I kinda liked the “pull back” shot of the replication process.
Well, it requires the use of an ill-tempered space beast that the other ship discovered by accident, so if it ever gets killed or escapes, they’re left high and dry, since they have no idea of where to go to find a new one.
Due to lack of computing power if I’m following along. If that’s the case then future computers would have put this back on the table with no ill tempered beastie, and an instantaneous FTL drive isn’t something that any sane culture would just turn their back on, unless something truly terrible happens.
I am hoping they realized this early and it will fade in this first season. In a recent interview with the cast they have stated to stick with it - it has a long complex plot and it’s called Discovery partly for what the fans will discover. So they do plan to bring the show along over many episodes.
[/quote]
Didn’t like this episode. Don’t like the spore engine - I could see if they derived inspiration from the spores as to how to navigate, but this is silly. I like the captain and Michael though, and Doug Jones turns in good work, whether or not the material is good. I’m strangely looking forward to the Harry Mudd episode, though I don’t know why. I know it’s just going to disappoint.
[/QUOTE]
My question is was Discovery (the ship) specifically designed to use the spore engine, it would seem to be the reason for the unusual saucer section rings, but I though the creature was found after the ship was built, so why the rotating rings? Either way the inspiration to navigate would be right out of the concept of spice from Dune.
Good god does this show sound horrible. So glad I didn’t waste my money. I thank the reviewers for their recaps.
OK, so I need a sanity check here. Many reviews online paint the Klingons as some sort of Trump-devotee stand-in, scoring some cheap social-commentary points. But at least at first, I read things quite differently: after all, it’s Michael who immediately paints the Klingons as warmongering aggressors, up to the point that it undermines her loyalty to her captain, and makes her Michael the Mutineer, which at least has a nice alliterative ring to it.
So there’s a character who’s rather explicitly racist (or perhaps, speciesist), to the point where it overrides her Vulcan-trained dispassionateness and logic. So initially, I expected a sort of redemptive character arc for her, slowly overcoming her prejudice and past trauma to realize that, well, Klingons are people, too, and not just stereotypes of aggression. After all, integrating the enemy is a time-honored Star Trek tradition: TNG did it with Worf, DS9 had Quark, and later, Nog (the Ferengi first were introduced as enemies of the Federation in TNG) and Garak, so that even the Cardassians weren’t simply cardboard bad guys, and Voyager of course had Seven of Nine, a rehabilitated Borg drone: thus, a strong message that just because you’re different, even enemies, doesn’t mean the other side is just composed of evil aliens doing evil for evil’s sake.
Yet, so far, that seems to be exactly what we’re given with Discovery. Michael’s a racist, but worse, she’s right: the Klingons just are warmongering aggressors. Up to now, there seems to be zero motivation other than “The Federation wants to bring us peace! Kill them!”—which honestly rather more seems like how Trump supporters see those ungrateful people in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, I’m still holding out hope that there may be more to the picture here—but it’s gonna be quite hard to give some more depth to the Klingons’ characterization after last episode’s casual reference to cannibalism (well, or whatever you call eating members of another sentient species). Additionally, there’s the whole speech Burnham gives about not judging another being by its appearance, or by a single past incident—which, after all, is exactly what she’s done with the Klingons. But even if that’s done on purpose, it just shows a staggering dissonance on the character’s part not to notice the irony here.
Anyway, I don’t think I’ve seen the above addressed anywhere so far, so I’m wondering if I’m just imagining things. Does this make sense to anybody, or am I missing something?
With the Klingon’s - it was no single past incident + the one incident was pretty devestating to her personally- she only went all mutiny after talking with Sarek about how the Vulcan’s established diplomatic relations with the Klingons. While she was definitely emotional at the time - her logic was reasonable based on the known prior history.
Secondly - the Klingon’s were in Federation Space - and there had been previous incursions with them - just not for 100 years - so again, this wasn’t a ‘first encounter’.
As for the Klingon’s motivation - thats clear enough and was stated in the voice over about a uniter every x thousands of years - its more religious than anything.
I didn’t see any ‘Trump’ overtones - if there is antyhing, its more ‘Muslim vs Christian’ parallells (atleast how some would view Muslims.)
They spoke glowingly about having the most “diverse cast”. This show illustrated exactly why such “diversity” usually leads to a poor show. They spend all their energies on getting the “balance” right, and forget about writing a compelling and interesting show.
TBF…they haven’t hit us over the head with it. “Tasha what are drugs??”
Also regarding another point about that Klingon guy being a Trump stand-in: Maybe, but to the credit of the producers, they make him sympathetic at points also, and rounded out.
My quibbles about the Diversity stuff are outside the show with stuff said by the cast…etc…which i’m not going to get into. As long as the show is good or interesting, I don’t care what the actors do.
I’m trusting the show to square a lot of things by the seasons end.
I think it is compelling and interesting. I also think we should give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. Also I’m not sure what casting has to do with writing. You are welcome to dislike the story but the race of the cast has absolutely nothing to do with that.
That was my thinking as well. The bit about how “We come in peace” is this huge lie that allows the Federation to infiltrate and debase other countries seemed like a direct reference to the “Religion of peace” meme as applied to Islam. This would cast the Klingons as the far-right Christian analogs, which makes the Federation the Muslims.
Or the exact opposite - think of the crusades as well as ‘exporting democracy’.
Both sides fit on both sides quite readily.
…you can’t blame bad writing, poorly blocked out spacebattles, disjointed storylines, zero continuity with the original universe, the strongly militaristic (and anti-trek) tone, the weird Klingon plotline, on having *a couple of extra women on the bridge. *The amount of energy exerted to “get the balance right” would be about the same as it would take to cast any television show. It isn’t hard to hire a diverse cast. You can’t point to “diversity” as being the “problem” with this show. When Fuller jumped ship: that’s when we knew there were going to be problems.
I didn’t say diversity was the problem with the show. The original Star Trek had a diverse cast for its time and that was a source of strength for that show. The issue here is that here the show runners have expended so much energy trying to get every section represented, they have forgotten to make a good show. Could such a cast make a good show? Absolutely. However the producers seem to want to display “OMG, look how progressive we are” and forget the boring job of actually coming up with good material.
They also decided to try and make it more “gritty” and “realistic”.
Likely because it is just memorized sounds spoken by people with no knowledge of the actual word meanings. Like if you were to read a sentence in Lithuanian that you were given phonetically. It would sound stilted and wooden to a native Lithuanian speaker.
From “Errand of Mercy”:
But that’s just what I mean—the Klingons are essentially portrayed as a Trump supporter’s Muslim stereotypes. And the show doesn’t caution us against such stereotyping—on the contrary, Michael is basically portrayed as having been right all along. So this is a world in which preemptive military action against a people based on stereotypes and prejudice seems the right thing to do—because those people really just are these stereotypes.
Just catching up on the last two eps.
Case in point:
My eyes just about rolled out of my head in that scene. She was too stupid and mean not to have already died in an airlock accident or ‘accident’, let alone be made chief of security on a starship. Very bad writing there.
Swearing, in my Star Trek?
SO fucking cool!
FWIW there’s an Episode 5 threadhere.