S01.E01: The Vulcan Hello

[legaleagle53]

2 minutes ago, Peace 47 said:

For Michael to nerve-pinch Captain Georgiou is such a betrayal of their obviously extremely close relationship--yikes.

Right.  She could be court-martialed for that alone.

[starri]

Well, I liked it, anyway.  YMMV.

[MorganSte]

Things that bugged me in the plot:

Why would anyone do a space walk through a debris field?  It looked like she just had a regular EVA suit on.  One wrong move and that thing could be ripped right open.  

AND THEN, somehow getting out of sick bay when you're being treated for radiation poisoning?  Why didn't the doctor just sedate her?

AND ONE MORE:  Why would Vulcans raise an orphaned human?  Wouldn't you send the child to its own kind, wouldn't that be logical?

 

Stylistic choices that bugged me:

Oh god, the blinged out Klingons!  

And Sarek looked a little relaxed for a Vulcan.  He leaned on a table as a hologram.

[ParadoxLost]

1 minute ago, MorganSte said:

AND ONE MORE:  Why would Vulcans raise an orphaned human?  Wouldn't you send the child to its own kind, wouldn't that be logical?

Sarek's wife is human so I presume an orphaned niece or something.

[Primal Slayer]

It wasn't a bad episode but it is also hard to judge since this is clearly part 1 of a 2hr premiere.

I really have to keep the thought of this being a "prequel" to the Prime-verse out of my mind since they seem to be ignoring how far they should be technology wise. No view screens? That's a major thing for Star Trek.

[ketose]

4 minutes ago, MorganSte said:

Things that bugged me in the plot:

Why would anyone do a space walk through a debris field?  It looked like she just had a regular EVA suit on.  One wrong move and that thing could be ripped right open.  

AND THEN, somehow getting out of sick bay when you're being treated for radiation poisoning?  Why didn't the doctor just sedate her?

AND ONE MORE:  Why would Vulcans raise an orphaned human?  Wouldn't you send the child to its own kind, wouldn't that be logical?

 

Stylistic choices that bugged me:

Oh god, the blinged out Klingons!  

And Sarek looked a little relaxed for a Vulcan.  He leaned on a table as a hologram.

That was a really unfortunate way to telegraph that the actor was in the room and was made transparent in post-production.

[LittleIggy]

The forced banter between the three main characters was cringe worthy. The Klingons look ridiculous. Was hoping for some Jason Isaacs...alas, none.

If I can somewhere online to watch it for free, I'll do that, but I won't pay for it.

[ketose]

1 minute ago, Primal Slayer said:

It wasn't a bad episode but it is also hard to judge since this is clearly part 1 of a 2hr premiere.

I really have to keep the thought of this being a "prequel" to the Prime-verse out of my mind since they seem to be ignoring how far they should be technology wise. No view screens? That's a major thing for Star Trek.

There was a view screen. It was just not useful with the cloaking devices and the EVA suit not transmitting.

[Primal Slayer]

Just now, ketose said:

There was a view screen. It was just not useful with the cloaking devices and the EVA suit not transmitting.

As far as communication. They talked to Star Fleet via hologram and made contact with the Klingons via hologram. 

[MorganSte]

2 minutes ago, ketose said:

That was a really unfortunate way to telegraph that the actor was in the room and was made transparent in post-production.

Still, when do Vulcans do anything but stand with perfect posture?

[Peace 47]

12 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Right.  She could be court-martialed for that alone.

I will always expect the characters on a Star Trek series to do something court-martial-able at some point, because that's just good drama on these shows that value unit cohesion.  I was just a little disappointed that they went to that well really early on before Michael had earned any true audience loyalty.  I was like cheering badass Captain Georgiou from recovering from a nerve pinch so quickly and holding a phaser on Michael, instead of what I think I was supposed to be feeling--dread that Michael was unable to fulfill her course of action.

I don't know why, but when Michael was saying that she was trying to save everyone, then really emphasized to Captain Georgiou about how concerned Michael was about her ("You! I'm trying to save you!" or something like that), I almost thought that they were going to go high-concept and have this be a time-travel thing where these events had already happened and Michael was just trying to relive them in a way that saved the crew.  Like a Groundhog Day thing to be revealed.

[MorganSte]

1 minute ago, Peace 47 said:

I don't know why, but when Michael was saying that she was trying to save everyone, then really emphasized to Captain Georgiou about how concerned Michael was about her ("You! I'm trying to save you!" or something like that), I almost thought that they were going to go high-concept and have this be a time-travel thing where these events had already happened and Michael was just trying to relive them in a way that saved the crew.  Like a Groundhog Day thing to be revealed.

I thought that was a really strange beat in the story line, too.  I would assume, you fire on a Klingon, they take you out.  So, she wouldn't have necessarily saved anyone. 

[Kira53]

42 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

I'll be the odd one out and say I thought that it was entertaining. All pilots have their problems and this one was no exception, but after the first 15 minutes (which were definitely very slow) I was engaged pretty much throughout--I agree with benteen that it got stronger as it went. It's far from the best pilot I've ever seen, granted, but very far from the worst either. I'd be continuing to watch if it was continuing on broadcast; not sure if I'll shell out for CBS All-Access, because CBS All-Access annoys me on principle SO MUCH and I kind of hate CBS to begin with.

I do agree that the lead actress is the one I'm connecting with least, and that's not a good sign. Michelle Yeoh and the scaredy-cat science officer made more of an impression, and I found them more compelling. I can see what SMG is trying to do as an actress but she just didn't quite pull it off tonight.

  I was considering that the original Star Trek repeated the pilot which was unprecedented because the demands of a pilot are so tough. I'm going to continue to watching it; I'm finding it interesting.  I think that the characters have a lot of potential. The original, I watched as a little kid and for decades, and have watched all the other series.  Took time before we actually knew the different characters and how they would interact. I really can't see that an initial pilot can do but so much to introduce you to the universe, introduce you to the characters, and introduce you to the conflicts within the universe. I think people should be open to the changes.   In the new set of movies, Spock having a girlfriend seemed crazy at first but I actually began to like that change in the character while keeping the basic Spock.

 I think if people are Star Trek fans they can become open to character development. And as a long time Star Trek fan I know I've spent lots of money on various Star Trek things.  Books, videos, obviously movies.  I had a really great Star Trek pin that was a communicator pin, there were cards, yeah trading cards and more. I'm just not going to be at outraged about spending a relatively small amount of money when I spent so much more on Star Trek through out the years. I even was an early convention goer.  I'm looking forward to the opportunity for the series to deal with important themes and story telling.   Hopefully it'll be about us today just said in the future. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Kira53

[thuganomics85]

Well.... I'll give it chance (already signed up for the free trial, so why not?), but that definitely a rough introduction.  It was strange that in some ways, the visual effects were gorgeous, but then in other ways they were fake as well.  And don't even get me started on the practical effects.  The Klingon prosthetics were horrid. They just look like a generic alien species from a B/C movie series and left no impression.  In general, I'm not wild focusing on the early Federation/Klingon feud. Really wish this wasn't a prequel but a post-Voyager series, but alas, it is too late.

Only character that left an impression was Saru/Dough Jones, due to him feeling like the voice of reason most of time (I know they wanted to make me think he was a coward, but nope!), and Jones general awesomeness.  Georgiou had the potential to be an interesting type of a captain (felt like a mixture of Picard's diplomatic approaches, with Janeway's family-like bond with her crew), but seems to be a bit of a non factor so far.  Michael was a bust though.  I have no idea if I'm suppose to like this character, but she really comes of pig-headed and dumb, and her Vulcan nerve-pinching Georgiou was low and cowardly as shit.  Loved Sonequa Martin-Green on The Walking Dead, but there was something off with her performance.  I think it might have been trying to find the right balance of playing mainly a stoic character (raised by Vulcans after-all), but having emotions brimming under the surface and then sudden outbursts at certain times.  Either way, I hope she figures it out going forward.

No one can beat Mark Lenard as Sarek, but I actually thought James Frain was a solid enough of a replacement.  Even though he now makes me suspicious of Sarek, because, well, he's James Frain.

Hopefully it'll improve, but as of right now I'll actually rank The Orville over it, which I didn't predict.  Even though I had issues with that show's pilot (and the rest of the episodes still have issues), I at least got the sense of what it wanted to be and the steps it was taken to try and accomplish it.  With this show, I really don't understand the purpose and why I should be interested in these characters and the storylines.  But maybe they'll prove me wrong. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by thuganomics85

[TVSpectator]

What is going on with the Klingons?

[staphdude]

The issue for me is chain of command. If the focal point of the show is the second in command, they will either become the de facto captain (so just write it that way!) or there' going to be mutinies aplenty! 

I don't for a minute believe that you can translate the "Vulcan hello" to this situation. Both the context and hardware are different. Getting some half assed advice about diplomatic scenarios from ages ago played out by groups that don't fit your own shouldn't translate to mutiny and a live fire exercise. Get rid of number one and bring on more Michelle Yeo.

[Sandman]

17 minutes ago, MorganSte said:

And Sarek looked a little relaxed for a Vulcan.  He leaned on a table as a hologram.

Maybe he was just exhausted from trying to raise a human. Also: I agree -- I don't trust anyone played by James Frain; not trusting Sarek could prove exhausting to me.

Having female captains in a pre-Kelvin timeline Federation seems like a deal-breaker of a continuity problem -- but "The Cage" did feature a female Number One -- who was the original holder of the "cool, unemotional senior officer" brief, before "Vulcanians" became the Vulcans that we know and love. And, retcon or not, I freakin' love Michelle Yeoh. I can't help it.

Wasn't it established as canon that we humans don't have the capacity to perform the nerve pinch? I though the biomechanics were supposed to be all wrong.

I'll give this one a small chance -- but I'm already bored with The Orville and Captain Smarmy Smurf.

[stealinghome]

22 minutes ago, thuganomics85 said:

Loved Sonequa Martin-Green on The Walking Dead, but there was something off with her performance.  I think it might have been trying to find the right balance of playing mainly a stoic character (raised by Vulcans after-all), but having emotions brimming under the surface and then sudden outbursts at certain times.   

That was exactly my take on SMG's acting as well--you could tell that she was doing "human trying to emulate Vulcan logical approach," but she was TRYING so hard to achieve that vibe that she didn't inhabit it. You could see her acting, you know? It just didn't feel natural (and I get that that's the point--Michael is trying for something that's not natural for her nature--but it wasn't the right kind of unnatural).

I've never seen her in anything else, but I do think it's a hard balance to achieve and am hopeful that she gets better as the series goes on.

Edited September 25, 2017 by stealinghome

[ketose]

16 minutes ago, Sandman said:

Wasn't it established as canon that we humans don't have the capacity to perform the nerve pinch? I though the biomechanics were supposed to be all wrong.

Spock referred to trying to teach it to Kirk. I'd say it's possible, but takes a lot of time and learning.

[CanadaPhil]

16 minutes ago, Sandman said:

 

Having female captains in a pre-Kelvin timeline Federation seems like a deal-breaker of a continuity problem -- 

??

The captain of the Columbia, sistership of the FIRST Enterprise was a woman.

[Idiotboy]

SMG's smugness -- partly a fault of the script -- really bugs. You get the sense that is not command material. Give me Michelle Yeoh (awesome) any day.

[azshadowwalker]

Didn't hate it, but I had similar problems with Michael being unlikable and the Klingons. 

I don't much care about the stupid shit about no female captains. TOS was supposed to be set in the real world, and we have already advanced past that misogynistic tripe. Better to leave that garbage in the 1960s. 

I won't be watching the rest, though. Just had to let Netflix go for financial reasons. I am sure not picking up a service for one new show and CBS back catalog. Paying extra when I am already paying for CBS programming through my cable package isn't impressing me. 

ETA @CanadaPhil, since this is the thread for the first episode, which just finished airing in my time zone, dropping stuff about the second wouldn't be cool even if we had. There's a thread for that episode, if you want to talk about it there. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by azshadowwalker

[Ottis]

I liked it. Hinted at some depth and wider angles that Orville won't touch. I may have to try CBS access .. what else does it give you?

Only negatives for me was the clunky dialogue when the XO was buzzing the Klingon ship, and the all caps subtitles. Really? 

[statsgirl]

It was a slow start and I don't like that the Klingons look like lizards but all in all I enjoyed it.

The female character being called 'Michael' bugs me.  There are plenty of female names they can use.

[OtterMommy]

I guess I have the unpopular opinion in that I actually enjoyed this.  Of course, I was never a huge Star Trek fan (but my husband, who also enjoyed it, is).  I get that the technology vs. prequel thing is...not great, but it isn't any worse than what happened in Star Wars.  As we have CBS All Access for other reasons (cut the cable, antenna won't pick up CBS, can't live without The Big Bang Theory), I'll continue to watch....

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, statsgirl said:

The female character being called 'Michael' bugs me.  There are plenty of female names they can use.

I know a couple--2, actually--women named Michael.  Even so, it still is one of those, "Oh yeah, I need a moment to think" when I hear it.  

[legaleagle53]

21 minutes ago, azshadowwalker said:

I don't much care about the stupid shit about no female captains. TOS was supposed to be set in the real world, and we have already advanced past that misogynistic tripe. Better to leave that garbage in the 1960s. 

Canon is canon, though. But those who claim that the rule was always "No female captains, ever!" during this time period are overidentifying with the character who claimed that that was why she was refused a captaincy -- Janice Lester.  The truth was that her gender had nothing to do with it. She showed by her actions that she was mentally and emotionally unfit for command (and that she really cared nothing for the mundane administrative responsibilities of command but only wanted the power of command) and would have been passed for it over because of that even if she had been male.  No misogyny or sexism was behind the decision to exclude her from the captaincy -- she simply wasn't the right woman for the job and never would have been.

Edited September 25, 2017 by legaleagle53

[ParadoxLost]

22 minutes ago, azshadowwalker said:

Didn't hate it, but I had similar problems with Michael being unlikable

I really liked Michael in the beginning.  I think giving her a raised by Vulcans backstory was unfortunate.  Or at least it was unfortunate to reveal it this early because it came off  more as a contrived nod to TOS rather than something that gave depth to her characterization.

[Starchild]

That lead Klingon reminded me of the face of Bo.

[Sandman]

8 hours ago, CanadaPhil said:

The captain of the Columbia, sistership of the FIRST Enterprise was a woman.

This, too, is an apparent retcon. Sexist as it undoubtedly was,"Turnabout Intruder" operates on the assumption that indeed, it is her inappropriate ambition which caused (or is a symptom of) her instability. To say that Lester's gender had nothing to do with it is to misread the episode, and, I think, to overlook Kirk's condescension to her. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the episode: it's breathtakingly stupid. But it feels like the producers of this show are pretending it didn't happen.

I did wonder, though, if the casting of both Philippa Georgiou and Michael Burnham happened after the writers had picked names for the characters, and that the original conception of the characters was different from what we see on screen: "Philippa Georgiou" sounds like a Greek or Cypriot name to me; but then, maybe I'm looking at it from a late-20th century/early 21st century perspective, and the name is a clue that race and culture aren't to be confused. I don't think "Michael" as a woman's name is all that unusual.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Sandman

[Mysteris]

The pilot didn't do a lot for me but I'd be willing to give the show a chance to grow into itself. A lot of great shows have had rocky pilots/early episodes and recovered just fine. Hell, the whole first season of TNG (ah, childhood memories) was rocky but then became good. But CBS expects me to pay to watch this? Not a chance in Hell. I thought that this was set in the new rebooted universe of the movies. I was looking forward to seeing the new timeline get expanded on and seeing all the new bits and bobs of a rebooted universe. Setting it in the old timeline just makes it confusing and weird. Didn't we already have Enterprise? Also, I remember Klingons from the TNG/DS9 era. If this was the new timeline I'd let whatever we saw tonight slide but in the old timeline? Come on.

 

I didn't get much sense of the characters tonight, except for the Captain. I liked the Captain. Her weirdly-named first officer had no impact. I know she was supposed to be the viewpoint character but she was just bland. I didn't think she was brave or noble for trying to start a war with the Klingons. I thought she was an idiot who betrayed her Captain.

 

A disappointment overall. I'll stick with the Orville.

[azshadowwalker]

26 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Canon is canon, though. But those who claim that the rule was always "No female captains, ever!" during this time period are overidentifying with the character who claimed that that was why she was refused a captaincy -- Janice Lester.  The truth was that her gender had nothing to do with it. She showed by her actions that she was mentally and emotionally unfit for command (and that she really cared nothing for the mundane administrative responsibilities of command but only wanted the power of command) and would have been passed for it over because of that even if she had been male.  No misogyny or sexism was behind the decision to exclude her from the captaincy -- she simply wasn't the right woman for the job and never would have been.

Then no gay characters. Canon is canon. Beverly Crusher said humanity would accept homosexuality better in the future in The Host. So, get that gay character mentioned in all the press releases outta here. Or just misogyny is canon? 

Edited September 25, 2017 by azshadowwalker

[legaleagle53]

1 minute ago, Sandman said:

This, too, is an apparent retcon. Sexist as it undoubtedly was,"Turnabout Intruder" operates on the assumption that indeed, it is her inappropriate ambition which caused (or is a symptom of) her instability. To say that Lester's gender had nothing to do with it is to misread the episode, and, I think, to overlook Kirk's condescension to her. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the episode: it's breathtakingly stupid. But the producers of this show are pretending it didn't happen.

But to insist that her gender did have something to do with it is to miss the point of her unfitness for command in the first place.  A man who demonstrated the same level of paranoia and mental and emotional instability (and lack of fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and responsibilities of command) wouldn't have been offered a command position, either.

But I don't want to go too far astray from the topic of this thread, so this is the last I'm going to say about the meaning of "Turnabout Intruder" and its relation to the continuity issues inherent in Discovery.

1 minute ago, azshadowwalker said:

Then no gay characters. Canon is canon. Beverly Crusher said humanity would accept homosexuality better in the future in The Host. So, get that gay character outta here. Or just misogyny is canon? 

Gay characters weren't an issue in TOS because the gay rights movement as we know it today wasn't even born until after TOS had been canceled, so there was no reason to address that issue in TOS.  So that argument doesn't apply.

[Padma]

I agree with all the flaws mentioned above, but liked it. My expectations were extremely low and I actually thought it was pretty good, faults and all. The controversial choice of Michelle Yeoh was just fine and I liked that her #1 was also a woman. I liked that they're not dressed to be sex symbols like Topol, and Deanna and 7 of 9 and numerous TOS women.  I liked that it didn't open with gratuitous action scenes and violence.   And I -really- liked the philosophical moments sprinkled throughout--and then the big one where Yeoh refuses to fire first, even if it means they all will die. That is the Star Trek idealism and principles that I love (and which has been lost in much of the movie versions).

I'm so glad that they didn't take the easy route (sex and violence and non-Treky plots) that I'm willing to overlook all the areas that disappoint. Willing to even subscribe--and a week ago I didn't even plan to watch. So...good jjob, imo!

[Sandman]

17 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

But to insist that her gender did have something to do with it is to miss the point of her unfitness for command in the first place.

Not really: it's impossible to miss her unfitness for command. But that's not the reason the other characters treat with her with such condescension. When ambition is raised as part of what drove her mad, no one argues with Lester-as-Kirk that ambition wasn't the problem. Kirk as himself makes a point of saying that "her life could have been as rich as any woman's." But never (so far as I can recall) is it mentioned that another woman might have been a captain, and no examples are cited of female captains.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Sandman

[Lebanna]

If Star Trek had had a random episode in the 1960s that said, for example, that Black people couldn't be captains, we would all probably have decided that this idea was very stupid, racist, against the true meaning of the show, a huge mistake on the part of the writer, and should never have happened. We'd strike it out of cannon for being rubbish.

 

Seriously? You're Star Trek fans who think that in a wonderful utopian future, women truly wouldn't be allowed to be captains because they're just frankly too crazy? Seriously? When they already can be now, in our massively sexist society? Come on. 

 

That episode was a huge mistake. It, or arguably (as above) the way it was interpreted, was stupid, sexist, and should never, ever have happened, let alone become cannon. It was a product of its times and should be left there. And as has been pointed out, Erika Hernandez is also cannon at this point, so that argument died a death about fifteen years ago.

 

Trekkers ought to be better than this.

[benteen]

Quote

Plus, women are not allowed to be captains! Didn't any of these writers see "Turnabout Intruder?"  

This episode was the last episode of TOS.  I know that it's been said that Gene didn't agree with it and said that he thought it was just the interpretation of the Janice Lester character.  Gene wasn't running the show at that point as another showrunner had taken over in the final season.  Not excusing him as he wrote his fair share of sexist stuff (he did a very good series called The Lieutenant that was REALLY embarrassing when it came to gender dynamics and downright offensive at times) but I tend to go with his explanation.  I'd perfectly fine with any Star Trek shows from this point forward ignoring something as ridiculous, sexist and outdated as the concept that women can't command a ship (in this case a starship).  Women command Navy ships nowadays...so are we to believe that Starfleet decided 300 years into the future to ban women from command based on sexist bullshit from the 60s?  It's a retcon of stupidity that I'm more than happy to see gone.

Edited September 26, 2017 by benteen

[legaleagle53]

Just now, Sandman said:

Not really: it's impossible to miss her unfitness for command. But that's not the reason the other characters treat with her with such condescension. When ambition is raised as part of what drove her mad, no one argues with Lester-as-Kirk that ambition wasn't the problem. Kirk as himself makes a point of saying that "her life could have been as rich as any woman's." But never (so far as I can recall) is it mentioned that she might have been a captain.

Because it was obvious that she couldn't have been due to her unfitness, not because she was a woman. If she had been willing to accept that she just wasn't considered the right woman for the job, let it go, and moved on with her life, she could indeed have led a very fulfilling life as a scientist and a doctor. It was her unwillingness to let it go and move on that destroyed her, not any misogyny or sexism directed at her.

[Sandman]

So why not say her life could have been as rich as anyone's? Why bring up the gender differentiation if it's meaningless to Starfleet? If the right woman is a possibility for the job, why did we never see any woman in a command position in the original series? I'm not trying to be dense, but I think calling it a matter of only Lester's interpretation is oversimplifying considerably.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Sandman

[legaleagle53]

4 minutes ago, Lebanna said:

Seriously? You're Star Trek fans who think that in a wonderful utopian future, women truly wouldn't be allowed to be captains because they're just frankly too crazy? Seriously? When they already can be now, in our massively sexist society? Come on. 

Not because women in general are too crazy to be captains, but because this particular woman was.  Again, would you allow a man who exhibited such dangerous levels of mental instability and incompetence to become a captain?  I think not, and I certainly wouldn't want to serve under any such captain regardless of gender.

[SpiritSong]

3 hours ago, Browncoat said:

The prosthetics/makeup for the Klingons has got to be the worst I've seen.  They look like a cross between the alien from Aliens and, well, I'm not sure what.  But it's bad.

 

They reminded me of orcs from Middle Earth. Bad teeth and all.

[legaleagle53]

3 minutes ago, Sandman said:

So why not say her life could have been as rich as anyone's?

Because she made her gender an issue -- and her sole defining issue.

Please -- can't we at least move this conversation over to the appropriate thread in the TOS forum?  It's really run its course here, I think.

[Sandman]

10 minutes ago, benteen said:

It's a retcon of stupidity that I'm more than happy to see.

I'll say I'm glad the newest show has moved past the issue, and move on myself.

[Lantern7]

Just ran across the AV Club review. They covered the first two episodes. I just wanted to warn the unspoiled.

If the main character is a girl named Michael, would we get a boy named Sue? #reallylowhangingfruit

[Lebanna]

8 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Not because women in general are too crazy to be captains, but because this particular woman was.  Again, would you allow a man who exhibited such dangerous levels of mental instability and incompetence to become a captain?  I think not, and I certainly wouldn't want to serve under any such captain regardless of gender.

I don't take issue with your interpretation at all. In fact, it's that interpretation that lets me watch that episode of TOS without throwing anything at my TV. As Trekkers, we know that the idea that women can't handle responsibility and pressure is utter crap.

 

But, clearly other people have not interpreted it in that way, and the fact that it can even be misconstrued as cannon that women  are too crazy and shouldn't be in command in a utopia shows that the episode was quite badly written, at the very least. 

 

But yes, to an extent we choose our own interpretations of things, and some people seem to be choosing the worst possible reason to complain about this show. I'm frankly pretty shocked.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Lebanna

[hello]

Ugh! Grimdark Star Trek wallowing in murky monochromatic mud-puddles of the laziest story writing imaginable. The Klingons, you say?! The Klingons?! Dear GOD how original! Who could have seen it coming? KLINGONS ... in Star Trek! Rod Serling himself could never have seen such a deviously clever plot twist coming! THE GENIUS IT BLINDS ME

[[the Orville is still the best Star Trek on television]]

[ketose]

55 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Canon is canon, though. But those who claim that the rule was always "No female captains, ever!" during this time period are overidentifying with the character who claimed that that was why she was refused a captaincy -- Janice Lester.  The truth was that her gender had nothing to do with it. She showed by her actions that she was mentally and emotionally unfit for command (and that she really cared nothing for the mundane administrative responsibilities of command but only wanted the power of command) and would have been passed for it over because of that even if she had been male.  No misogyny or sexism was behind the decision to exclude her from the captaincy -- she simply wasn't the right woman for the job and never would have been.

"Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair" - Janice Lester

"No it isn't. You punished and tortured me because of of it." - James Kirk

[hello]

Star Trek = Johnny Carson

The Orville = David Letterman

ST:Discovery = Jay Leno

The wrong guy inherited the legacy!

[statsgirl]

TOS was brilliant in it's time -- but it's time was long ago.  I also think that Freud was brilliant in his time but many of  his theories now seem ridiculous.  As a civilization, we have moved on, and I'm very glad for it.

(Seriously, if you want sexist, TNG is your show.  Any one who mattered was male and while there were female officers, they tended to be   (I remember the episode where Deanna lost her abilities and said that she was useless now even though she had a PhD in psychology.  I was a psychology grad student when the episode aired and were were mocking her like crazy.) I'm not a fan of TNG at all.

I thought the worst part of the episode was the dialogue.  Too often it was so stilted, I could almost see them reading it off the page.

[SmithW6079]

Granted, I was predisposed to dislike Star Trek: Discovery, and I'm not likely to subscribe to CBS All Access, but I tried to keep an open mind during the premiere.

Except, it suuuuuuucked.

The opening scenes are the fucking Klingons!

 

Seriously, what is it with Trek creators and their hard-ons for Klingons? TOS used Klingons sparingly and it worked. They were the enemy, but we didn't see them all the fucking time. Kirk's crew had to deal with many different adversaries. ST: TNG went too often to the Klingon well, which made me hate them, but not in the way you're supposed to hate the villains. I just hated the Klingons, especially Worf, the worst security chief in the galaxy, and all his fucking "honor" stories.

And during the show, which was so slow-moving even in the "action" scenes, I kept being reminded of the pretentiousness of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and all its pondering, bloated, boringness. 

When the new head lizard Klingon kept talking about uniting the different houses of the empire, I started wondering if that's how they were going to explain the Klingon variations on a theme -- lizards, crest-heads, flat-heads (augments), but I think that's giving the "creative" team too much credit.

Plus, prequels never work for sci-fi shows. Real-life technology advances too fast. One thing Enterprise got right, to a certain extent, was showing that the NX-01 wasn't as advanced as the later Enterprises. The technology they had on the bridge of the Shenzhou is way too far ahead of what TOS had. Plus, for a show about the USS Discovery, why is it taking to episode 3 to show that ship? 

I didn't care for any of the characters, although the captain of the Shenzhou is OK. I think it was a mistake to have Michael raised by Vulcans. Her actions in the first episode alone show her to be emotional and impulsive. 

I was watching some Battlestar Galactica beforehand (apparently, it was a BSG weekend on SyFy). It was the first season (when the show was still good), and man, it just ran rings around Discovery.

Even if I were willing to pay for CBS's streaming service, I will be avoiding this STD, as one should avoid all STDs.

Edited September 25, 2017 by SmithW6079