|
Scudworth posted:Main characters should have memorable names, and in 30 years when Michael is probably a unisex or feminine name it'll not be weird anymore. In 30 years I'd hope people will have better things to watch.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:"Fifty of our engineers need to transport down" Extras cost money and beaming costs money 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
The part with the life support being off for a second would have been more effective if everybody was gasping or at least breathing heavier afterwards
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:It just feels like they did it just to draw attention to it. So? Rhyno posted:In 30 years I'd hope people will have better things to watch. Too optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Rhyno is king of bad takes, but the point is moot because Bryan Fuller usually gives his female leads names or nicknames that are traditionally male. Chuck on Pushing Daisies George on Dead Like Me Jaye on Wonderfalls Michael on Discovery
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
I like how the planet was saved 2/3 of the way through the episode and the rest is about dealing with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:The part with the life support being off for a second would have been more effective if everybody was gasping or at least breathing heavier afterwards Usually I remember episodes well enough that even though I haven't seen them in years, I can follow right along with Jeb!'s reactions. But none of this was ringing a bell. So I looked up the episode on Memory Alpha. Still nothing. Gradually it dawned on me. I somehow missed this one. I will still get to see one more episode of TNG for the first time. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:Dude's a Puppeteer, it's not complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Usually I remember episodes well enough that even though I haven't seen them in years, I can follow right along with Jeb!'s reactions. But none of this was ringing a bell. So I looked up the episode on Memory Alpha. Still nothing. It's a good episode. A lot of sophisticated writing and philosophical issues. It just finished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Usually I remember episodes well enough that even though I haven't seen them in years, I can follow right along with Jeb!'s reactions. But none of this was ringing a bell. So I looked up the episode on Memory Alpha. Still nothing. Same thing happened when I rewatched TNG last year. I don't know how that particular episode fell through the cracks, but it probably helps that people rarely bring it up in conversation here. It's not bad, just very forgettable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Well, in other news, MovieBob liked it. I'm generally in sync with his reviews, so that's something. Agreed. Mild episode 3 spoiler for people who don't want to watch a MovieBob review: Looks like the captain of Discovery is a Section 31 dude and assembling a crew of henchmen. Michael is chosen because it got around that she committed mutiny to kill some Klingons to avenge her parents, but because she wanted to attack the Klingons because it was the only way to make them see the Federation as worthy of diplomacy, she isn't on board with the captain's plan to Make Starfleet Great Again* and will probably end up as a mole or at least a counter to his philosophy/agenda. *I couldn't do a turn of phrase about Brexit as easily. Point is that the show looks like its doing a "Nationalism and seceding from the international/intergalactic community isn't the way forward" narrative. Even before watching Discovery, I thought it sounded like the show was going to have a character arc that explores why coming together is a good thing and the non-episodic nature of the show just means that we haven't gotten there yet. I don't really mind any of the style choices either, and I don't expect Klingons to necessarily use American mid-west pronunciation. Episode 1&2 spoilers: I'm not as against Michael as a character as some of you guys are. The mutiny was a bit much, but I felt her desire to attack the Klingons was more a desire to avoid the Babalon 5 open gunports misunderstanding thing with the Minbari than it was the "I'm from Vulcan and I say 'Kill 'em all!' (Would you like to know more?)" motivation a lot of goons make it out to be. Also, since the mutiny was stopped, the only person who died from her actions was the martyr Klingon but she just saw her second most influential mentor killed a second earlier and made a bad emotional decision because they'll probably be doing the logic vs. emotions thing the Vulcans exist for. tldr: I like what I've seen of The Orville (haven't watched episode 3 yet) better, but I'm interested in watching more of Discovery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Why is Burnham raised by Vulcans? Doesn't she have an Aunt or an Uncle or a Grandparent or something? Adoption in the Federation works on the 'finders, keepers' principle. Eg, Worf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Agreed. So it really is about Section 31 after all that stupid loving reddit speculation regarding the ship's registry? What kind of ultra-secret borderline-illegal spy org puts their hallmark number in the registry of one of their own ships? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:So it really is about Section 31 after all that stupid loving reddit speculation regarding the ship's registry? What kind of ultra-secret borderline-illegal spy org puts their hallmark number in the registry of one of their own ships? To be fair, its just part of the registry number NCC 1031, it isn't like the ship is the "USS Section 31's Secret Warmachine NCC 31 (Second Amendment)". The organization isn't even known to exist beyond a few people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Did they booby trap a corpse after a battle? Isn't that a war crime? If its not, I know that even the israeli's don't pull that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
HardKase posted:Did they booby trap a corpse after a battle? Isn't that a war crime? If its not, I know that even the israeli's don't pull that poo poo. It would be considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
So far I'm okay with Discovery.HardKase posted:Did they booby trap a corpse after a battle? Isn't that a war crime? If its not, I know that even the israeli's don't pull that poo poo. I think immediately attacking after agreeing to a ceasefire is as well so I'm okay with it. Also did the admiral's ship blowing up do anything at all? Warp core breaches were always considered things you don't want to be anywhere near, much less literally attached to the ship doing the breaching.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Also did the admiral's ship blowing up do anything at all? Warp core breaches were always considered things you don't want to be anywhere near, much less literally attached to the ship doing the breaching. I was assuming that the ship that did the ramming wasn't T'Kuvma's lead ship, as it had already decloaked earlier... but I may be mistaken. So my assumption was that the warp core breach did take out that Klingon ship. 
thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I was assuming that the ship that did the ramming wasn't T'Kuvma's lead ship, as it had already decloaked earlier... but I may be mistaken. So my assumption was that the warp core breach did take out that Klingon ship. I mean, I figure it was another ship but where I get confused is that the Klingon ships that weren't the main one weren't that large compared to the Federation ships and the one doing the ramming seemed like it was pretty loving huge. Edit: Just bringing another huge gently caress-off ship out of nowhere to ram a ship that also just showed up would be dumb, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
It's good that they shot/edited that whole ramming of the Europa/self-destruct sequence in the most confusing way possible with no setup, because making bad decisions now put a hat on future callbacks so you can be like 'oh now it's not dumb now that they explained it 7 episodes later".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Agreed. So it's about how Evan McMullin joined the #resistance. loving kill me now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:So far I'm okay with Discovery. Right, but this is Starfleet we are talking about. The Geneva convention is a big part of earths history. The Klingon have their own ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Section 31 is a blight on Star Trek, and it annoys me immensely that it seems to be the only thing from DS9 anyone else ever wants to follow up on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:Section 31 is a blight on Star Trek, and it annoys me immensely that it seems to be the only thing from DS9 anyone else ever wants to follow up on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:Section 31 is a blight on Star Trek, and it annoys me immensely that it seems to be the only thing from DS9 anyone else ever wants to follow up on. It represents the notion that "yes, we're the good guys, but we need to do bad things to protect ourselves"... and they're unambiguously evil every time they show up. They are, in my view, a pretty effective refutation of that idea. I'm happy every time that idea is acknowledged and then explicitly and forcefully condemned. For those not keeping up with the spoilers- there's nothing actually there about Section 31. That reviewer just said something reminded him of Section 31. Though Discovery, at its best, is probably going to be examining similar themes and condemning them in a similar way by having them show up as alive and well in the federation before condemning them. That might be annoying to some who want a brighter future and I respect that. It might also be horribly bungled and end up accidentally endorsing horrible poo poo. But who knows at this point. Personally, my thoughts on the start of Discovery are going to be 100% colored by how they follow it up. It's dark, but promises to refute that darkness. I'm waiting to see if they succeed. If they don't, it was rear end. Eiba fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
"Dispatch a subspace message to Starfleet Command. We have engaged...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Section 31 is a villain though. This is pretty heavily what I thought. The first two episodes felt like they were pounding us over the head with the fact that both Michael and the Klingons were fairly xenophobic about the opposite side, the Klingons fearing that their culture would change from under them and Michael because the Klingons literally destroyed her colony. Both are fairly understandable reasons to not like a nation, but in the end it feels like where they will be going is that you have to learn to understand your neighbors to find peace rather than end up fighting them due to your fears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:This is pretty heavily what I thought. The first two episodes felt like they were pounding us over the head with the fact that both Michael and the Klingons were fairly xenophobic about the opposite side, the Klingons fearing that their culture would change from under them and Michael because the Klingons literally destroyed her colony. Both are fairly understandable reasons to not like a nation, but in the end it feels like where they will be going is that you have to learn to understand your neighbors to find peace rather than end up fighting them due to your fears. It's not very coherently expressed, though, when Michael's fear is that without a pre-emptive strike, the Klingons will start a war and kill her captain and destroy her ship... and then everything she feared happens. I'm hoping this is setting up some sort of redemption story, but it could just as easily be setting up a vindication story. (This is why I'm not especially fond of overly-serialized fiction... it could be literally months before I know if I like this show or not...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:It's not very coherently expressed, though, when Michael's fear is that without a pre-emptive strike, the Klingons will start a war and kill her captain and destroy her ship... and then everything she feared happens. I'm hoping this is setting up some sort of redemption story, but it could just as easily be setting up a vindication story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:And that's gonna be what, 3, 4 months of CBS All Access subscription fees? I can't imagine sticking with it if I was in the US. But, since I'm subscribing to Netflix anyway, I may as well keep watching at least a little longer, see if it starts to find its feet and work out what tone it's going for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:*I couldn't do a turn of phrase about Brexit as easily. Point is that the show looks like its doing a "Nationalism and seceding from the international/intergalactic community isn't the way forward" narrative. Take Back Control - For the Many, Not the Few
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Burnham is punished for the mutiny in episode 1- which the show can't make up its mind if she was actually right to try and preemptively kill T'Kvuma- not for sabotaging the capture mission the Captain agreed to- which the show seems to agree would have ended the war had it been successful. So they decided to make Burnham both a character that's been perhaps unjustly punished AND a character with a secret she needs to pay for. What's the inverse of a Mary Sue? Like the BSG-reboot equivalent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
I wondered if this was actually the series finale, and everything hereafter is a giant flashback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
According to IMDB Michelle Yeoh is in all 15 episodes this season, so either she somehow survived her ordeal and becomes a Klingon prisoner or something, or we are gonna have a poo poo ton of bad flashback scenes. Though to be frank, it would actually be a nice counterweight to Captain Lorca's supposed Section 31 ends-justify-the-means ideology. Michael Burnham experiences conflict between the values that he espouses and those of her mentor and mother-figure Captain Georgiou, who is much more of a classical Starfleet bleeding-heart liberal. And at the end of the season, Burnham's rejection of Lorca's dark corrupted philosophy serves as a catharsis for the audience, selling them on the Star Trek's utopian ideals. Then again this thing is gonna be so badly written that just as many people will assume that the opposite is meant and that the Federation should just be fascists now and always.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:So here's the thing. If the rumors are correct...(rumors/speculation hidden for the sensitive)...If Discovery really is the origin of Section 31 (NCC-1031 USS Discovery) then this whole series is the origin story of the bad guys hidden in the Federation who would later (according to the novels) be behind the attempt to start the war with the Klingons in Undiscovered Country, behind the deal with the Son'a in Insurrection, and are definitely responsible for trying to genocide the Founders in DS9. If this is the internal mythology of Section 31 as they see themselves, then it makes sense that they'd look upon the normal Federation ideals as naively optimistic at best, suicidally dangerous at worst. "Someone has to protect these dreamers from the dangers in their dreams. We'll be the monsters who do what we have to so that everyone else can live in paradise." In which case having one of the founders of Section 31 being a traumatized atrocity survivor who tries to apply logic, but can never quite escape her deep seated fears, make perfect sense. Unless they're completely ignoring previous Trek this can't be what they're doing. Section 31 was already active in Enterprise. They've referenced Enterprise a couple times already in Discovery so they aren't totally dismissing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Also wasn't the actual origin of the name explained in DS9 as Section 31 of the Starfleet charter? Or was that just in non-canon material?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Drone posted:Also wasn't the actual origin of the name explained in DS9 as Section 31 of the Starfleet charter? Yeah that was explicit in DS9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:It's not very coherently expressed, though, when Michael's fear is that without a pre-emptive strike, the Klingons will start a war and kill her captain and destroy her ship... and then everything she feared happens. I'm hoping this is setting up some sort of redemption story, but it could just as easily be setting up a vindication story. I think the idea behind the preemptive strike was more like punching a shark to get them to think twice about attacking you. I doubt they would have finished off the survivors had they disabled the Klingon ship before reinforcements arrived. Not that it would have mattered in the end, if someone is determined enough to start poo poo, then poo poo will be started. Klingon dude would have just used it as evidence of Federation aggression. Cat Hatter fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:... Not if you're keeping a ship in reserve to accomplish your primary goal of killing an enemy admiral to ensure that your war happens. Should we have this discussion in spoiler tags?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
I'm glad other people wondered what the gently caress rammed the ship out of nowhere. Maybe they coulda pulled back to show whatever it was because I still don't have a clue
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:30
|
|
