S01.E01: The Vulcan Hello

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, Lugal said:

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.

I agree that "The Cage" was not as bas as some say and certainly no worse than the replacement pilot. It has weaknesses in plotting and pacing, but that is often the case with first episodes where writers have to go through pages of exposition, explanation and presentation of new characters. It's a bit jarringto see it in its original form because of the over-emotional Spock, but one of the network's main objections, i.e. the female first officer, doesn't even warrant an eyebrow raising these days.

So there is a chance that the problems with this new series' opening episodes will subside once it settles into its permanent setting and cast.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Florinaldo

[Drumpf1737]

I was my childhood self watching episodes 1 & 2. I thought it was fantastic, but I'm a TOS and DS9 fan. I always hated TNG though. Wasn't there a ship's therapist in that version? blech. 

[Quickbeam]

Just a big thanks to everyone who recommended The Orville. It’s a lot more of what I was looking for. 

[ketose]

3 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

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.

You can make a TV smart for $30 with a Roku or a Chromecast.

At what point does changing Star Trek not make it Star Trek anymore? Obviously, the suckiness of this sub-prequel is important, but it's just laziness to rewrite something in your image and then slap a household name on it to add credibility. I'm looking at you, Ron Moore.

[JyDanzig]

On 9/25/2017 at 3:32 AM, starri said:

Am I the only one who really wants to know who or what that Daft Punk-looking person was?

Though I'm not at all a canon fetishist, I got so annoyed when I thought it was a robot.  Apparently, it's supposed to be a female officer wearing a tactical helmet, which is better, but just such a bizarre design decision.  I thought this was a visually stunning show, this dumb helmet might be the one detail that I couldn't stand.

On 9/24/2017 at 9:12 PM, 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 mentioned in all the press releases outta here. Or just misogyny is canon? 

Oh, come on.  She says nothing of the kind in that TNG episode.  This is the line:

Quote

"Perhaps it is a Human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited."

She's talking about being unable to totally decouple her romantic feelings from her physical attractions.  She's not saying there are no gay people, she's saying she can not change her own sexual orientation at will and can't pursue a romantic relationship with someone who is going to be regularly changing bodies.

Though obviously the "no female captains" thing is also absurd.  You can be faithful to one line of dialogue from a mentally disturbed character in a single episode that is nearly 50 years old, or you can be faithful to the progressive spirit that has been the main point and most consistent thruline of the franchise for all these decades.  It's pretty obvious what the right choice is.

Edited September 27, 2017 by JyDanzig

[legaleagle53]

7 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

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!

Wrong century.  The Orville is set in the early 25th Century (2419, to be exact -- more than 160 years after STD).

[Sandman]

"Starfleet doesn't fire first" appears to be policy, probably set at a high level; it seems unlikely to me that Georgiou or Burnham could change that directive in the field. I don't think it's a matter of a failure to take charge. Burnham's career is essentially over. Or at least it should be. (Hint: when your captain is aiming a gun at you, your decision-making process is seriously flawed.) But this is genre television.

I'm just not sure it's actually Star Trek.

Edited to add: I'd be willing to overlook much if the next episode title after the "The Vulcan Hello" proved to be "Oy With The Klingons!"

Edited September 27, 2017 by Sandman

[CooperTV]

Quit after the first episode. It's really really bad.

The characters are completely dull and uncharismatic. The main character is... I've no idea who she is at all, apart from being a reckless, annoying devil-may-care "maverick" than Can Do No Wrong. The Science officer is a bumbling idiot. The Klingons are weird and also interchangeable.

OMG, those gold/silver patches on the Starfleet uniforms! Those red/gold glowy Klingon uniforms and the birds-of-prey interiors looking like Gallifrean spaceships! This is horrible.

Edited September 27, 2017 by CooperTV

[marinw]

On 9/24/2017 at 11:23 PM, ketose said:

So, it's been pretty much considered a non-starter that they'd go back to the classic miniskirts. And if you've seen "The Cage" the women wore pants, anyway. Still, Discovery managed to have their star walk around in her underwear in the pilot. No points for being woke, you guys.

In early TNG there was the “scant” uniform, an updated version of the TOS minidress. Tasha wore one in one scene. A few male extras wore them as well. Too bad we didn’t see Picard in a scant uniform, Patrick Stewart could have pulled it off!

There was some minor gendering of the uniforms in “The Cage”. The women’s tops had a cowl neck and their boots may have had a bit more of a heel. But for 1964 it was pretty progressive.

Edited September 29, 2017 by marinw

[Pindrop]

I've just watched it; my thoughts : -

• The first ten minutes or so were awful; the script was just horrible shoe-horned exposition covering issues these two characters would have no cause to discuss, and the entire footprints-in-sand sequence was suspension-of-disbelief snappingly stupid. This really got the episode off to a poor start. 
• It does not feel like Star Trek; it feels like the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek, when I wanted the more traditional TNG era Star Trek.
• In terms of characters: I liked the captain (Yeoh); I simply did not understand what they were trying to do with Rainsford, her motivations twisted in the wind and she was almost schizophrenic in her personality shifts; the tall alien was moderately interesting and everyone else was instantly forgettable. But who cares about these characters anyway, since most will have vanished by episode 3? 
• I liked the Klingons because their motivations were clearly written, and made sense to me. In fact, they were so much better realised than the Federation characters that I found myself siding with them. 
• The CGI was well-done. The fight scenes were a horrible, shaky-cam, fast-cut mess.  

I'm unsure if I will watch beyond the first two episodes.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by Pindrop

[ketose]

I get that the Klingons were focused on a goal. However, the goal seemed to be making the Empire Great Again.

[Tyro49]

On 9/26/2017 at 6:05 PM, ketose said:

You can make a TV smart for $30 with a Roku or a Chromecast.

At what point does changing Star Trek not make it Star Trek anymore? Obviously, the suckiness of this sub-prequel is important, but it's just laziness to rewrite something in your image and then slap a household name on it to add credibility. I'm looking at you, Ron Moore.

Your TV still needs to have a flashdrive socket!

[ketose]

1 hour ago, Tyro49 said:

Your TV still needs to have a flashdrive socket!

Nope. You can use a power cord and an HDMI port. The Roku has a model that works on regular RCA video jacks. If you don't have those, you should get a new TV because you'e not getting the most out of HD video.

[Woodrose]

Footprints in the sand was so very stupid -- if the ship can see footprints, it can see the captain and first officer.

Klingons were so deadly dull.  So slooooow.

I'm not sure I want to continue with our main character, after she nerve pinched her captain. So un-StarTrek.

Thanks to everyone who has mentioned The Orville. I watched an episode, it definitely feels more like old time Star Trek than STD does.

I have a slow Internet connection, I can't even stream youtube videos. Maybe I'll watch the series if it comes out in DVD.

[ketose]

I just read up on Discovery and it sounds worse than it looked. First, it's using the same story that Axanar tried to use, which means they stole from the fan base, then sued them out of being able to make it. The idea that it's in the canon or Prime universe, have not actually been true for a long time, which means it is not Trek, and maybe not even JJ Abrams Trek, even with the lens flares. The look of the show also borrows heavily from video games and recent Star Wars, so it really has no resemblance to original Trek. In fact, everything they did would have been better off if they set it post-Voyager and created a new enemy with metal faces.

My other gripes have to do with episode 2 and beyond, which are apparently worse.

Spoiler

and have a male captain.

[starri]

3 hours ago, ketose said:

First, it's using the same story that Axanar tried to use, which means they stole from the fan base, then sued them out of being able to make it.

They sued Axanar because Axanar tried to make money using a thing they own.  You know, stealing.

[Lebanna]

On 26/9/2017 at 10:42 PM, Drumpf1737 said:

I was my childhood self watching episodes 1 & 2. I thought it was fantastic, but I'm a TOS and DS9 fan. I always hated TNG though. Wasn't there a ship's therapist in that version? blech. 

Um. DS9 also had a Councillor on their main staff in season 7. 

Admittedly, by then they were pretty much all nervous wrecks who had taken to getting all their emotional and psychological help and support from a holographic version of Frank Sinatra, so it was probably more than time that they saw a professional. 

For anyone getting too stressed about the differences we see in this show to TOS - I was watching Voyager again the other day and I had to laugh. I'd forgotten that Janeway's ridiculous number of temporal incursions literally drove a perfectly nice man to madness and mass murder. And that was only by season 5! She was only going to get way more time travel in before the end of the show. And that was before the Temporal Investigations even had to deal with Archer and his various enemies romping all across the space-time continuum - because the original Archer wasn't supposed to have had any of the problems our version of Archer and crew faced.

If we assume that most of the ships, even those not called Enterprise, were doing similar things in similar numbers for hundreds of years, that's a crazy number of people stamping on butterflies and dating their great-grannies all through the history of most of the major planets all across the galaxy. So if you liked this show but hated the Klingons' new makeup or the new uniforms, just blame Sisko, Janeway, Archer and or whoever it was from some other random Federation ship, who had weird Orc facial features and who decided to use all his saved up shore leave by going back in time, sexing up half the female Klingon population and driving the Temporal Team guys to drink.

[legaleagle53]

9 minutes ago, Lebanna said:

Um. DS9 also had a Councillor on their main staff in season 7. 

Admittedly, by then they were pretty much all nervous wrecks who had taken to getting all their emotional and psychological help and support from a holographic version of Frank Sinatra, so it was probably more than time that they saw a professional. 

For anyone getting too stressed about the differences we see in this show to TOS - I was watching Voyager again the other day and I had to laugh. I'd forgotten that Janeway's ridiculous number of temporal incursions literally drove a perfectly nice man to madness and mass murder. And that was only by season 5! She was only going to get way more time travel in before the end of the show. And that was before the Temporal Investigations even had to deal with Archer and his various enemies romping all across the space-time continuum - because the original Archer wasn't supposed to have had any of the problems our version of Archer and crew faced.

If we assume that most of the ships, even those not called Enterprise, were doing similar things in similar numbers for hundreds of years, that's a crazy number of people stamping on butterflies and dating their great-grannies all through the history of most of the major planets all across the galaxy. So if you liked this show but hated the Klingons' new makeup or the new uniforms, just blame Sisko, Janeway, Archer and or whoever it was from some other random Federation ship, who had weird Orc facial features and who decided to use all his saved up shore leave by going back in time, sexing up half the female Klingon population and driving the Temporal Team guys to drink.

Except that the showrunners have expressly stated that STD takes place in the original unaltered timeline.  Nice try at fanwanking it, though.

[Lebanna]

Its just that, if we accept that all the other shows have happened as we saw them, with all the time travel that took place (especially ENT), there really couldn't be an original unaltered timeline at this point.

If we accept that ENT, at least, took place in the universe we are watching, as it did on our screens, everything would already be slightly different from what we watched in TOS, because in the timeline of TOS, ENT has never happened that way. Unless we retcon everything that we saw after TOS (like all the sequel shows and the whole of First Contact), they've already contaminated the timeline to the point where little things would have changed. People's eye colour. Where they were born. Their favourite song. Their forehead ridges. So if they ever mention anything that happened on any show outside TOS on DISC, we already know it's not exactly the same timeline. And arguably, we haven't been watching the same timeline as in TOS since TNG.

Yes, it's totally a fanwank. I mean, none of this is real. But hey, it's also kind of fun and helps stop us all overthinking. Doesn't make sense? It's because of that time Mark Twain helped find Data's head.

Also explains why the Temporal Investigations Department official moto is; 'Giving Ourselves A Headache So You Don't Have To'.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Lebanna

[ketose]

2 hours ago, starri said:

They sued Axanar because Axanar tried to make money using a thing they own.  You know, stealing.

The thing about intellectual property is that its value depends on who wants to see it. The fan base dressed up like Star Fleet and wrote letters and made it possible for a show that was cancelled in the 60's to be a movie a decade later. For years, various fan films have been made with Paramount looking the other way. Paramount had only specified what a fan production could or could not do after the lawsuit was filed. Axanar seemed to come into legal danger when reviewers saw that production as superior and more faithful than the JJ Abrams movies. Before that, Activision sued Paramount because Enterprise was so bad it was ruining their game revenue.

 

1 hour ago, Lebanna said:

Um. DS9 also had a Councillor on their main staff in season 7. 

Admittedly, by then they were pretty much all nervous wrecks who had taken to getting all their emotional and psychological help and support from a holographic version of Frank Sinatra, so it was probably more than time that they saw a professional. 

I always saw Vic Fontaine as more of a Tony Bennett.

[legaleagle53]

1 hour ago, Lebanna said:

Its just that, if we accept that all the other shows have happened as we saw them, with all the time travel that took place (especially ENT), there really couldn't be an original unaltered timeline at this point.

If we accept that ENT, at least, took place in the universe we are watching, as it did on our screens, everything would already be slightly different from what we watched in TOS, because in the timeline of TOS, ENT has never happened that way. Unless we retcon everything that we saw after TOS (like all the sequel shows and the whole of First Contact), they've already contaminated the timeline to the point where little things would have changed. People's eye colour. Where they were born. Their favourite song. Their forehead ridges. So if they ever mention anything that happened on any show outside TOS on DISC, we already know it's not exactly the same timeline. And arguably, we haven't been watching the same timeline as in TOS since TNG.

So the showrunners were lying when they said that STD takes place in the original, unaltered timeline? That's an even bigger insult to the fans than These Are the Voyages was.

Edited October 1, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Lebanna]

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

So the showrunners were lying when they said that STD takes place in the original, unaltered timeline? That's an even bigger insult to the fans than These Are the Voyages was.

*shrug*

You go ahead and be insulted, if you think it'll make you happy. 

I'm not a writer on the show and have no idea if anyone is lying about anything. And I'm certainly not suggesting that the above comment is the way of thinking about any of this. It is simply a way. One that leads to a weird kind of inner peace for some.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Lebanna

[jsbt]

It's the same timeline. The makeup and FX are simply updated. Just like in 1986 with TNG and the Klingons and Romulans, and with the movies for that and more, and with every single new successive Star Trek project since the 1960s. The only reason people are freaking out unnecessarily is because until now it hasn't happened in almost 20 years, because there hasn't been any new Trek in almost 20 years, except in the Kelvin movies. ENT also updated FX, tech and makeup.

It will happen every single time. And it is still the original timeline.

Edited October 1, 2017 by jsbt

[ketose]

6 minutes ago, jsbt said:

It's the same timeline. The makeup and FX are simply updated. Just like in 1986 with TNG and the Klingons and Romulans, and with the movies for that and more, and with every single new successive Star Trek project since the 1960s. The only reason people are freaking out unnecessarily is because until now it hasn't happened in almost 20 years, because there hasn't been any new Trek in almost 20 years, except in the Kelvin movies. ENT also updated FX, tech and makeup.

It will happen every single time. And it is still the original timeline.

This starts to become a circular argument. TOS Klingons looked basically human for cost reasons. They became more "alien" in Wrath of Khan, but Klingons have kept the distinctive brow (albeit in other forms) from TNG to Voyager.

The problem with Discovery is that it combines the bad retconning of Enterprise with the awful human behavior of BSG and its clones. Unlike ENT, STD is trying to live in the same decade as Captain Pike. It's creating an impossible splice between this show and original Trek. On top of that, it's being done unnecessarily. This could have been set after Voyager with a Klingon-esque race, since Roddenberry's box is being ignored anyway.

If this is the "original" timeline, canon doesn't exist.

[Bort]

Yes, the canon discussion is getting circular. And also off-topic for the episode thread. Please take further discussion of it to the canon topic.

[jsbt]

18 hours ago, ketose said:

If this is the "original" timeline, canon doesn't exist.

It is and it does. All they changed was makeup - again. That's my last word on it.

18 hours ago, ketose said:

The problem with Discovery is that it combines the bad retconning of Enterprise with the awful human behavior of BSG and its clones.

People mutineered and made imperfect choices on other Star Trek shows. And new makeup is not retconning.

[dwmarch]

One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet: Michael has to run off the bridge down to her quarters for a quick conference with Sarek... to find out something that should be in the historical database. Why is it a secret that the Vulcans took an aggressive approach with the Klingons? Wouldn't they want the Federation to know "hey if you ever run into these dudes shoot first or they won't respect you"?

[Adira]

So I finally got around to watching this.  I think my expectations were sooooooo low, that I actually didn't hate it.

I DID hate the Klingons though.  There are multiple things wrong with them:

• Too much makeup: Can't make facial expressions
• Too big teeth: Can't talk
• Klingon language: They didn't actually TEACH the actors Klingon, or at the VERY LEAST, what they were saying, so they just sound like they are reciting lines and have no clue what they mean - HUGE fail.

Also, Michael isn't particularly likeable, which will make this series a little challenging to get into.  The other characters (besides the Klingons) are decent though.

[Colorado David]

Second the Klingon speech pacing. I have to deal with elderly people who speak way too slowly for me to tolerate. I get 3 things done in the time it takes a sentence to get out. This is a tv show, get the pacing up to speed with younger people who have NO patience to wait on you to get your lines out.

[Hanahope]

Finally started watching, without reading spoilers or any reviews.  As such, I was trying to figure out the timeline a bit, and eventually realized it had to be relatively briefly before TOS.  So yeah, Klingons.  Look, I don't mind that they want to have better makeup than TOS, but really, TNG was pretty decent, you could see them talk (actually pronounce their words), and have facial expressions.  These....masks the actors are wearing are just awful, and if the primary story arc is about conflict with the Klingons, its a huge fail, imo because we'll have to suffer through this terrible design constantly, making it much more difficult to watch.

 

That said, do we really need a whole show about meeting/remeeting the Klingons and the initial conflicts before there was some sort of detente and then some incorporation?  I don't have perfect memory, but I'd imagine that there were enough episodes in TOS (and movies) and TNG regarding these events, at least in some general way.  I too would have prefered a more futuristic show.  As others have pointed out, its just difficult to try and shoe-horn in a depiction of starfleet with slightly less tech/knowledge than TOS from 50 years ago.  But I guess it was probably easier to write a story about the initial conflict with a race with a semi-known story line than actually write something original.

[John Potts]

I find it odd that people  can say it looks both 1) nothing like TOS and 2) cheap. I can agree with 1, but it isn't cheap looking (we have a LOT of Klingon make up, swooping through the (completely unrealistic, but nevermind) asteroid field and it ends with a Klingon fleet showing up!

On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:30 AM, Florinaldo said:

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.

 

I'm not a fan of the hotheaded "I know I'm right!" main character. Couldn't Michael have told the Captain what Sarek told her? It's not like the Captain didn't know Michael had spoken to somebody and presumably had some idea who she was talking to. They're supposed to have known each other for 7 years, Michael should be able to convince her. And then she walked out of sickbay to commit the Galaxy's most inept mutiny: "The Captain totally agrees with me now on the need to shoot the Klingons. No, there's no need to check with her, she's filing her nails for now. Just start shooting..."

It's a shame they lack the technology to mount a camera on the flight suits to record what they see. They could call it something like a Cam-Corder. Or would that be too advanced tech? You'd think they'd want some sort of "black box" version of what the OA Team (or individual) saw in case the OA Team died but managed to later recover the bodies. It's not like they weren't accustomed to breaks in communication in the TOS (and later) eras!

On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:57 AM, Kira53 said:

choose to forget about "Spock's brain" don't the rest of you?

"Brain and brain. What is [Spock's] Brain!?"

[Quickbeam]

Just saw ep 1 with a 2$ Amazon credit. It was ok, didn’t hate it, am not really motivated to spend 6$ a month for it. I am a long time TOS/NG fan but not a canon devotee. I liked it....I’d watch it if it was free. 

[AngelKitty]

On 9/26/2017 at 8:47 AM, AngelKitty said:

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

Heh, heh, so here I am. I got the first season from the library and just watched this episode. I didn't remember I had already seen it until I came across my own post from 2 years ago.

[Bulldog]

Caught this on broadcast CBS.  First off, I must admit that I've never been a big fan of Star Trek in any of its previous incarnations.  So, clearly I am not part of this show's target audience. 

That said, I can only assume that they had to edit out all of the interesting parts to be able to show this on a broadcast network. Two wooden actresses wandering around aimlessly in the desert does not make gripping television.  I turned it off before the first commercial break, which is something I almost never do.  Can someone tell me if they ever got out of the desert?  There was so much desert wandering that I momentarily thought I had accidentally tuned into a biblical epic. 

[ketose]

On 9/27/2020 at 6:04 PM, Bulldog said:

Caught this on broadcast CBS.  First off, I must admit that I've never been a big fan of Star Trek in any of its previous incarnations.  So, clearly I am not part of this show's target audience. 

That said, I can only assume that they had to edit out all of the interesting parts to be able to show this on a broadcast network. Two wooden actresses wandering around aimlessly in the desert does not make gripping television.  I turned it off before the first commercial break, which is something I almost never do.  Can someone tell me if they ever got out of the desert?  There was so much desert wandering that I momentarily thought I had accidentally tuned into a biblical epic. 

Telling you might be a spoiler. In fact, the entire series takes place in that same desert because they never got out. :P

Actually, the producers have claimed that STD and STP are trying to draw an audience that isn't part of the previous fan base. This strategy is dubious because the original CBS airing 3 years ago garnered a rating of 1.7, while this time it got 0.1 in the middle of a semi-lockdown. It should be interesting to see how poorly the show is received in completely unaired installments.

[Tachi Rocinante]

Watched it on CBS and I have not been spoiled on anything.  I'll give it a chance for a few more eps - I like Michele Yeoh.

People need to lighten the fuck up about the Klingon makeup.  Jeez.  Someone upthread mentioned the "zealot" aspect - maybe they are a shunned subgroup. I'm sure there is some diversity amongst the entire Klingon race. If not, TPTB can retcon it into existence.

The Expanse is definitely better, though (hence my screen name).

[Eulipian 5k]

On 9/24/2017 at 10:45 PM, 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.

It deemed a little too much like the Finale of Voyager, and what Janeway knew.

[Eulipian 5k]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:20 AM, SmithW6079 said:

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.

Why do all butt head Kilngons go on and on and on about friggin Kahyless (dont give a f#ck how it's spelled)? Is he the only historical figure in all of Klingon history? I can go days on earth without hearing the name Jesus Christ , but ST can't go 15 friggin minutes before the friggin Klingons bring up friggin Kayless.

[ketose]

On 10/6/2020 at 2:14 PM, Eulipian 5k said:

Why do all butt head Kilngons go on and on and on about friggin Kahyless (dont give a f#ck how it's spelled)? Is he the only historical figure in all of Klingon history? I can go days on earth without hearing the name Jesus Christ , but ST can't go 15 friggin minutes before the friggin Klingons bring up friggin Kayless.

Kahless comes out about as much as the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition or the Bajoran Prophets (probably less) in 1990's Trek. On this show, it seems like they're re-hashing stuff from TOS in order to force it into canon.

[Kromm]

4 hours ago, ketose said:

Kahless comes out about as much as the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition or the Bajoran Prophets (probably less) in 1990's Trek. On this show, it seems like they're re-hashing stuff from TOS in order to force it into canon.

It kind of works if you equate Kahless to their version of Jesus, in terms of cultural impact I mean (not necessarily religious, although it is somewhat). In that context it makes sense.  Jesus is namechecked way out of proportion to other figures, right? 

[Eulipian 5k]

17 hours ago, Kromm said:

 

21 hours ago, ketose said:

Kahless comes out about as much as the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition or the Bajoran Prophets (probably less) in 1990's Trek. On this show, it seems like they're re-hashing stuff from TOS in order to force it into canon.

It kind of works if you equate Kahless to their version of Jesus, in terms of cultural impact I mean (not necessarily religious, although it is somewhat). In that context it makes sense.  Jesus is namechecked way out of proportion to other figures, right? 

 

I watched 2 hrs of Presidential debates and nobody mentioned Jesus. You can’t post Tik Tok on Klingon internet without mentioning Kahless 5 times. “Come on!”

[Mr. R0b0t]

I came to post from the future. Ive watched all of TOS and TNG and the movies, but not many of the shows.  This pilot was glossy and fine.  The Klingons are a bit weird and it's not the worst start to a show ever.  I'm just starting my watch and have 4 seasons of material ahead of me so I'm guessing they must have found a groove.