S01.E01: The Vulcan Hello

[Bryce Lynch]

8 hours ago, NeenerNeener said:

I liked the opening credits and the theme music. I stopped watching both Enterprise and Firefly after two or three episodes just because I hated the opening theme songs so much and lunging for the remote to mute the tv was annoying too.

James Frain is a decent Sarek and it's nice to see him NOT playing a villain for once, although it wouldn't have killed them to create a new Vulcan character to be Michael's mentor.

It also wouldn't have killed them to stop futzing around with what Klingon's look like if this isn't supposed to be an alternate Trek universe. All in all, I'm with the folks who aren't going to pay CBS to watch 9 more episodes of this. I won't do it for Christine Baranski, and I won't do it for James Frain either.

I didn't mind the Enterprise theme song (though I can understand how people could), but I really liked the visual part of the intro, showing man's progress to get to the stars.  

[marinw]

19 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

While they are at it, why not make the Vulcans blue and give the hew-mahns Ferengi ears?

The JJ Abrams movies retconned the Romulans for some reason.

Edited September 25, 2017 by marinw

[Charlesman]

5 hours ago, greekmom said:

I was thinking this through this morning. I think CBS could have had people accept these Klingons if they were a) 1 lone house and the rest of the Klingons looked like TOS or TNG ones, b) an ancient off shoot of Klingons or c) they were the Kuvah'magh Klingons that the Voyager Klingons in the one episode were following.  

Seriously CBS - this isn't rocket science. 

 

From what I've heard (potential spoiler):

 

Spoiler

The appearance of the Klingons here is going to be explained as part of the retrovirus storyline. IIRC, the Klingons were experimenting with genetic alterations pre-TOS and accidentally created a few generations of "smooth headed" (human like) Klingons, like Kirk encounters. They will take time to breed out of the gene pool and eventually restore Klingons closer to what they originally were. They're most of the way there by the time of Worf and TNG. So these Discovery Klingons could be "pure" Klingons looking to restore the empire after genetic mutations have swept through. "Make Qo'noS Great Again"?

 

On other fronts:

Way too much subtitles.

Way too much bad acting. I know Michelle Yeoh is normally good, but, her delivery was slower and more halting than the Klingons was. She did not convey her emotions well. Every time she spoke it felt as if she was trying to sound it out phonetically. 

Way too much bad writing. Exposition everywhere. "Well, since you've been my first officer for seven years..." and "He's from a planet of xenophobes, of course he's worried that..." and so on. 

 

Also: the 3D holo-emitter communicator... wasn't this brand new and only just invented when it appeared on the Defiant in DS9? How come they're all using one now???

 

EDIT: And, wait, wasn't the holodeck new on TNG? I seem to remember the first time it appeared it was still a marvel of modern technology. But holo-emitters on the bridge were around a hundred years before? That really irks me.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Charlesman

[rab01]

3 hours ago, Lebanna said:

 And the DNA thing is basically that. I mean, we could do voices now. We could do ears and faces and fingerprints. DNA is better and the guy was right there.

There might not have been any record of his DNA pattern on file. He was governor of the colony so maybe he wiped the medical files before going underground.

As for this show, I liked some parts of it, including the set design. The ship looked cool but also looked like there was a chance that TOS Enterprise could take it out.  I liked that both main characters (really the only characters) were women and I certainly don't think that preserving "canon" includes memorializing one of the very worst episodes of Trek (other than anything filmed in the first season of TNG). 

Grading it on a curve for Star Trek pilots, I thought this was pretty successful.  (As in, hugely better than TNG and Voyager; better than DS9 other than the Wolf359 bit; and I can't remember Enterprise).

Now for the downside - (1) It's a bloody prequel and I hate prequels ... but that's the story they wanted to tell and I knew that going in.  (2) there were only two and-a-half characters in the pilot.  The second officer doesn't qualify as a character until he gets some beat other than "prey species."  (3) The Klingons talk so slowly that their scenes take twice as long as they need to be. (4) The bleeping mutiny - Leaving aside that it didn't seem to me like the "right" call, it broke character.  We are told that they have been together for years and we are shown Mike respecting her judgment but suddenly Mike is so sure of herself being smarter than her captain that she knocks her out after being overruled? 

[ahpny]

Quote

The retconning is driving me nuts. The communicator is basically a 2003 era flip phone.

The communicator, the phaser, and of course the shape of the ship itself, seemed to be the few types of technology they made an effort to harmonize with TOS. While jarring as it may be to see 2017 technology integrated into a show taking place ten years before one produced 50 years ago, it may not be entirely fair to gripe about the disconnect between  the look and feel of TOS and this. All period pieces, whether set in the past or the future, betray their current times. Some just do so less offensively than others. But even this doesn't really explain the "reimagined" Klingons.

[Princess Lucky]

I liked this more than I thought I would, and it certainly looked great, but I've already identified several things which will probably aggravate me in the longterm.

First and foremost, Sarek and those flashbacks. What a truly unnecessary way to tie this into TOS. And what an unfortunate way to portray Sarek. Instead of enriching Michael's characterisation (which I assume was the point), those scenes just made me dislike Sarek even more, and they made me care about Michael less. Present Day Michael was perfectly engaging without that backstory. If anything, they could have kept the Klingon connection (for revenge purposes, or to make us question her objectivity), but why also add the Vulcan element? It was too much, and I feel it somewhat limited the actress in terms of her choices.  

I, too, am not a fan of Klingons (though there are exceptions, of course), and I found myself fast-forwarding through their scenes because I don't care about that entire plotline.

Also, the pilot was a condensed version of the first AOS movie, but worse, somehow. Kirk's stunt was smart and by the book, he had legitimate reasons (if not evidence) to suspect a trap, and he knew Spock would never in a million years trust him and listen to him. He had no alternative. Meanwhile, Michael's stunt was wholly against the rules, she only had a gut instinct, she had Georgiou's trust so she should have tried harder to plead her case, and the overall situation wouldn't change drastically if she were to get her way, because the Klingons would still attack. So I found the ending... annoying. I actually liked Michael up until that moment. Also, when your Captain tells you "you're being emotional," it's not the best idea to deny that when you have literal tears in your eyes.

Lastly, the crew was so faceless. The opposite of memorable. Saru was the only crew member with a personality, but I'm actually willing to give the writers some leeway n that, since the pilot usually focuses on fleshing out the leads.

All that said, I'm still curious to see how this continues. I'll keep watching for now. This could have been a lot worse.

[Jodithgrace]

If, during the scene where all of the other Klingon tribe representatives appeared, if they had had one that looked like TOS Klingons, and one that looked like Worf and his buddies, i could have accepted this new look, but I actually thought they looked more like gorillas than lizards and the albino one looked like he was made out of white chocolate. Klingons were never my favorite aliens, anyway, but these guys just looked over designed, and the giant subtitles just made it seem like they were yelling all the time. 

I kind of liked the rest of it. TOS was my least favorite Trek while DS9 was my favorite, so I'm disappointed to read that this series takes place BEFORE TOS, though if Chris Pine or Zachary Quinto show up, i wouldn't complain. I mean, does this take place ten years before the recent movies, or 10 years before the original tv series? 

I did sign up for all access, but (don't tell anybody) I'm planning on cancelling it after this season of Trek is over. 

[marinw]

1 hour ago, ahpny said:

it may not be entirely fair to gripe about the disconnect between  the look and feel of TOS and this.

Fair enough. And for all we know, Retro (to the 23rd Century) phones/communicators could well be in style.

Technology is not a straight line. Some things are going to develope faster than others, and technology could backslide into earlier forms for any number of reasons. Even in 2017, we all carry powerful computers in our pockets yet Fossil Fuel is still our main energy source.

1 hour ago, ahpny said:

But even this doesn't really explain the "reimagined" Klingons.

Or the Strfleet Uniforms. I am comparing everything to The Cage because it is the same era. I don’t expect the set design or costumes  to be faithful to something made in 1964 but at least pay some attention to your source material. Again, I maintain the JJ Abrams films found a good balance.

Edited September 25, 2017 by marinw

[wilnil]

12 hours ago, GaT said:

Those are Klingons?????? They look like they're made of metal.

That was the exact thought I had. Looking at all of them gathered together, I found myself wondering "So what are their races/subspecies, Wrought Iron, Lead and Aluminum?"

[GaT]

8 minutes ago, wilnil said:

That was the exact thought I had. Looking at all of them gathered together, I found myself wondering "So what are their races/subspecies, Wrought Iron, Lead and Aluminum?"

At first I thought they were all wearing armor

[rab01]

Serious question about the new klingon make-up - is it flexible enough to allow the actors to show emotion?  I couldn't tell whether they all looked blank to me because of bad acting, immobile make-up, or because I'm not used to reading expressions through the face paint yet.  (Also, I'll throw my klingon continuity issue into the hopper - when in this timeline will klingons adopt the "that body is just an empty shell" philosophy.  It's not really a true continuity problem; I can fanwank it away easily. It's just that this was pretty much the first of Worf's lines that I actually liked on TNG.)

Even for those who didn't like the episode at all, weren't there a few moments you liked?  I gotta admit, drawing the starfleet emblem in the sand got me in the exact way they intended and I also liked the suit EVA.

[starri]

Off the subject of the Klingon makeup, can we at least agree that Glenn Hettrick and Neville Page knocked it out of the park with Saru?  I know you hire Doug Jones because he's always going to be able to deliver regardless of the makeup, but Saru really looks like one of Michael Westmore's creations, just more intricate for high-def.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Also: the 3D holo-emitter communicator... wasn't this brand new and only just invented when it appeared on the Defiant in DS9? How come they're all using one now???

 

EDIT: And, wait, wasn't the holodeck new on TNG? I seem to remember the first time it appeared it was still a marvel of modern technology. But holo-emitters on the bridge were around a hundred years before? That really irks me.

Which just begs the question of why they wanted to set this up as taking place pre-TOS. Why not set it after Voyager and take advantage of all the cool new bells and whistles? I can't think of any compelling reason this show has to be a prequel. They already tried that with Enterprise and it was the least successful Star Trek show of them all. I guess they are just thinking "well, it has to be, because the new movie franchise is."

Quote

If, during the scene where all of the other Klingon tribe representatives appeared, if they had had one that looked like TOS Klingons, and one that looked like Worf and his buddies, i could have accepted this new look, but I actually thought they looked more like gorillas than lizards and the albino one looked like he was made out of white chocolate.

Also, if they're planning to say this is what Klingons looked like originally originally, then why did they look like Worf in Enterprise, which took place 100 years earlier than this??

Quote

Off the subject of the Klingon makeup, can we at least agree that Glenn Hettrick and Neville Page knocked it out of the park with Saru?  I know you hire Doug Jones because he's always going to be able to deliver regardless of the makeup, but Saru really looks like one of Michael Westmore's creations, just more intricate for high-def.

He knocked it out of the part in terms of coming up with something repulsive looking, yeah. As I noted above, it doesn't make any sense to have one of the main characters in a prequel be some weird-ass species we've never seen or heard of before. They did it just because they could. They went overboard with trying to make it look all outer-spacey and futuristic with the weird looking aliens. 

[starri]

6 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

As I noted above, it doesn't make any sense to have one of the main characters in a prequel be some weird-ass species we've never seen or heard of before.

So, the Denobulians are also bad?

[SmithW6079]

4 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I didn't mind the Enterprise theme song (though I can understand how people could), but I really liked the visual part of the intro, showing man's progress to get to the stars.  

I hated the '80s power ballad that was the Enterprise theme, but I agree with you about the visuals for the opening  credits. They were stunning.

I was reading comments over on another site, and someone mentioned "torches" on the Klingon bridge. When I watched the episode, I never ever realized that the nuKlingons were actually on a ship. I figured they were on a planet somewhere (even after the dead nuKlingon's coffin flies up to the take his place on the hull), because of course the Klingons are death worshippers. 

2 hours ago, Jodithgrace said:

If, during the scene where all of the other Klingon tribe representatives appeared, if they had had one that looked like TOS Klingons, and one that looked like Worf and his buddies, i could have accepted this new look, but I actually thought they looked more like gorillas than lizards and the albino one looked like he was made out of white chocolate. Klingons were never my favorite aliens, anyway, but these guys just looked over designed, and the giant subtitles just made it seem like they were yelling all the time. 

That's kind of what I was saying previously -- that when the head Klingon was talking about reuniting, he meant all the separate Klingon species/races. That would have tied in all the various iterations of Klingon and laid to rest all the agita.

 

As I noted above, it doesn't make any sense to have one of the main characters in a prequel be some weird-ass species we've never seen or heard of before.

So, the Denobulians are also bad?

Personally, I had no issue with Eeyore the Death Sniffer being a race we've never seen before. 

Even though the bridge appeared much bigger than any of the other Trek bridges, it felt very claustrophobic to me. 

I might watch again, just to confirm how bad the show was.

Edited September 25, 2017 by SmithW6079

[wknt3]

8 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I don't mind the updated design, in the pre-TOS ship.  Let's face it, the TOS Enterprise interior, with all the colored lights on the consoles, looked ridiculously outdated by the 1980s.  The set design on TOS was a rare example of a lack of vision with the show.  

But, I don't think they should have superior technology to TOS.  "Enterprise" did a good job of making the interior  ship look like something that might exist in the 23rd Century, as opposed to something you'd see in a 1960's Radio Shack.  But, they clearly made the functionality of the technology inferior to that of later Federation ships, in terms of speed, transporters, etc.

The holo transmitter that was used in STD was introduced as brand new technology in the 5th season of DS9, which takes place about 125 years later. 

This pretty much sums up my feelings on this. And it is one area where Enterprise really did do very well as far as looking futuristic and using the advances in science without seeming "more advanced" than the series before which were set later. And it shows that it can be done - you'll still have complaints of course since it is Trek fans, but the majority of the audience can accept it. And that was one of the reasons the hologram thing bugged me - it didn't make sense and it also felt like Star Wars not Star Trek, Like they were trying to impress us and feel big budget instead of feeling like Star Trek. Perhaps if the series lasts they can retcon it away and save some money by going back to view screens explaining that holo transmissions worked great in the lab and in testing, but once it got into widespread use it kept cutting out during important transmissions - something to do with tachyons or neutrinos maybe? There is plenty of precedent for such a thing IRL

 

Quote

As for the Klingons, it bothers me that they chose to go with a totally different version of them.  I understood the later moves and TNG, and DS9 going with the new, ridged forehead warrior race Klingons over the TOS, almost human, mustache twirling, "Soviet" Klingons, and thought they were an improvement.  But for STD (I love that acronym!) to come up with a 3rd version of the Klingons who look and speak nothing like either of the prior 2 versions was a big distraction and totally unnecessary.  They looked more like Xindi Reptilians than Klingons and they speak more like Pakleds.

I can live with the new look although it feels unnecessary. Especially since they seem to be going somewhere and have a plan to go along with it for why they look and act different. Having everything subtitled and having them act different than other Klingons bothered me more. Especially since they didn't make it enough of a plot point - there should have been much more discussion of how the structures and ships were different. But heck the Vulcans seem to be different again for no good reason. I don't understand why they keep making prequels if they want to change things like this. One thing that made the TNG era was that they largely stuck with the core elements of the original and tweaked it for modern times and sensibilities. You would think TPTB would learn from this and realize that it's even more important for prequels where you are even more bound to what's gone before.

[marketdoctor]

I wonder if the scheduling thinking was put together by Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss:  "If the football goes long, we should start the online version late as well..."--because every "why" I could think of sounds either stupid or defeating the purpose of having an online version.  The best I could come up with is that they want to get solid numbers on how many people will watch it online even though they can watch it on TV, and how many people will watch it on broadcast but won't sign up for access.  I'm not sure that data would be worth irritating nearly everyone who gave you money to watch it.  

As to the actual show itself, the acting didn't seem so much "wooden" as "human raised by Vulcan."  I didn't like how in the future, we have warp travel but have seemed to have lost efficient light bulb technology.  (Or phasers with stun, but we still have the Vulcan neck pinch.)

The biggest issue was the "Vulcan Welcome" being a phrase--since the Vulcans rather famously had tried to put violence behind them centuries ago.  If it was a Romulan Welcome, that would fit a lot better.

The thing I liked best was explaining what date it was on Earth in addition to the Stardate; that was a nice wink to people who convert one to the other.

With the ratings it had, I wonder how long CBS will hold out on broadcasting it--that probably depends on how many subscribers stick around.

[ketose]

If the main change to Discovery was a pre-Kirk female captaincy, I'd say it was a pretty weak argument. Now, if the argument is that  2 women of color in command represents a drive to create diversity in Star Trek, I would say it indicates the social views of this time.

TOS represented the values of its time, as well as the technology. Computer technology is almost at parity, but physics and mechanics are actually far behind. So, why set the show in the past? This is because Star Trek is largely conflict-free in the time of Kirk, as per Gene Roddenberry's wishes. Enterprise and STD are attempts to get around that. DS9 was less human focused and Voyager was exposed to multiple different races with no Federation.

STD is essentially hollowing out Kirk-era Trek for a more diverse, less sexist and highly advanced retcon for the purpose of making characters who are undisciplined, moody and combative in this advanced utopia. I'm reminded of when Syfy tried to BSG-ize Stargate and ended up with SG:U.

[greekmom]

47 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Which just begs the question of why they wanted to set this up as taking place pre-TOS. Why not set it after Voyager and take advantage of all the cool new bells and whistles? I can't think of any compelling reason this show has to be a prequel. They already tried that with Enterprise and it was the least successful Star Trek show of them all. I guess they are just thinking "well, it has to be, because the new movie franchise is."

THIS!!! A zillion likes, hearts whatever...

[Browncoat]

Wait, how did I miss that the Klingons had their dead comrades affixed to their ship?  Does this make them Reavers?

[BadArcher]

Sadly most of these criticisms (Klingon, ships, tech, etc.) could have easily been avoided if TPTB had NOT insisted that this series was set in the original (TOS) timeline. It it obviously set in the Jar Jar Abrams universe.

[CanadaPhil]

28 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Wait, how did I miss that the Klingons had their dead comrades affixed to their ship?  Does this make them Reavers?

No... Hoarders.

[CanadaPhil]

5 hours ago, Charlesman said:

 

From what I've heard (potential spoiler):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The appearance of the Klingons here is going to be explained as part of the retrovirus storyline. IIRC, the Klingons were experimenting with genetic alterations pre-TOS and accidentally created a few generations of "smooth headed" (human like) Klingons, like Kirk encounters. They will take time to breed out of the gene pool and eventually restore Klingons closer to what they originally were. They're most of the way there by the time of Worf and TNG. So these Discovery Klingons could be "pure" Klingons looking to restore the empire after genetic mutations have swept through. "Make Qo'noS Great Again"?

 

EDIT: And, wait, wasn't the holodeck new on TNG? I seem to remember the first time it appeared it was still a marvel of modern technology. But holo-emitters on the bridge were around a hundred years before? That really irks me.

Trip was exposed to Holodeck technology after rendering aid to a friendly alien race on Enterprise, S1 

There you go... now you don't have to be irked any longer. 

[ParadoxLost]

5 hours ago, ahpny said:

 But even this doesn't really explain the "reimagined" Klingons.

What I found funny is that the Orville made the Moclan into a race Klingon in appearance but not so much that they get in trouble with Stark Trek.  And then Star trek Discovery turns around and redesigns the Klingons so they bear more of a resemblance to the Morclans than Klingons.

Edited September 26, 2017 by ParadoxLost

[Florinaldo]

So MIchael is supposed to be the lead character we identify with or root for? I am all for assertive and cocky characters, the ST universe has seen a good number of them from the start, but this reckless self-centered first officer who dismisses any opinion that contradicts her own and goes all out on her own destructive path with complete disregard for others is difficult to like at this point. Perhaps she will mellow as episodes go by.

Saru is an interesting character but if he sticks around, they will have to find a more rational explanation for his "we were bred to sense impending death" power. It makes no sense for the predator species to have deliberately bred their cattle in a way to enhance that trait, but it could be seen as an advantage from an evolutionary point of view. Or they will just drop it completely.

I do not mind tinkering with the Klingons in principle, but the results should have been believable living creatures; these look like walking pillars of some sort of mineral, similar to charcoal (now that is one way to revitalise the coal industry). They also look like distant cousins to the Kraals from classic Doctor Who, although less lively.

The Klingon philosophy of equating honour with combat and death, with an extra layer of mystical bunk over it, always struck me as silly since it was introduced to flesh out Worf's backstory. It was made even more ridiculous with this iteration.

[Glade]

I really hated this; particularly the main character, who is a reactionary, racist, right wing warmongerer in the line of dick cheney donald rumsfeld treating an entire race of people as animals; I'm glad she got her comeuppance in the end, but dying would have been better. Meanwhile the rest of the militarism, the tired, endless space battles of star trek, people yelling about bridges and sheilds and talking to computers is too boring to hold my attention. Is this really what Bryan Fuller had in mind? A dumb action film turned into tv?

[enoughcats]

4 hours ago, wilnil said:

17 hours ago, GaT said:

Those are Klingons?????? They look like they're made of metal.

That was the exact thought I had. Looking at all of them gathered together, I found myself wondering "So what are their races/subspecies, Wrought Iron, Lead and Aluminum?"

Shoot me now, all I could see was another Star Trek product: Klingon Christmas Tree Ornaments: tinsel and start and a tree skirt, in your favorite Klingon color.

[marinw]

2 minutes ago, enoughcats said:

in your favorite Klingon color.

The choices are Muddy Brown or Rusty Bronze

[tennisgurl]

Lets just get this out of the way: These Klingons look awful. Like, they look like sentient logs or something. I get that Klingons have always has their appearances messed with (and they might do something to explain this later) but for now its just distracting and stupid. However, the appearance of the Klingons means we can start another round of the Klingon Drinking Game: Take a shot everyone says either "honor" or "dishonor". Suddenly, those talking logs will look freaking amazing! 

So, this wasn't bad, exactly, it just wasn't anything special. The only characters that really stood out were the captain and the nervous alien guy, and while seeing James Frain as Serek is super weird, I always like having James Frain around, so I am glad to see him. I don`t feel any connection with Michael, beyond enjoying the bond she has with her captain...who she led a mutiny against and knocked unconscious. Damn. I get that they are going with a "this is a new Trek" vibe to fit in with whats more popular now, but having your hero betray her mentor/captain to fire on a ship that hasn't even fired yet isn't really a great way to ingratiate your audience with her. Especially when you have to get people on her side in this whole new show which is going in a new direction. I am sure she can be redeemed, but it doesn't make me like her or feel for her very much. Really, the characters just weren't that interesting in general, which sucks when the reason Trek has stuck around for so long is because of its memorable characters, not just the technology and morality tales. 

I think its unnecessary to make this into a prequel for TOS, and to tie it into Spocks family. I know it will certainly be dealt with, but this means that Spock had this sort of adopted sister this whole time, and it has just never come up in 50 years. It would make more sense to set this around the time of DS9, which would explain why the tech looks better, why there is more conflict (coming after several major conflicts in that series, and an opening to a new part of the galaxy), and would let us see a point in the Trek verse that we haven't gotten to see much of. Plus, a lot of the actors from those shows are still around and acting, which would make cameos much easier. 

On the other hand, I have no problem with the crews being more diverse, when the earlier show was less so, especially when it came to women. I have no problem pretending Turnabout Intruder never happened, because it sucked and was stupid and awful and didn't make any sense, so no issue here. Really, its like the new Star Wars movies, which show a resistance (and even bad guys) who are much more diverse in ethnicity and gender than the original was, because society has changed since the 70s. When the first movies came out, the resistance being almost entirely white guys with American accents was just what people expected from these kinds of epics. Star Trek was famous for being ahead of its time, but they still had a LOT of issues with gender and race and such (and I mean all throughout Trek, no just TOS), issues that people talk about more now. Yeah its weird that the resistance apparently had tons of women and minorities and aliens and people of various nationalities just off camera this whole time, and that Trek apparently had tons of female and POC captains this whole time, we just never bumped into them until at least the DS9 era, but I dont care. I can live with some weird retcons if it means more diversity in science fiction. So they have that going for them. 

However, diversity cant save the show. Lets see how the next one goes. TNG was absolutely AWFUL in its first season, so I will give it some time. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by tennisgurl

[ParadoxLost]

58 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I don`t feel any connection with Michael, beyond enjoying the bond she has with her captain...who she led a mutiny against and knocked unconscious. Damn. I get that they are going with a "this is a new Trek" vibe to fit in with whats more popular now, but having your hero betray her mentor/captain to fire on a ship that hasn't even fired yet isn't really a great way to ingratiate your audience with her.

The more I mull this over the more annoying I find it.  Michael's action was basically pointless.  This tactic worked for the Vulcans because they employed it relentlessly until the Klingon's capitulated.  Michael firing first wasn't going to make the Klingons back off.  It would have been better to fight the battle then enlist the Vulcans to impart strategy to the federation.  Having Michael being ruled by childhood trauma is not a great first impression.

58 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I think its unnecessary to make this into a prequel for TOS, and to tie it into Spocks family. I know it will certainly be dealt with, but this means that Spock had this sort of adopted sister this whole time, and it has just never come up in 50 years.

I wonder if this means that Michael will die at the close of the series just because they'll feel the need to explain why her name never came up in TOS.

Edited September 26, 2017 by ParadoxLost

[stealinghome]

Quote

I wonder if this means that Michael will die at the close of the series just because they'll feel the need to explain why her name never came up in TOS.

To be fair, if you were related to the first mutineer in Starfleet history (who also may go down in the history books for starting a huge war), you probably wouldn't be advertising that connection much either!

Not a Trekkie, so not familiar with the history, but I gather from comments on here that Sarek was kind of a crap dad to Spock? If I'm interpreting that correctly, it would be hilarious if that was because Michael ended up being such a disaster that Sarek was like "another (part-)human child, OH CRAP, let's do the opposite of everything I did with Michael!," heh.

[SmithW6079]

2 hours ago, marinw said:

The choices are Muddy Brown or Rusty Bronze

And limited edition Albino White.

[Maelstrom]

Well, that was a steamer. If it were a book I would set it on fire and shoot the ashes into the sun. I didn't see an ounce of Star Trek in this and I wished the Klingons would kill the main character and put us out of our misery. No thanks, CBS.

[legaleagle53]

On 9/25/2017 at 7:45 PM, stealinghome said:

To be fair, if you were related to the first mutineer in Starfleet history (who also may go down in the history books for starting a huge war), you probably wouldn't be advertising that connection much either!

Not a Trekkie, so not familiar with the history, but I gather from comments on here that Sarek was kind of a crap dad to Spock? If I'm interpreting that correctly, it would be hilarious if that was because Michael ended up being such a disaster that Sarek was like "another (part-)human child, OH CRAP, let's do the opposite of everything I did with Michael!," heh.

Sarek's problems with Spock stemmed from Spock's choice to enter Starfleet rather than to follow in Sarek's footsteps as an Ambassador.  Sarek didn't approve of Spock's choice and was quite vocal about his opposition to it, which led to a rather strained relationship that lasted for several decades.  Eventually, after seeing how much good Spock had done while serving in Starfleet, Sarek admitted that he had been wrong and apologized to Spock. The irony is that Spock later did become a Federation Ambassador.  As for Sarek?  When Picard voluntarily hosted Sarek's katra at one point, he revealed that Sarek had always genuinely loved Spock and had been proud of him all along, and that Sarek furthermore regretted the fact that Spock had never really had the chance to learn just how Sarek felt about him.

Edited October 1, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Lugal]

All these months for this.  When I saw the number of producers in the opening credits exceed the number of cast, I knew we were in trouble.  For the first of thirteen episodes, this was a lot of talking and not a lot of action.

There is none of the optimism from Star Trek here.  Note to the producers, complete distopian pessimism is just as unrealistic as Pollyanna optimism.  Gene Roddenberry wrote morality plays, which makes Michael Burnham's mutiny to attack first all the more jarring.

As for the Klingons, everyone else pretty much said everything that could be said.  They look like pretty much like every generic alien on every scifi show or movie. And with all the marble-mouthed Klingons, wished they would have ADRed the Klingon dialogue.

[jzygayle]

1 hour ago, SmithW6079 said:

And limited edition Albino White.

Ehem.  I believe you mean White Chocolate.

Edited to add:  I really hope Starfleet Medical hurries up and "discovers" the effects of circadian rhythm disruption and work efficiency.  As a night shift worker, I can't even begin to imagine the problems this ship has with people falling asleep at their posts, what with the dark lighting.

Edited September 26, 2017 by jzygayle

[Emily Thrace]

34 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

And limited edition Albino White.

Anyone else wondering if this guy id The Albino  from the that DS9 episode Blood Oath? Which might be why Kor switched of his Holo so quick. Either that or he is actually Micheal's long lost brother who was raised by Klingons and altered to look like them. 

 The  OTT ridges on the Klingons didn't actually bother me that much. I could actually see that being a reaction to the virus in Enterprise Era. Going from one extreme to the other happens in fashion all the time (like 80 s glam being followed by 90s grunge) extending that to genetic engineering and facial modification is a fairly reasonable extrapolation. We've seen Human turned into Klingons with dermal regenerators on DS9. The virus victims obviously just took it to an extreme. Which is very Klingon of them actually. Klingons never do anything halfway

Its just unfortunate the prosthetics themselves looked so brutal. HD is really not forgiving of some the poorer paint jobs and bad blending on the seems of the prosthetic. Hopefully it get better Garak looked awful in the early episodes and so did Dukat. The actors need to get used to the make up and the make up artist figure out how to do better. Hopefully that will happen here too.

I actually liked a lot of the visuals. The gold was little much for Klingons but it was nice to see something other than muddy red/brown on a Klingon ship. I also feel like there are a thousand details I missed on the ship and would like to see.

Spoiler

I actually really liked the visual of Micheal in what was left of her cell against the backdrop of space and the shredded ship. It something that would have been ridiculous looking on a tv budget during the older series run.

 

As for the pilot itself it was actually pretty good. It was somewhere between Voyager and TNG in terms of of quality which is actually pretty good in terms of Trek pilots. Thematically with the PTSD flashbacks and maverick lead I was reminded a lot of DS9 which is a very good thing IMO. If TPTB could give us DS9 characterization while keeping the high action it could be a very interesting show. I never expected perfection. This was never going to address all the fan criticisms Trekkies are too many and way to diverse. This is miles a better than Enterprise or really most Scifi on air right now (Except for perhaps The Expanse) so I like what I've seen so far.

In any case there were people on my tv talking about Vulcans and Klingons and transporters last night and I hadn't seen a thousand times and it wasn't Enterprise. For me that's enough to tune in next week.

[Kira53]

On 9/25/2017 at 0:30 AM, Lebanna said:

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.

Word!  I agree with you on all points.   And I think Trekkers should be better than a lot of these comments. C Canon Canon, Canon, Canon, come on you guys, the original Star Trek, was hardly perfect but it was still beloved by myself. I'm choose to forget about "Spock's brain" don't the rest of you? Remember the original pilot was so bad they did even show it but recast almost everyone and change Spock's personality.  but the concept was so good that they made a second pilot.  In the first pilot Spock was quite volatile, emotional, loud, and prone to overreact qualitatively different then the Spock we consider "Cannon".  there were some great episodes and some really horrible episodes , "turnabout intruder" that I don't consider Cannon because they weren't very Star Trek like in terms of the vision of the world that Star Trek was trying to tell us about the future. Some episode writers didn't know much about Star Trek  and those episodes reflected it. If you want to keep going with Cannon, remember Captain April and wonder where Captain Kirk came from? I'm glad they changed Spock from the original pilot to the second pilot and my second pilot Spock is my "Cannon Spock".  And I try not to reconcile why he acted so strangely so crazy in the "Menagerie".   

 When the first Star Trek movie came out it was slow without much of a story it's spent about 10 minutes showing the ship going into dock. But it was Star Trek and most of the community was just happy to have t back.   I said "make the next one better". I say that now.  

Oh,  and for some reason the Klingons have been the one race to have been changed drastically in different Star Treks.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Kira53
Typing on iPad is hard.

[KimberStormer]

10 hours ago, starri said:

Off the subject of the Klingon makeup, can we at least agree that Glenn Hettrick and Neville Page knocked it out of the park with Saru?  I know you hire Doug Jones because he's always going to be able to deliver regardless of the makeup, but Saru really looks like one of Michael Westmore's creations, just more intricate for high-def.

Agreed, I think his design is absolutely beautiful. 

[tawny411]

14 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The Klingons seem to shape shift more than the Founders from DS9.

I could see if STD tweaked the Klingons a bit, or made them like the old "Soviet" Klingons or somewhere between the Soviet Klingons of TOS and the "augment" Klingons of everything else. But, they made them into hairless lizards who don't resemble either of the earlier Klingons.   While they are at it, why not make the Vulcans blue and give the hew-mahns Ferengi ears?

The look is so different it didn't feel like I was watching Klingons. It felt like a completely different alien race. They just look silly, not scary.

[Bryce Lynch]

6 hours ago, Kira53 said:

Word!  I agree with you on all points.   And I think Trekkers should be better than a lot of these comments. C Canon Canon, Canon, Canon, come on you guys, the original Star Trek, was hardly perfect but it was still beloved by myself. I'm choose to forget about "Spock's brain" don't the rest of you? Remember the original pilot was so bad they did even show it but recast almost everyone and change Spock's personality.  but the concept was so good that they made a second pilot.  In the first pilot Spock was quite volatile, emotional, loud, and prone to overreact qualitatively different then the Spock we consider "Cannon".  there were some great episodes and some really horrible episodes , "turnabout intruder" that I don't consider Cannon because they weren't very Star Trek like in terms of the vision of the world that Star Trek was trying to tell us about the future. Some episode writers didn't know much about Star Trek  and those episodes reflected it. If you want to keep going with Cannon, remember Captain April and wonder where Captain Kirk came from? I'm glad they changed Spock from the original pilot to the second pilot and my second pilot Spock is my "Cannon Spock".  And I try not to reconcile why he acted so strangely so crazy in the "Menagerie".   

 When the first Star Trek movie came out it was slow without much of a story it's spent about 10 minutes showing the ship going into dock. But it was Star Trek and most of the community was just happy to have t back.   I said "make the next one better". I say that now.  

Oh,  and for some reason the Klingons have been the one race to have been changed drastically in different Star Treks.

I think there is a big difference between making changes after airing a pilot and going against 50 years of canon.  That said, cannon issues are the least of the painful syptoms of STD.  Terrible acting and writing are the real problems.

[AngelKitty]

Well, I would certainly watch this show if it were on regular CBS, but I will not pay extra. I will wait until it's on Netflix.

The Klingon captions annoyed me because there was so much to look at, and I got distracted.

The name Michael for the female Officer also annoyed me.

I really couldn't remember when this was taking place until they showed Sarak and then I knew it was before TOS.

So, see you guys when this becomes available another way.

[Unusual Suspect]

1 hour ago, AngelKitty said:

The name Michael for the female Officer also annoyed me.

 

Gender migration of names is a thing. 

[Bort]

16 minutes ago, Unusual Suspect said:

 

Gender migration of names is a thing. 

Hell, it's not even a new thing. There was an actress in the '70s named Michael Learned.

[DavidJSnyder]

13 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

Hell, it's not even a new thing. There was an actress in the '70s named Michael Learned.

Also Michael Michele from Homicide and E.R.

[starri]

I went to medical school with a woman named Michael. 

[Lugal]

10 hours ago, Kira53 said:

Remember the original pilot was so bad they did even show it but recast almost everyone and change Spock's personality.

The first pilot wasn't bad, but the network was afraid it was "too cerebral" and they didn't like certain things about it, like Spock's demonic appearance and the fact that the first officer Number One was a woman.  Roddenberry had to pick his battles there and he fought for Spock.

4 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think there is a big difference between making changes after airing a pilot and going against 50 years of canon.  That said, cannon issues are the least of the painful syptoms of STD.  Terrible acting and writing are the real problems.

I would agree, little continuity issues can be overlooked or fanwanked, but big changes are something else.  And I agree the writing and to a lesser extent the acting are the real problems.

[iMonrey]

Quote

So, the Denobulians are also bad?

Well, why not make Saru one of them then? At least Phlox wasn't this repulsive looking. I honestly wouldn't want to have to look at this guy every week. The show just wanted to come up with some new kind of alien to put their own stamp on the franchise and try to outdo the other shows in creative make-up design. Every Star Trek show has to have its token weird-looking alien just to make itself look futuristic. But if we literally never saw any of these aliens in TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voyager, what are the odds this species is so prevalent in Starfleet one of them is 2nd officer onboard this ship?

It's really the same problem as with the re-designed Klingons. No reason  . . .  they just think it looks cool and they can do it. No regard for canon, no regard for the fandom they should have known damn well would object to this. 

[CanadaPhil]

23 hours ago, Princess Lucky said:

I liked this more than I thought I would, and it certainly looked great, but .......

Lastly, the crew was so faceless. The opposite of memorable. Saru was the only crew member with a personality, but I'm actually willing to give the writers some leeway n that, since the pilot usually focuses on fleshing out the leads.

This was my only real gripe so far. But, other than the self-described cowardly barnyard cow, we are probably never seeing any of them again and the writers made a deliberate choice not to make any of the other bridge crew memorable in any way. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by CanadaPhil

[Tyro49]

I'm still willing to give it a chance -- but I can't.  You need a "smart TV" to get all those "streaming" services. Even our blu-ray player only gets 4 preset ones, with no way to add others. And I'm mad about that!!!

As for the other complaints, they're all valid - but I'd still like to see how it develops; you never know. Hey, maybe they'll run in to the Orville!

As it is, I suppose it'll eventually come out on DVD; I'll rent it first, to see if I want to buy it.