CTrent29

Why is this series so hellbent upon portraying George Warleggan as a one-note villain? And why is it so hellbent upon portraying both Ross and Demelza as borderline saints? This episode and the fourth series overall is proving to be a big fat bore . . . and dishonest as hell. No, he doesn't. Ross has NO RIGHT to be anywhere near Valentine. Not after the manner in which he had conceived the latter. And legally, HE IS NOT Valentine's father.

I don't have a problem with that.

Look, ever since I saw "Hell on Wheels", I've been a fan of Anson Mount. But if I must be brutally honest, his Christopher Pike strike me as BORING. And this is a shame for an actor of Mount's caliber. Pike is boring. And I hope and pray that Season 2 will be the only season in which he is a regular. He really has no business as captain of the Discovery in the first place. It was unnecessary to make him the ship's captain. Saru could have served as Discovery's captain or Mount could have played someone other than Pike. Thank goodness for Sonequa Martin-Green and Doug Jones.

He strikes me as being too perfect. And I find his emotional turmoil over the Enterprise not participating in the Federation-Klingon War not particularly interesting. It's odd how so many are willing to tolerate borderline idealistic male characters like Christopher Pike. Fans tend to praise him to the sky. But if he had been a woman, many fans would be screaming "Mary Sue".

Since the Prequel Trilogy was about the downfall of Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi Order and the Galactic Senate; along with the emergence of the Empire; it made sense to me that characters like Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin, and Yoda were in the trilogy. In fact the PT made a lot more sense to me than Christopher Pike assuming command of the Discovery.

Another dull ass episode. Not only is Season Two proving to be boring as hell to me, but I also find it to be a ghost of the dynamic Season One.

I just recently viewed the Season Two premiere of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, (2.01) “Brother” on CBS All Access. On one hand, the episode struck me as a solid entry for a Trek show that set up the second season’s story arc and introduction of new characters. This is nothing knew. I have witnessed similar set ups for shows like “BABYLON 5” and “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”. But what I did not count on were some differences and characters that would leave me scratching my head. I do not think I have ever encountered a Trek show that has generated so much conflict and controversy as “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”. I take that back. There has been one other series that has generated controversy close to the same level as “DISCOVERY” . . . namely “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. This does not strike me as surprising, since both shows featured leading characters who are women. “DISCOVERY” took it to another level in which its leading character, Commander (formerly Specialist) Michael Burnham, is not only portrayed by an African-American actress, but is not the starship/space station’s commanding officer. I noticed that a great deal of what struck me as vague and nitpicking complaints had been inflicted upon “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” during and after its first season. One of those complaints proved to be that certain characters, including Michael Burnham, lacked full development by the end of Season One. I found myself scratching my head over this complaint. I mean … what on earth? I have never heard of a fictional character in a television show that is fully developed by the end of its first season, let alone before the end of its run. Never. And “DISCOVERY” had only finished its first season. Why on earth were so many of the franchise’s fans either criticizing that most of its characters are not fully developed or demanding that they should be after one season? This is not miniseries or television show. If “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” is allowed to complete its full run and the characters are still “not fully developed”, then I believe they would have something to complain about. Another complaint that left me scratching my head was the lack of humor during its first season. In fact, this particular complaint has led many to compare “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” with another science-fiction series that had begun around the same time - “THE ORVILLE”. The Trek franchise has never been a franchise that was dominated by humor. And I do recall a good deal of humor in Season One of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, especially in episodes like (1.07) “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” or in scenes featuring Mary Wiseman as Cadet Sylvia Tilly. Aside from those scenes featuring Wiseman and even Rainn Wilson (as con man Harry Mudd), most of the humor featured in Season One tend to be more subtle. I am relieved to notice that in regard to character development, the show runners for “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” did not rush to portray Michael Burnham or any of the other characters fully developed. The Season Two premiere, “Brother”, hinted that the show planned to explore Burnham’s past experiences as a member of Ambassador Sarek’s household and especially, her relationship with adoptive brother Spock. Judging from the Season Two previews I have seen, Burnham’s relationship with Ash Tyler/Voq will also be touched upon. So, if Season Two does not feature the full character development of the series’ leading lady and the other supporting characters, I will not be disappointed. If anything, I might feel a sense of relief. The last thing I want is for the series to engage in rushed storytelling. But one aspect of the Season Two premiere that left me scratching my head was the level of humor featured in the episode. It almost struck me as out of place. Now, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” featured some rather heavy humor. I found nothing wrong with this. Many of the Trek series have aired the occasional humorous episode. The problem with the humor in “Brother” is that there was nothing about the plot or the characters that should have marked it as a humor-filled episode. Many of the familiar characters - including Burnham - were either spouting lines or reacting to situations that made me wonder if screenwriters Ted Sullivan, Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts may have went a bit too far. “Brother” also featured the introduction of Commander Denise “Jett” Reno, Chief Engineer of the U.S.S. Hiawatha, who had been rescued by a landing party from the Discovery after spending ten months caring for wounded crew members on an asteroid, during the Federation-Klingon War. Reno, portrayed by actress-comedian Tig Notaro, managed to spout more jokes in a space of five minutes than any other actor or actress who had appeared in a Trek series or movie. I think Notaro might proved to be a rival for Wiseman on who can be the funniest member of the cast. In the end, the humor in “Brother” struck me as a bit over-the-top, especially for an episode that is not obviously a humorous one like “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad”. So what were the screenwriters thinking? Did they change the tonal style of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” to appease those fans who had complained that the series was “too serious” or “too angsty”? If so, they have made a mistake. I found this tonal shift for Season Two rather forced and mind boggling. I do not see the necessity of changing the series’ tonal style. I want to watch “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, not some borderline copycat of “THE ORVILLE”. Not even the other Trek series from the past had such a drastic tonal shift. After all, the edgier style of Season One did not prevent “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” from being a hit or creating an entire new stable of fans. Had the show runners forgotten this? Or were they too busy paying attention to the narrow-minded fans who wanted the series to simply re-create the past? I noticed that the introduction of Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike of the U.S.S. Enterprise had also contributed to this tonal shift. Mount’s Pike came off as slightly humorous and yet, somewhat bland. To me, Pike seemed like the epitome of the white male leading man that so many science-fiction/fantasy geeks seemed to long - especially in the past three to four years. The problem I have with this is that as an old fan of the AMC series, “HELL ON WHEELS”, I know that the talented Mount is capable of portraying a character more interesting than Pike. At one point in “Brother”, Pike had expressed his regret that the Enterprise did not participate in the Federation-Klingon War. Was this regret a consequence of survivor’s guilt? Or is this nothing more than the regret of someone in the military, who wished he or she could have been in the center of the action. I hope that it is the former. On the other hand, watching Pike participate in the landing party that found Reno and the remains of the Hiawatha makes me wonder otherwise. As the Discovery’s current temporary captain, his presence in the Away team struck me as questionable. This is not “STAR TREK” circa 1966-68. And so far, I do not find the character’s regret for not participating in the war against the Klingons as not very interesting. And why is the Christopher Pike character a regular on this show? Why is he a regular for Season Two? Why was Pike, along with two Enterprise officers, needed to investigate those seven red bursts that had appeared in the Alpha Quadrant? The Discovery is originally a science vessel. The Enterprise is not. Why did the show runners have Starfleet order Pike to take command of Discovery in the first place? Mount could have been cast as the Discovery’s new captain who was someone other than Pike. Or Saru could have been promoted as the Discovery’s new commander. He deserved it. After all, ever since the discovery that Captain Gabriel Lorca was an imposter from the Mirror Universe, Saru had more or less acted as the ship’s captain. He was the one who led Discovery and its crew out of the Mirror Universe. And he stood behind Burnham, Tilly and Tyler when they exposed Starfleet’s plot to destroy the Klingon homeworld. Instead, either Alex Kurtzman or Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg drummed up some lame reason to brng Pike aboard the Discovery so that the show can have some slightly bland and familiar character as the main authority figure in order to soothe the nerves of some very loud and negative fans. Is it possible that these fans could not deal with the chaotic Gabriel Lorca as captain or who still cannot deal with the non-white Michael Burnham as the show’s lead? Or do they simply want to recapture the past? Right now, it seems as if Kurtzman, Harberts and Berg want to please these fanboys, who want the show to recapture the past. After watching “Brother”, I blame them for listening to these fanboys, instead of basking in the success of Season One and moving forward with more innovative stories. It just seems a crime that producers like Kurtzman, Harberts, Berg, the Warner Brothers suits and Kathleen Kennedy are so afraid of the loud and narrow-minded fanboys that they would rather keep their respective franchises either mired in the past or borderline bland to please these fans. And in doing so, they end up ignoring the fact that when their franchises were innovative, they were also box office or ratings successes. Right now, I find the Trek fandom, along with those for other franchises, rather frustrating and narrow-minded. These fans would rather cling to the past, rather than enjoy something different or innovative. And when producers and show runners like Harberts, Berg or Kurtzman kowtow to the loud and rather conservative-minded fans and critics, entertainment and art in pop culture becomes in danger of declining into a sad affair. Does this mean that Season Two of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” await such a fate? I hope not. I hope that the season’s future episodes might prove to be just as fascinating and innovative as those from Season One. I hope so. Because if I have to be honest, I found “Brother” to be jarring and something of a head scratcher.

What "old family"? From what part of Cornwall or England? If Dwight truly came from an upper-class family in Cornwall, Ray Penvenen would have known this, by his family name. Dwight's declaration sounds like some dumb ass invention by Debbie Horsfield. I'm really beginning to despise her as a writer.

Why do you make it impossible to compare the novels to the 2015 adaptation? Why is that such a crime?

What a piece of crap!!! I am so over this show. I wish Jessica had survived. I wish Jessica had never been Rittenhouse. Then I would have been spared of this school girl romance crap with Lucy and Wyatt. This was just so damn cheap. Instead of resolving the issue with Lucy, Jessica and Wyatt with any semblance of maturity, the showrunners had decided to use an easy way and make Jessica a villain to pave the road for "Lyatt". I'm too disgusted beyond words. And I’m seriously interested in getting rid of my DVD copies of “Timeless”. I have never been so disappointed in a show . . . until this one . . . and "Poldark". Good-bye “Timeless”. Thanks for disappointing me on so many levels.

When did that happen? Because I cannot believe that Debbie Horsfield would have Demelza say something that incredibly stupid.

Oh please. It's obvious that Flynn was born about a decade before Lucy. And we already know who Lucy's father is. Unless Wyatt was a monster, I just don't see him shooting a pregnant Jessica. Even if he had aimed at a non-lethal spot, who knows what would have happened to her and their child. No, he was right. So why did she help Emma betray Rittenhouse?

Betrayal? I don't have an excuse for Lucy not telling Wyatt and Rufus about her conversations with Flynn. I don't think she really has one. But Rufus had a damn good explanation. Rittenhouse was not only threatening his life, but also his family's lives. And yet, neither Lucy or Wyatt could understand that. Instead, they had reacted with outraged anger . . . especially Wyatt. And I found his attitude even more ridiculous, considering that it confirmed Flynn's own comments about Rittenhouse. Instead of realizing how dangerous Rittenhouse could be, Lucy and especially Wyatt, reacted with anger and expressed no concern or sympathy about Rufus' family. I was disgusted.

Dwight was in error when he stated that he was a gentleman before his marriage to Caroline. He was not a landowner. He did not come from an old, landowning family or aristocrat. Nor would someone from Ross and Caroline's class be caught dead earning a living as a doctor. Not in the late 18th century. I don't know why Debbie Horsfield had shoved those words into Dwight's mouth, but she was in error.

My answer is . . . no. I like Mona and I thought she had eased into the cast with no problems. She is the Time Bureau's Ray Palmer.

Oh please. Charlie simply wants her shape shifting powers back. And with it, perhaps she can find a way to evade the Legends.

Cary Warleggan had never really endured harassment by the likes of Ross (during their childhood) or Aunt Agatha for trying to "rise above himself". The only way someone from the middle-classes or lower-classes can do this is if he or she had the blessing or support from someone from the upper-classes. Demelza and Dwight are good examples of this. The Warleggans never had the support of "noblesse oblige", which is why George had received so much contempt and harassment from Ross and Agatha. This was Ross' main problem with Elizabeth's engagement to George. He saw her as lowering herself socially by becoming the wife of a self-made man, especially one who was his personal enemy. When all said and done, Ross was a bigot in his own way. And I also thought he was rather patronizing. This is why I have placed most of the blame on Ross for what happened to Elizabeth. He was arrogant enough to think he could have both Elizabeth and Demelza for himself - the former as his mistress and the latter as his wife. This is what he had wanted and made this clear to Verity back in Series One. Elizabeth had upset his plans and desires by becoming engaged to the very man that he despised - George Warleggan - because the latter was a greedy businessman and had working-class origins. And Ross had responded in anger by raping her. I realize that many believe that their "one night together" was consensual. I don't. Elizabeth had consented at the last moment, just as he was about to rape her. I don't regard that as consent. I also despise both Debbie Horsfield and the BBC for being too gutless to be truly honest about Ross' character and what he had done.

But this was never addressed. Not in any of the MCU movies or televisions shows. I'm aware of this, because someone else had brought this up. And even if the Sokovia Accords was a law, it was never called that. It was never called "a Law" or "an Act". And the whole thing is unconstitutional, which should have been brought up numerous times, but barely was. As far as I know, only Steve Rogers, Sam Wilson and James Rhodes brought this up . . . and briefly. The topic was never really fully explored. The problem I have with the Sokovia Accords in the MCU is that it was badly handled from the start. I had heard a rumor that the third Captain America originally had a different plot. But when the Marvel/Disney suits heard about Warner Bros's plans for "Batman v. Superman", they had decided to use the civil war plot for "Cap 3" in the end. They turned a solo Captain America movie into an Avengers film and Chris Evans got robbed of his third solo film. A Captain America movie with Iron Man as the co-lead? I was so disgusted when I watched all of this unfold. Worse, the chaotic plotline, along with the franchise's handling of the Sokovia Accords in "Agents of SHIELD", "Jessica Jones" Season 2, and "Ant-Man & the Wasp" only deepened my disgust. The Ant-Man suit belonged to Hank. And when he had refused to hand it over to SHIELD or give them the technology, there was nothing they could do. And that was back in the 1980s.

How is shower sex with one's spouse supposed to automatically help a person get over a traumatic event or period?

Aside from comic relief, I don't find Felicity all that interesting. In fact, I find Caitlin more interesting. Why does Caitlin have to continue manifesting this split personality in order to use her powers? I find that rather redundant by now.

Hank and Hope were wanted for Conspiracy to violate the Sokovian Accords by providing super tech to Scott Lang. Neither Scott, Hank or Hope had ever signed the Sokovia Accords, which is an agreement and NOT a law. And this means they should not have been held accountable to the Accords. Also, Hank allowed Scott to use the suit before the Sokovia Accords were ever written or ratified. Neither Hank or Hope knew that Scott had used the suit in Berlin. Scott should have been held accountable for breaking his parole, not in violating an agreement that he had never signed.l Do the MCU writers even know the difference between an accord and a law?

Don't you mean a forced Donna and Katrina friendship?

I CHEERED. I cheered, because I think Oliver is the same self-righteous d**k that he has always been since Day One. If I had been Laurel, I would have stopped acting on his behalf.

There is nothing bad or good about Elizabeth being a traditional female of the late 18th century. She was just one. That's all. And if I must be honest, I also regard Demelza as a traditional wife, despite Debbie Horsfield's attempts to "modernize" her. She kept Ross' name. She never had her own profession, let alone property. The only time she took care of his property and business interests were when he was away. Elizabeth or any other wife would have done the same. Both women usually supported their husbands, unless the latter did something to make them disagree with the men. Demelza had a more extroverted personality, but I don't feel that made her more "modern" or superior to Elizabeth. Nor do I see the need to condemn Elizabeth because she was a more reserved personality. I'm a reserved personality. I do not regard myself as inferior to those women who are more inclined to display their emotions. Nor do I feel superior to them. I disagree. Elizabeth's use of the potion was a way to convince George that giving premature birth was common with her. And she wanted to convince him of this to erase his suspicions about Valentine's birth and end this obsession of Ross. And all of this came about, because Ross thought he had the right to prevent her from marrying George. When he failed to convince Elizabeth to end the engagement, he forced himself on her, leading to Valentine's conception. In his own way, I believe Ross was also a monster.

Wishywashy? It sounds to me as if you're actually talking about Ross, not Elizabeth. He has always struck me as the inconsistent one who wanted the best of both worlds - Demelza and Elizabeth. And it was his arrogance and selfishness that led to Valentine's conception and Elizabeth's eventual death, some six years later. To me, Ross was the wishywashy one. To me, he is a patronizing, slightly bigoted and over-privileged rapist. Nothing more, nothing less. Why is it that unless it's about Demelza being "hurt", so many people want to absolve Ross of his mistakes and crimes?