that would still result in war. But let's not pretend that everything would've been alright if everyone had just followed Burnham's plan. Maybe that would've been true of her second big call, but she fucked that one up bigtime so she doesn't get any credit for that.

Yeah it'd be interesting to see what would have happened if they'd bothered to fire first.

Likely the ship would have been destroyed but T'kuvma would have looked a bit foolish maintaining the Federation was there to poison them with their weak insipid values, then have them turn around and basically fuck shit up. The Council might have gone back to him and said "I dunno bro, that's what we probably would have done in that situation".

Essentially everytime someone tried diplomacy it made the Klingons madder. It was proving his point about them.

 

[AndersK]

Does this stream in 4K on Netflix? Getting a 4K TV in 2 days and consider waiting to watch Trek in glorious UHD.

Mine Says 4K with HDR, soooo, yes? Contrary to the other response.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Why do we have to work from the position of doubt on Michael's perspective? There are endless reasons for why she could be wrong, because anyone can be wrong for hundreds of potential reasons. But there are hundreds of thousands of stories and characters who work out just fine because they follow through on a hunch they have (though I wouldn't call what Michael has a hunch. It's more of a theory). There is an unusual kind of scrutiny put on Michael that she has to be absolutely, 100% certainly, no room for doubt, correct about the situation. I mean, there are plenty of reasons why Kirk could have been wrong about the Romulan attack in the 2009 movie for arbitrary reasons too. Sure, even with Michael's knowledge, she could have been potentially wrong. But she wasn't.

The purpose of my pointing out that Michael had solid reasoning to believe what she believed. And her being right isn't the story bending toward her will arbitrarily, she just happened to be right in this instance while Georgieu was wrong. Which doesn't make Georgieu bad or dumb for not listening to her. She had reason to behave like she did too. But in the end, Georgieu didn't know who the Klingons were and Michael did. I don't see why people are blowing it up to be more than that, because this is all very circumstantial. In this instance, Michael was right for reasons she cited: The Klingons have a war based culture. The Klingons don't care for peace. They do not care for Federation ideals.

Except that my point is that it's not as 'solid' as you would hold, and admittedly in my case - though I suppose that's not exactly how this discussion began - it's not that Michael 'needs' to be 100% correct about the situation. Indeed, I'd say the whole thing with her arc is precisely the opposite of that - her argument honestly is not great at all, again because she doesn't cite examples that should be much more relevant to the situation, including one she lived through herself. First contact between the Vulcans and Klingons is not a comparable example. I doubt it because it is a poor way to argue how to handle a meeting with a species that hasn't been formally spoken to (though yes, encountered in other terms) for the better part of a century, particularly one that could spark a full-scale war, in absence of the knowledge that such is exactly what T'Kuvma wanted.

Now, using that as an argument to dismiss the character entirely is dumb, because that's a failure to recognise a character flaw. But so too, if you want to appreciate her character, you have to recognise where her actions crossed a line. Michael's mutiny probably wouldn't have spared the Federation in this case - it was a no-win scenario, because that's exactly what T'Kuvma set it out to be.

I suppose if you wanted to be a bit analogous, T'Kuvma is a much more competent Kim Jong Un.

 

[Effect]

- Why did the captain and the main girl (is her name Micheal?) transport themselves into the enemy ship instead of a full squad team ?

That's just a Star Trek thing and it's still crazy no matter the show. I don't even bother bringing this up anymore. However at least this show shows the huge negative of doing that.

 

[Snaku]

Michael wanted to destroy or disable T'Kuvma before he was able to unite the Houses. He was already an outsider, and if he had received the embarrassment of losing to a Federation ship, the Klingon leaders would have dismissed his call for unification. Her plan would have worked.

 

[Mivey]

More like Star Trek: War Criminals.

Look, it makes them more lifelike it they commit some terrible atrocities here and there. The old Star Trek was overly idealistic and "clean", having a high body count makes the heroes more relatable.

 

[Veelk]

Except that my point is that it's not as 'solid' as you would hold, and admittedly in my case - though I suppose that's not exactly how this discussion began - it's not that Michael 'needs' to be 100% correct about the situation. Indeed, I'd say the whole thing with her arc is precisely the opposite of that - her argument honestly is not great at all, again because she doesn't cite examples that should be much more relevant to the situation, including one she lived through herself. First contact between the Vulcans and Klingons is not a comparable example. I doubt it because it is a poor way to argue how to handle a meeting with a species that hasn't been formally spoken to (though yes, encountered in other terms) for the better part of a century, particularly one that could spark a full-scale war, in absence of the knowledge that such is exactly what T'Kuvma wanted.

Now, using that as an argument to dismiss the character entirely is dumb, because that's a failure to recognise a character flaw. But so too, if you want to appreciate her character, you have to recognise where her actions crossed a line. Michael's mutiny probably wouldn't have spared the Federation in this case - it was a no-win scenario, because that's exactly what T'Kuvma set it out to be.

I suppose if you wanted to be a bit analogous, T'Kuvma is a much more competent Kim Jong Un.

I would argue that that her personal experience would have been the far worse example to cite. For one, it's deeply personal. If there is an argument to dismiss Michael's experience, it's that she is biased by her trauma. Like someone else pointed out, we don't even know the specific circumstances of that attack, just that it was an attack. Hell, if nothing else, a Vulcan trained mind would certainly dismiss that kind of argument as anecdotal and not something that can be used as a representative sample of Klingon culture. A Vulcan-Klingon First Contact may not be a perfect fit, but it seems to be the best understanding and contact that anyone has had with these beings for the last hundred years.

It seems to me that that's the best basis for understanding them that anyone would have. Which I agree does not make it iron clad. But it's the best anyone has.

But yeah, I agree with you for the most part. In my first post, I admitted that her fucking up is indeed her fucking up. And the show admits it too. Like I said a few times, my argument is not to the people who find her flawed, but to people who are acting like she had no basis to act how she did at all. If you are seeing Michael decisions as flawed but understandable, then that post isn't directed at you.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Michael wanted to destroy or disable T'Kuvma before he was able to unite the Houses. He was already an outsider, and if he had received the embarrassment of losing to a Federation ship, the Klingon leaders would have dismissed his call for unification. Her plan would have worked.

Well yes, but that plan could have worked with a fully armed security team rather than sending the Captain and First Officer, which I'll admit is especially weird given the show otherwise has an air of trying to be more 'practical'. Hence stuff like the EV suit having its own localised computer, the ship being tilted to adjust for alignment towards the object, the brig's shields adjusting based on the space to maintain containment, etc.

I would argue that that her personal experience would have been the far worse example to cite. For one, it's anecdotal and deeply personal. If there is an argument to dismiss Michael's experience, it's that she is biased by her trauma. Like someone else pointed out, we don't even know the specific circumstances of that attack, just that it was an attack. Hell, if nothing else, a Vulcan trained mind would certainly dismiss that kind of argument as anecdotal and not something that can be used as a representative sample of Klingon culture. A Vulcan-Klingon First Contact may not be a perfect fit, but it seems to be the best understanding and contact that anyone has had with these beings for the last hundred years. It seems to me that that's the best basis for understanding them that anyone would have.

But yeah, I agree. In my first post, I admitted that her fucking up is indeed her fucking up. And the show admits it too. Like I said a few times, my argument is not to the people who find her flawed, but to people who are acting like she had no basis to act how she did at all.

I think I'm the one who pointed out the lack of context around that attack. But yes, Michael acting in a way that's flawed doesn't mean she has no basis or is completely irrational about it.

Other examples to use for the attack might have been, well, Enterprise, which the show clearly knows about given how T'Kuvma lists off the main species of the Federation. Then again, maybe Georgieu would just note Captain Archer was not the best diplomat...

 

[Fuchsdh]

I get the feeling that the reason the Klingons were redesigned is less to put their own stamp on them or update them, and more just to separate them from these guys:



I feel like the TNG era onwards (especially in DS9) Klingons have been basically blunted to the point of being a bit of a joke. People are so used to them being portrayed as drunken warriors that I don't think they'd been seen as a true threat to the Federation if they used the old makeup. This helps to separate them from that era and makes them appear a lot more menacing. I like mixing it up in that way.

So they made them look like weird racial caricatures in spiky Elizabethan costumes instead?

Michael wanted to destroy or disable T'Kuvma before he was able to unite the Houses. He was already an outsider, and if he had received the embarrassment of losing to a Federation ship, the Klingon leaders would have dismissed his call for unification. Her plan would have worked.

That it would have worked doesn't really work as a defense of her plan, though. Because in that case her plan would have worked for reasons she never articulated (her entire idea was that a show of force is the only thing the Klingons respond to.)

 

[OmegaFax]

I didn't like it for a number of reasons.

Spoiler

The lead character is established as being lousiest Devry graduate from Vulcan, who, despite years of training and some forced relationship we're supposed to care about, royally fucks things up by being trigger happy in the heat of the moment.

The trailer for the rest of the show look like "Orange is the new Starfleet" with Discovery operating as a work/release program for the galaxy's criminals.

I'm out.