Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I refuse to watch until it is put on television or another outlet where I don't pay $6 just to watch the only show anyone will pay for.

Black Alert. fething Black Alert.

NOOOWPEnopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenope.

I gave it every chance, in spite of the smug cast, in spite of the glaring issues, but I think my time with Throne of Treks has come to an end.

What?

They rang out a black alert when they were testing the secret engine thing.

What's a black alert?
If you don't know I can't tell you.
::stuff gets a bit weird for a few moments::

Related, I love that the apparently secret blacks ops dudes advertise such by wearing black badges on their uniforms.

I thought the black alert thing was great. I am fascinated by the idea of our main character being on a Federation ship of secrets.

 AduroT wrote:
They rang out a black alert when they were testing the secret engine thing.

What's a black alert?
If you don't know I can't tell you.
::stuff gets a bit weird for a few moments::

Related, I love that the apparently secret blacks ops dudes advertise such by wearing black badges on their uniforms.

Hey black badges and Edgelord Alert are a masterclass in subtlety compared to the Super Sekrit Shiny Black Latex Suit Agents. Seriously though at this stage it's looking very much like STD is going to be Star Tek: Section 31 Did Nothing Wrong and this whole "your utopian future is a delusion that can only exist because of brave Future Neoliberal Centrists fighting the secret wars you hippy peaceniks are too afraid to" shtick was tired even before the first attempt at it finished, I am less than interested in enduring it a third time.

 Manchu wrote:
I thought the black alert thing was great. I am fascinated by the idea of our main character being on a Federation ship of secrets.

*thinks back to when "Federation ship of secrets" was the premise for the bad guys that the show's characters had to overcome* Ahh, actual Star Trek.

The episode was fine, it gives me hope that I will be able to settle in and start to enjoy the series.

I still have a problem with the main character though, I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War and this was her road to redemption.

... but as we the audience know, she was in the right in starting that war, and it is Starfleet who should be celebrating Burnham and not punishing her (she punishes herself enough ).

I still like C3P0 and how his relationship with Burnham is unfolding. Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ahh, actual Star Trek.

Heard this so many times, from back when DS9 first came out down to this very day. And I have come to the realization, "authenticity" doesn't matter - all that matters is that the content is quality. The AbramsTrek movies weren't bad because they weren't "actual Trek". They were bad because ... they were bad. I mean, even as generic sci fi films, they are pretty mediocre (in reality, the really coast on the Star Trek brand). Similarly, DS9 was and is panned by a lot of people as "not sufficiently Trek" because of its challenging, darker tone. But for most people DS9 is certainly, obviously Star Trek because, by the end, it had told good stores and interesting characters. Discovery is on the same page in those regards, but I don't think it is as dark as DS9 so far.

DS9 got dark, but it was no darker than the Prime Directive in action.

Also, DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.

 StygianBeach wrote:
I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War

I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.

The mutiny is what muddies the waters. There is so much dialog referring to Michael as the mutineer while cross-referencing her responsibility for the war. Obviously, her mutiny had nothing to do with the war. The war may have been averted if her mutiny had succeeded. But the script confuses the two issues - and I think this is on purpose for two reasons: (1) it shows that Starfleet, needing an explanation for why things went so bad at the Battle at the Binary Stars, basically pinned it on Michael who was guilty of a heinous crime anyhow and (2) it shows that mutiny is such a heinous crime in Federation society that people see a mutineer in the worst possible light, even pretending that one person could be responsible for a war (which is absurd) because of this prejudice.

 StygianBeach wrote:
Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair

I'm eager to see where they go with her. I think characters like Reginald Barclay and Tilly (and in a slightly different way but the same vein, Julian Bashir) are extremely realistic depictions of how not ever Starfleet officer is an ultra-smooth, super self confident and successful winner.

 StygianBeach wrote:
DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.

This is also true of how Michael is portrayed.

 StygianBeach wrote:
DS9 got dark, but it was no darker than the Prime Directive in action.

Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."

There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.

 Manchu wrote:
Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."

There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.

This deserves an exalt.

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."

There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.

This deserves an exalt.

Indubitably.

Finally got around to watching the first episode, and liked it more than I expected to.

Hate the Klingon redesign. There was no reason to change their appearance, and having them all in different colour variations of the same armour is just lazy and weird.

Exposition was a little overdone in places, but there's enough amusing banter in there to keep it fluffy (I hope Sarek maintains a presence throughout) and if you forget that it's supposed to be before all the other series rather than after, it's sufficiently Trek for me.

I give it 5 weird neck tendrils up.

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ahh, actual Star Trek.

Heard this so many times, from back when DS9 first came out down to this very day. And I have come to the realization, "authenticity" doesn't matter - all that matters is that the content is quality. The AbramsTrek movies weren't bad because they weren't "actual Trek". They were bad because ... they were bad. I mean, even as generic sci fi films, they are pretty mediocre (in reality, the really coast on the Star Trek brand). Similarly, DS9 was and is panned by a lot of people as "not sufficiently Trek" because of its challenging, darker tone. But for most people DS9 is certainly, obviously Star Trek because, by the end, it had told good stores and interesting characters. Discovery is on the same page in those regards, but I don't think it is as dark as DS9 so far.

I actually like AbramsTrek. I feel like DS9 is the Beast Wars of the STU, and that's not exactly good in my eyes.

Do you also like Bayformers? That's AbramsTrek in my eyes.

 Manchu wrote:
Do you also like Bayformers? That's AbramsTrek in my eyes.

The first one was okayish... Everything after that has been like a laser guided autism machine, and a sign that humanity is a disgrace because no matter how bad those movies get people still go to see them at the box office.

I really enjoyed the first episodes.
The effects are awesome and the story looks more and more interesting. Especially the whole plot around all the secrets on the ship.

Also liked the new Star Trek movies btw.

Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."

There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.

Thanks for this post - true indeed.

 Manchu wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:
I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War

I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.

Ya, Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War. Seems like the Klingons really wanted themselves a war and got one. Seems like Klingon Pearl Harbour to me.

Manchu wrote:Do you also like Bayformers? That's AbramsTrek in my eyes.

Absolutely not. And I don't liken the Trek movies to Bayformers, I liken it to The Batman, that animated series from a few years ago. It is its own thing, and I understand the fundamentals are there as well as the changes. AbramsTrek is the same way for me. I get some don't like it, but they aren't objectively bad. Anybody who has ever seen a Uwe Boll movie would know the difference between not prefer and completely terrible.



Except for House of the Dead, it had the benefit of having Erika (Erica?) Durance naked.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:
I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War

I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.

Ya, Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War. Seems like the Klingons really wanted themselves a war and got one. Seems like Klingon Pearl Harbour to me.

True, she was not solely responsible for the war, but she did play into the hands of a fanatical moustache twirling madlod. My main problem is not that she started the war or not, the war had to start somehow after all. My main problem is that the show presents her solution as the best solution that no one listened to. So she is presented as being in the right to mutiny, this annoys me. It just tries too hard to make the audience feel sorry for her, it is too much Mary-sue for my tastes. If there was a peaceful solution to the initial encounter that was overlooked because of her actions, I could get onboard with her as a character. As she stands she is too perfect, both morally, physically and intellectually. She is just too hard on herself.

 Manchu wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:
Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair

I'm eager to see where they go with her. I think characters like Reginald Barclay and Tilly (and in a slightly different way but the same vein, Julian Bashir) are extremely realistic depictions of how not ever Starfleet officer is an ultra-smooth, super self confident and successful winner.

Tilly is a winner just by being a cadet on a starfleet spaceship, Jordy from TNG was hardly self confident either. She is lazy character because of her need to explain everything, she's an exposition 'get out of jail free' card. It already has me imagining future episodes where Tilly creates situation by not simply staying quite. Or when the Discovery takes on a new member, who will turn out to be Burnhams rival. Tilly will do a speech about this new member in a similar vein to how she did a speech about Burnham to introduce them.
Of course, it is only one episode in so I may be judging this one too early.

 Manchu wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:
DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.

This is also true of how Michael is portrayed.

I disagree.

T'Kuvma takes so long to say anything in Klingon!

 StygianBeach wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:
DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.

This is also true of how Michael is portrayed.

I disagree.

I suspect this is because you misunderstand how Michael is being characterized. To wit:

 StygianBeach wrote:
My main problem is that the show presents her solution as the best solution that no one listened to. So she is presented as being in the right to mutiny, this annoys me.

Oh no no no. She wasn't right at all.The truth is, Michael fethed up really, really badly. The show does not cut her a break on this, as per her conversation with Saru on the Discovery when he flat out says if she causes trouble he will do a better job protecting his captain than she did hers.

 StygianBeach wrote:
She is lazy character because of her need to explain everything

First, dialog is a legitimate means of exposition. Second, Tilly is not an omniscient narrator; she's a character and delivers her lines from a very distinctive POV. A character with a distinctive POV is not the product of lazy writing.

 Just Tony wrote:
And I don't liken the Trek movies to Bayformers

But I do. That was my point. As a Transformers fan, I wanted you to think about how you feel about the Bayformers films. That's how, as a Star Trek fan, I feel about AbramsTrek.

 LordofHats wrote:
I refuse to watch until it is put on television or another outlet where I don't pay $6 just to watch the only show anyone will pay for.

Agreed. I was going to give the series a shot but am not signing up for yet another streaming service.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War.

She isn't. People look for simple answers to hard questions. It's easy to blame Michael. She insisted on investigating the beacon. If the ultimate outcome was positive, maybe she'd be cited for courage or even promoted. In that case, Saru would have been judged too timid. As things turned out, Saru was the one who was promoted. And Michael, the mutineer, got the blame.

Last episode was really a step back. Truly stupid death for the security officer. That was some dumb writing and makes me worried for the future of the show.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Last episode was really a step back. Truly stupid death for the security officer. That was some dumb writing and makes me worried for the future of the show.

I didn't really like that either, was kind of an eh episode. Hopefully the next is better.

Yikes guys spoiler tags please!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK got a chance to watch it and yeah ...I'm also not too happy with this "poor misunderstood creature" angle. Well, it has good parts. I like that Michael is shown identifying and challenging her own biases as part of her analysis - this is pretty nice to see science portrayed as something more than off-screen magic. But the inevitable torture a cute thing to save lives conflict feels a little pat; hopefully it will be solved by the next episode. So the other big deal from this episode is, wow a lot of Klingon-POV scenes. OTOH it is to the show's credit that they are doing the Klingon scenes in Klingon. That's pretty daring, having long, fully sub-titled scenes played by actors in very heavy effects make up. OTOH, there is a reason it's daring, right? The Klingon scenes feel pretty ponderous - except for the bad Klingon dude (can't recall name) who has a lot more energy and dynamism than Voq and his girlfriend.

My major issue 4 episodes in is that I actually dont really like any of the characters.
The two I was warming to - the original captain and the security officer are now toast.
Im tired of Michaels broody, angsty-guilt, the engineering officer really annoys me, Tilly is ok but one dimensional thus far, the new captain is okish and I just dont get the Klingons at all.
Its definitely plot/story based so far with little in terms of actually developing/growing to like the main cast.

Sorry about the Spoilers, thought we were in a spoilers-away zone. Anyway, I hope Manchu is right about some kind of behind the scenes problem because I've seen Red Shirts have more impactful deaths than that. Even more annoying because I think she could have been a good character.

Regarding spoilers, because this is an ongoing series I think we better try to use the tags. I saw someone had posted in the thread and clicked to see if it was about something I had already been discussing about previous episodes - nope, major spoiler about new episode! So yeah, the tags will be useful.

Good point about certain Redshirts having longer, more meaningful lives. And yes I agree I really liked her and am sorry to see her go. Although