I'd second this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Trek: Discovery |OT| To Boldly Stream Where No One Has Streamed Before
- Thread starter berzeli
- Start date
I'd second this.
When keeping it real goes wrong.
Yes, we've only had 2 episodes. Both of them were defined by Michael making terrible decisions. So 100% of the content shows her as a reckless irrational person who endangers the people around her.
And you are "convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt" that it's racism and everyone is "deflecting" by citing all the content of the show.
And then you cap it off with a statement saying "I'm sorry you're concerned your show is bad next to the plight of all of racial injustice! Can't you keep perspective?"
It's the weirdest use of injustice as a prop I've ever seen.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Some of these criticisms are dumb as hell. She's just as much of a hothead as Kirk is. Except she actually pays for her mistakes.
Fantastic first 2 episodes.
Fantastic first 2 episodes.
I'm criticizing certain comments I was reading. I only offered one.
THAT guy jumped on me. I never called him out personally.
And you seem pretty glib about the incredible, society-shaking importance of media representation. Educate yourself, right now I'm too mad to continue a proper dialogue.
Pegasus Actual
Member
The show was awesome. The last time Star Trek was on TV you had Fat Riker and Troi blubbering about on a holodeck bringing an insultingly bad show to a ludicrously bad end.
This premiere was pretty dope.
This premiere was pretty dope.
SuperBanana
Banned
It's been two episodes of heavily disliked actions by a character we're meant to be rooting for. Janeway and Sisko did awful things but after the characters were firmly established. Again, you're acting like it's a show that's never dealt with women or POC. Even Kirk, who you say everyone would love if he did what Michael did, gave fully valid reasons to his hotheaded actions. For example when he thought the ship was about to be attacked as soon as it dropped out of warp when it reached Vulcan in the 09 reboot he ran onto the bridge(breaking an order after being removed from his position) but he gave a logical reason as to why he thought that and pleaded with the Captain. He didn't punch him out and try to take over the ship with zero reasoning behind it. Obviously the story is planning something more with her arc but you can't deny it's a really weird way they wrote the character for an opening episode where you generally establish a characters core traits and personalty.
Your comments are basically labeling anyone who dislikes the character OBVIOUSLY hates her because she's a black woman is absurd. Some? Sure. There will always be some racist idiot crying over something but a black or female character is nothing new in this series. In fact, it's as old as the series itself. It's a poor effort on the writers for not doing a better job.
What?
Enterprise final 2 seasons were legitimately great...there was nothing insulting about that.
The finale though was insulting and guess why? It was because the original writers of season 3 and 4, the reason why those two seasons were good, were not involved with it and it was Rick and Brannon who did the finale...and the first two seasons of Enterprise was mostly written by just them.
They signed a treaty with the Romulans that forbade Federation research into cloaking devices.
This makes very little sense but that's canon.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Not just you. This shit is pretty fucking good.
JonnyDBrit
Member
I feel like the apparent approach of the show is summed up in Burnham's remark about the stars - a reminder that "All creation is born of chaos and destruction."
This is intended to be Trek's darkest hour before the dawn. Including our main character fucking up as they do - though it's noticeable the series doesn't automatically absolve her of that, even putting her through an actual court martial. Ideally, I hope the show starts having more of an optimistic touch as it goes along, but we'll have to see on that - this is the sort of storyline where it would be easy, and perhaps tempting, to go all dark all the time. Maybe the Enterprise'll turn up at the end of the season just to go 'And this is why we won't need to worry about the Klingons until Kirk is in command.'
Beyond that, it was kind of neat and interesting to see the show be so visually advanced, yet still positioning it as a clear prequel to the events - even the technology - of TOS. The Senzhou is old with large, inefficient, horizontal transporter emitters. The Klingons have only just invented a form of cloaking technology - possibly not even the standard they'll use for the rest of the franchise. On the other end of things, they - or at least T'Kuvma - still see it as primarily an alliance of humans, tellarites, vulcans, and andorians. Once you get beyond the visual standard, its place in the timeline seems pretty easy to parse.
I like the show thus far, but I will remain cautious about it. As I said, this is the sort of storyline that could easily become 'all dark all the time', and if nothing else, that's just not to my taste.
This is intended to be Trek's darkest hour before the dawn. Including our main character fucking up as they do - though it's noticeable the series doesn't automatically absolve her of that, even putting her through an actual court martial. Ideally, I hope the show starts having more of an optimistic touch as it goes along, but we'll have to see on that - this is the sort of storyline where it would be easy, and perhaps tempting, to go all dark all the time. Maybe the Enterprise'll turn up at the end of the season just to go 'And this is why we won't need to worry about the Klingons until Kirk is in command.'
Beyond that, it was kind of neat and interesting to see the show be so visually advanced, yet still positioning it as a clear prequel to the events - even the technology - of TOS. The Senzhou is old with large, inefficient, horizontal transporter emitters. The Klingons have only just invented a form of cloaking technology - possibly not even the standard they'll use for the rest of the franchise. On the other end of things, they - or at least T'Kuvma - still see it as primarily an alliance of humans, tellarites, vulcans, and andorians. Once you get beyond the visual standard, its place in the timeline seems pretty easy to parse.
I like the show thus far, but I will remain cautious about it. As I said, this is the sort of storyline that could easily become 'all dark all the time', and if nothing else, that's just not to my taste.
lastplayed
Member
I'm quite surprised by the amount of continuity they've kept, right down to the Vulcan script in the testing pits.
Someone in the art department knows their stuff.
Someone in the art department knows their stuff.
MetalliCabombination
Member
2 episodes up on netflix
curiouscharles
Member
précisement.
we love Kirk for this behavior, and even when delivering a fantastic performance we hate Michael for them?
#humanityplz
[im so jazzed from these first two episodes I'm up at 4am streaming old TNG and DS9 to try and "sleep"]
[also, I couldn't stop saying "yes ladies" and "you go girls" at the two female leads... my wife even got annoyed evemtually]
Mr. Pointy
Member
It was good. I think Emissary was a better pilot, but these 2 eps were easily #2. Most Trek pilots are shit anyway.
SuperBanana
Banned
I can't disagree with that. We need to wait until Saru grows a beard.
Finished watching both episodes. Well this was certainly a different start, but I doubt the entire show will be this amped up high octane drama.
I like that we are seeing fuckup and actual wars rather than a few ships having a stand off to give the illusion of war. This is one area where Star Trek mostly used to fail, mostly because the war in DS9 was one exception where it looked like they were at actual war. So I'll give this show a chance.
However I'm still unsold on the way it's filmed. As I mentioned the dark sets, lens flare and post processing, overuse of Dutch angles and close ups is a bit too much imo.
Also 40 mins is a bit too low. A show primarily on streaming services should be longer.
I like that we are seeing fuckup and actual wars rather than a few ships having a stand off to give the illusion of war. This is one area where Star Trek mostly used to fail, mostly because the war in DS9 was one exception where it looked like they were at actual war. So I'll give this show a chance.
However I'm still unsold on the way it's filmed. As I mentioned the dark sets, lens flare and post processing, overuse of Dutch angles and close ups is a bit too much imo.
Also 40 mins is a bit too low. A show primarily on streaming services should be longer.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Honestly the fact that this is more 'contentious' than outright bad is both a healthy sign for the show's potential, but also a really weird indictment for how most first episodes of Trek hold up.
SuperBanana
Banned
True. I agree with some people saying it felt like an extended prologue.
Pegasus Actual
Member
Nah S3 and S4 were crap too. Serialized crap vs the episodic crap from before, sure. But it was still crap. The show was a total loss start to finish IMHO. Voyager had more redeeming qualities.
See:
I don't see a need for any other spoiler policy for this thread.
JonnyDBrit
Member
True, but then that does probably explain why the episodes were released together rather than separately - watching them back to back felt natural, while if there was a week between them it would feel just kind of... weird.
The Elite
BOSS
This wasn't on Space. Football made the CBS broadcast run long and Space wasn't allowed to go on before it.
old manatee
Banned
That was a great episode. Guess I'll watch the rest a couple of years from now when they show up on Netflix.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Holy shit, it does. That's amazing.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
I was pleasantly surprised with the first two episodes. It made me warm up to the characters in a way that usually takes a while in Trek. I just hope the show settles down a bit and moves away from sci-fi drama and more into actual discovery and exploration. I'm the type of person who want's all Trek to have the same format and tone as TOS.
So this will probably be seen as nitpicking, but it's against the Geneva Convention to booby-trap dead bodies.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/geneva/ccw/
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80
I know, I know, they're in space and it's the future. And in reality when you're facing death who gives a toss about how you treat remains.
But it's also a TV show being shown in the context of the world of 2017. It uses our morals as a starting point and aims to be better. I'm pretty sure there's a Picard speech about the ends not justifying the means and the few times they have done that they dedicated entire episodes to the issue. Normally writers would recognise that 1 short battle isn't enough to get the audience in the same desperate mindset as the crew and would at least give some lip-service to resolving the ethical dilemma.
It just struck me as a little distasteful. Almost ISIS-esque.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/geneva/ccw/
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80
I know, I know, they're in space and it's the future. And in reality when you're facing death who gives a toss about how you treat remains.
But it's also a TV show being shown in the context of the world of 2017. It uses our morals as a starting point and aims to be better. I'm pretty sure there's a Picard speech about the ends not justifying the means and the few times they have done that they dedicated entire episodes to the issue. Normally writers would recognise that 1 short battle isn't enough to get the audience in the same desperate mindset as the crew and would at least give some lip-service to resolving the ethical dilemma.
It just struck me as a little distasteful. Almost ISIS-esque.
JonnyDBrit
Member
One possibility is that the threat of the Klingons will be more of a looming shadow, particularly since they just thrashed a (potentially small, hard to say) Federation fleet. So while some episodes may be more episodic and exploration focused, they'll still be threaded to the greater plot by that threat and each character's concerns over it, while in other episodes the Klingons will suddenly appear as a more direct opponent.
I don't know why people are saying Michael didn't have valid reasons to do what she did.
Michael has personal experience in dealing with Klingons and has, as a result, taken to studying the Klingon-Vulcan relations when she was studying the space elves. Fuck, we were shown that an understanding of Klingon culture was a part of the Vulcan curriculum when the dick computer gave her a PTSD attack as a child. I know Vulcans are all "emotions, lul", but who the fuck bombards a traumatized child with her trauma?
So the reasoning she gives the captain is this: The Klingons don't give a fig about wanting peace if they don't find you a threat. They only respect combative adversaries and the safest thing they can possibly do is attack them because Klingons are a culture looking for trouble. She cites the actual diplomatic policies used by the Vulcans to support this.
Was her apprehensiveness and fear partially motivated by her childhood trauma? Sure, but lets not pretend she was just pulling things out of her ass. The memories of Klingons haunt her and it seems reasonable to me that the Vulcans, who eschew emotions and value logic, would believe that knowledge of something is the way in which to relieve fear of it.
Lets also not pretend that Captain Georgiou, awesome as she may be, had a goddamn clue what she was dealing with. To her, Klingons are nearly a myth and clearly knows just the bare minimum about them. She was treating them as she'd treat a normal potential enemy, using Federations Protocols and basic idealism to guide her. These are good things to believe in, but in this particular case, she's dealing with an enemy who not only has no interest in peace, but also has a definition of peace that is utterly foreign to her because it is a founded in a culture that promotes conflict rather than eliminates it. She was delaying a combat scenerio that was going to happen no matter what because she didn't understand who the Klingon's were. Michael did.
Even in the last moments of her professional life, when she had truly given up on peace, this is still the case. She wanted to kill the klingon leader out of revenge. It's Michael, again, pointing out that with the way Klingon's think, that's just going to make things worse and suggests capturing him because she understands that Klingons think martyr's are badass and war prisoners are pussies. Side note, I wonder what the Klingon's equivalent of Trump is.
I'm a star trek noob. This is the first series of it that I'll be watching (I saw the movies, but I don't think they count), so maybe I am misunderstanding some nuances of Klingon culture that Michael was blinded to. I'm reading responses like Michael is some hysterical mad woman who tried to commit mutiny out of a crazy, irrational, and bigoted fear of Klingons who happened to be right 'by coincidence' because #NotAllKlingons. Well, the pilot establishes that these are beings whose culture is founded in roughing shit up, and Michael is responding the way she does because she has personally witnessed and studied that. Which isn't to say that Michael didn't fuck up, because obviously she did, but every step of the way, her motivations and rationale for her actions are explained in painstaking detail and it's really weird that people are writing her actions off as that of a inconsiderate hothead who has no reason guiding her actions.
inb4commentsthataccusemeofjustnotwantingtocriticizeablackwoman
Michael has personal experience in dealing with Klingons and has, as a result, taken to studying the Klingon-Vulcan relations when she was studying the space elves. Fuck, we were shown that an understanding of Klingon culture was a part of the Vulcan curriculum when the dick computer gave her a PTSD attack as a child. I know Vulcans are all "emotions, lul", but who the fuck bombards a traumatized child with her trauma?
So the reasoning she gives the captain is this: The Klingons don't give a fig about wanting peace if they don't find you a threat. They only respect combative adversaries and the safest thing they can possibly do is attack them because Klingons are a culture looking for trouble. She cites the actual diplomatic policies used by the Vulcans to support this.
Was her apprehensiveness and fear partially motivated by her childhood trauma? Sure, but lets not pretend she was just pulling things out of her ass. The memories of Klingons haunt her and it seems reasonable to me that the Vulcans, who eschew emotions and value logic, would believe that knowledge of something is the way in which to relieve fear of it.
Lets also not pretend that Captain Georgiou, awesome as she may be, had a goddamn clue what she was dealing with. To her, Klingons are nearly a myth and clearly knows just the bare minimum about them. She was treating them as she'd treat a normal potential enemy, using Federations Protocols and basic idealism to guide her. These are good things to believe in, but in this particular case, she's dealing with an enemy who not only has no interest in peace, but also has a definition of peace that is utterly foreign to her because it is a founded in a culture that promotes conflict rather than eliminates it. She was delaying a combat scenerio that was going to happen no matter what because she didn't understand who the Klingon's were. Michael did.
Even in the last moments of her professional life, when she had truly given up on peace, this is still the case. She wanted to kill the klingon leader out of revenge. It's Michael, again, pointing out that with the way Klingon's think, that's just going to make things worse and suggests capturing him because she understands that Klingons think martyr's are badass and war prisoners are pussies. Side note, I wonder what the Klingon's equivalent of Trump is.
(And as for her ending up shooting the klingon herself, people want to blame her for that too, but I went back and rewatched it, and she was clearly scrambling to pick up her gun and fire at him in an attempt to save her captain's life. Their mission was to capture him, but if I have to explain that life and death combat situations don't exactly make something like that easy or practical, then you're probably too young to watch this show)
I'm a star trek noob. This is the first series of it that I'll be watching (I saw the movies, but I don't think they count), so maybe I am misunderstanding some nuances of Klingon culture that Michael was blinded to. I'm reading responses like Michael is some hysterical mad woman who tried to commit mutiny out of a crazy, irrational, and bigoted fear of Klingons who happened to be right 'by coincidence' because #NotAllKlingons. Well, the pilot establishes that these are beings whose culture is founded in roughing shit up, and Michael is responding the way she does because she has personally witnessed and studied that. Which isn't to say that Michael didn't fuck up, because obviously she did, but every step of the way, her motivations and rationale for her actions are explained in painstaking detail and it's really weird that people are writing her actions off as that of a inconsiderate hothead who has no reason guiding her actions.
inb4commentsthataccusemeofjustnotwantingtocriticizeablackwoman
The problem isn't even that she wants to attack the Klingons, it's that she assaults her captain and tries to commandeer the ship. That shit wouldn't fly in a military now, let alone hundreds of years in the future. It's just absurd that a Vulcan-trained Starfleet officer would choose to engage in actions so unlikely to succeed and so guaranteed to ruin her life regardless of the outcome.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
What I mean is they acknowledged that Enterprise had klingons, but they cut contact with them just long enough for them to have a new kind of first contact. I'm not saying they aren't paying attention to Enterprise, but as the showrubnee's themselves have said that show is the most problematic thing where canon is concerned they are trying to find ways to work around certain episodes.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Eh, I'd say Michael's character is one where she's meant to be somewhat correct, but doesn't have the best grasp of moderation. When she thinks she's right, she acts on it, for better or for worse. If not for that, she'd be dead at the hands of the Klingon that was on the beacon - hell, the crew wouldn't even know it was a Klingon beacon if not for that - but by the same token, had she not tried to mutiny because of her certainty, and tried to pursue a compromise - such as suggesting that they warn the Klingons to BTFO or be fired upon, instead of just shooting first - then her Captain would have had their First Officer on the bridge in the midst of a crisis.
That I think is the basis of what may to be her character arc under Captain Lorca, who's been noted in promotional material for his capabilities as a military commander. Wouldn't be surprised if he's going to have to teach Michael how to better exercise her judgement on when to use force.
That I think is the basis of what may to be her character arc under Captain Lorca, who's been noted in promotional material for his capabilities as a military commander. Wouldn't be surprised if he's going to have to teach Michael how to better exercise her judgement on when to use force.
Wait, All Access is one stream? Yikes. That could happen quite often I'm guessing.
Well, that's where the whole "I have literal PTSD from the Klingon's murdering my parents and then being raised by assholes who tell me to repress all my emotions" comes in and why I admit that she does, indeed, fuck up. Her reactions to the Klingon threat is extreme because her experience with the Klingon threat is extreme. And I'm guessing that Vulcans aren't just people who took cosplaying as elves too far. Maybe a Vulcan can be raised under a culture that represses emotions, but that shit is unhealthy for humans, predictably resulting in shit like Michael losing her goddamn shit when her favorite childhood trauma comes a-knocking.
And to be clear, my point isn't that people should just forgive and forget her mutiny. But lets stop pretending that it comes out of nowhere or has no reasonable or understandable motivational basis. Michael's response, even if you look at it as an error, (which I remind everyone that that is precisely what the show is doing) is a very human one.
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.
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.
BattleMonkey
Member
Was ok, didn't think it was anything special, but i'll watch the rest. I have no desire to pay just for this show though, I'll wait till it's all done and on the service, then binge it during the 7 day free trial.
The issue was that it was still just a hunch driven by clear irrational traumatization, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was borne out of indepth knowledge of Klingon culture (even though it seems entirely based on Sarak's brief summary of Vulcan-Klingon first contact).
It may be a solution, but there is nothing to say it is the only solution. It goes completely against Starfleet principles to be the aggressor. How many episodes in Trek could have been solved by "shoot them until they give up" instead of the more protracted (and difficult) negotiation and diplomacy?
Let's go further and say it was the easiest solution. That is not the be-all and end-all of deciding policy. The Federation is all about bridging the gap between cultures with understanding and enlightenment. If all they cared about was the end result then they could absorb countless worlds at gunpoint and be all the stronger for it.
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.
How about scientific evidence supporting that people who believe they are without bias actually have bias?
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Maybe I missed something, but Michael was right about the Klingons. They were calling for reinforcements.
She was motivated by her PTSD, but her decision was rational and based on the experience of Vulcans. Regardless, her mutiny was PTSD fueled, and she paid the price for it as she should have. I really don't see how she's responsible for the death of her captain, or the death of anyone else for that matter. It's quite the contrary if anything.
She was motivated by her PTSD, but her decision was rational and based on the experience of Vulcans. Regardless, her mutiny was PTSD fueled, and she paid the price for it as she should have. I really don't see how she's responsible for the death of her captain, or the death of anyone else for that matter. It's quite the contrary if anything.
I agree with this, and i'm on EU Netflix schedule.
It feels rather pointless to be entering this thread within the 24 hours between Sunday night US and monday evening EU and expecting people to have a conversation with you solely based on information that is, by then, almost 7 days old - meanwhile 'forcing' everyone who WANTS to discuss what they've just seen to spoiler tag it into oblivion.
Unless something changed in the last few hours I thought the GAF impression was pretty positive. Still catching up with the thread.
As for Michael I'm really curious as to where they will take her. Clearly I feel she was broken down only to be built back up. Her up bringing by Vulcans was not the best situation for her considering what she experienced with her parents and this is the end result. I thought they justified her actions pretty well. Now her actions being right or wrong is another thing but they give reasons for why she responds the way she does and why what is her ptsd is surfacing with a vengeance.