Enjoyed the plot twists of season 1, but could pass on the TV-MA stuff. Looking forward to season 2. Favorite episode so far? "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad."
Agree with you..
That episode. When Mudd told Gabriel he had killed him 53 times, and then it showed some of the more creative ones.......
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Burnham very much is a Mary Sue, almost to the point of the textbook definition and Star Trek origin of the term.
In what way? She was a character on the fast track to be Captain. All of the other Captains have been pretty exceptional individuals.
Call it copping out if you like, but I can’t really put it better than the folks on this Reddit thread (there are arguments to the contrary there too):
Burnham very much is a Mary Sue, almost to the point of the textbook definition and Star Trek origin of the term.
In what way? She was a character on the fast track to be Captain. All of the other Captains have been pretty exceptional individuals.
Call it copping out if you like, but I can’t really put it better than the folks on this Reddit thread (there are arguments to the contrary there too):
"But then of course the Captain CHOOSES her as his main favorite because he likes her moxie, and is the only one able to recognize her perfection; and thus she proves it at every turn."
This snippet sums up the problem with the thread. Gee I wonder why Lorca picked her as his favourite? Its like people made their judgements after watching a few episodes.
She's a Starfleet Officer. She's supposed to be exceptional. All of the lead characters have been Captains. Its assumed that they earned their position and their capabilities are presumed. Burnham is the only one who has to earn her position.
And just to lay it out there, I do think a good chunk of the backlash against Burnham is because she's a Woman of Colour.
Just finished watching Calypso, the Michael Chabon-written Short Trek, and it is excellent. A little treacly at the end but overall very nice indeed, though perhaps more as general science fiction than as Trek in particular — it really could have been set aboard any derelict spaceship.
@Ivanstone, I’m sure some of the backlash is a result of that. Thanks for being careful not to paint too broadly with that brush. I think the vast majority of Trek fans, whether they like or dislike Disco, couldn’t care less what sex or ethnicity the main character is; we all just want a good story. A character who succeeds at everything effortlessly, whose only “mistakes” are the result of misunderstandings by her less-capable colleagues, and who is ultimately validated emotionally by everyone around her, makes for poor drama. YMMV, as we used to say in the dark ages when the Internet was young.
I bought the DSC Blu Ray last week, don't have all access. I thought the production values and acting were better than some of the motion picture movies. The effects were great but seemed too advanced for the period. I understand we can't just go back to green wire frame background images or unmoving templates that are backlit, but it wasn't as big of a distraction as some fanboys make it out to be. The appearance of the Klingons are disappointing and disconcerting, but I love how the actors all spoke Klingon at length with English subtitles. It's not my number 1 series but it's in the top 3.
Bit of a lazy argument to say the hate for Discovery is based on racism. Lots of Trek fans dislike the show, and Trek has been full of diversity since say one. Burnham being the overwhelming focus of the show is the reason because she is Wesley times 10. If TNG was Wesley centric, it would be reviled nearly as much. Add to this the departure from canon and unnecessary foul language and it doesn't feel much like Trek.
Throw away your race card, it is tired. Calling everything racism when a particular point of view isn't agreed with cheapens the term for when actual racism exists.
I bought the DSC Blu Ray last week, don't have all access. I thought the production values and acting were better than some of the motion picture movies. The effects were great but seemed too advanced for the period. I understand we can't just go back to green wire frame background images or unmoving templates that are backlit, but it wasn't as big of a distraction as some fanboys make it out to be. The appearance of the Klingons are disappointing and disconcerting, but I love how the actors all spoke Klingon at length with English subtitles. It's not my number 1 series but it's in the top 3.
The Klingon language spoken in the pilots was almost as upsetting as their makeup. It occurred to me that perhaps the facial prostheses made it challenging to speak in anything other than single-word sentences. That, or they hired Shatner or Christopher Walken to be the dialogue coach for the Klingons.
Bit of a lazy argument to say the hate for Discovery is based on racism. Lots of Trek fans dislike the show, and Trek has been full of diversity since say one. Burnham being the overwhelming focus of the show is the reason because she is Wesley times 10. If TNG was Wesley centric, it would be reviled nearly as much. Add to this the departure from canon and unnecessary foul language and it doesn't feel much like Trek.
Throw away your race card, it is tired. Calling everything racism when a particular point of view isn't agreed with cheapens the term for when actual racism exists.
This questionable compulsion that some feel to deny racism as a possibility is exactly why it needs to be brought to light. Acknowledging that racism exists and that it would factor into the over the top dislike of Burnham is hardly a “lazy argument;” rather your insinuation that it couldn’t be a factor and that the ‘race card’ (lovely, by the way) has been overplayed or that being aware of and pointing out potential racist concerns “cheapens the term” is very lazy, harmful, and ignorant. Rather than performing these cognitive contortions to ‘prove’ that racism isn’t a factor, perhaps examining why you feel the need to do so would better serve you.
Bit of a lazy argument to say the hate for Discovery is based on racism. Lots of Trek fans dislike the show, and Trek has been full of diversity since say one. Burnham being the overwhelming focus of the show is the reason because she is Wesley times 10. If TNG was Wesley centric, it would be reviled nearly as much. Add to this the departure from canon and unnecessary foul language and it doesn't feel much like Trek.
Throw away your race card, it is tired. Calling everything racism when a particular point of view isn't agreed with cheapens the term for when actual racism exists.
This questionable compulsion that some feel to deny racism as a possibility is exactly why it needs to be brought to light. Acknowledging that racism exists and that it would factor into the over the top dislike of Burnham is hardly a “lazy argument;” rather your insinuation that it couldn’t be a factor and that the ‘race card’ (lovely, by the way) has been overplayed or that being aware of and pointing out potential racist concerns “cheapens the term” is very lazy, harmful, and ignorant. Rather than performing these cognitive contortions to ‘prove’ that racism isn’t a factor, perhaps examining why you feel the need to do so would better serve you.
Nobody is denying racism exists, I just have never once heard it in regards to Discovery or the actress playing Burnam. There are always wackjobs who hate people for many stupid reasons but they are a tiny minority of Trek fans that dislike this show. She came to DIS from TWD and was a beloved character on that show, so I just don't see people hating on her as a person in this case. Read the reddit thread posted up thread and you will see the dislike of her character is that she is too unbelievable, that is in the writing not on the actress.
Throw away your race card, it is tired. Calling everything racism when a particular point of view isn't agreed with cheapens the term for when actual racism exists.
There are many criticisms that can be legitimately leveled at Discovery... but attacking the diversity of the cast/lead character or complaining about the lack of strong white male characters are dog whistle Alt Right/4Chan/Conservative culture war talking points. And there are indications that a lot of this is being pushed by Russian bots (see various controversies regarding the new Star Wars).
If someone says Discovery is "too PC" what else could they possibly mean other than "I am a raging bigot"? One has to wonder if they've ever watched Star Trek before, and if so, why. Every series is a product of it's time, but they all are pretty much textbook PC.
And trying to minimize the impact of racism in cultural analysis is itself, pretty racist. The problem isn't that people talk too much about racism, it's the failure to understand what racism consists of and how deeply it's encoded into the communities, politics, and economics all around us.
Also, calling Burnham a Mary Sue is also incredibly lazy and quite possibly sexist. Again I would say, have you watched Star Trek before? So many characters across all series are basically good at everything and right most of the time. Trek is good at a lot of things, but realistic contemporary characterizations is not one of them.
Nobody is denying racism exists, I just have never once heard it in regards to Discovery or the actress playing Burnam. There are always wackjobs who hate people for many stupid reasons but they are a tiny minority of Trek fans that dislike this show. She came to DIS from TWD and was a beloved character on that show, so I just don't see people hating on her as a person in this case. Read the reddit thread posted up thread and you will see the dislike of her character is that she is too unbelievable, that is in the writing not on the actress.
That you haven’t witnessed or experienced it personally does not mean it doesn’t exist, and is one of the most common and infuriating denials of racism in any context. I’m sorry, but that you don’t like the character and that one reddit thread isn’t racist doesn’t justify saying to “throw away your race card” because you’re tired of people complaining about racism.
There are many criticisms that can be legitimately leveled at Discovery... but attacking the diversity of the cast/lead character or complaining about the lack of strong white male characters are dog whistle Alt Right/4Chan/Conservative culture war talking points. And there are indications that a lot of this is being pushed by Russian bots (see various controversies regarding the new Star Wars).
If someone says Discovery is "too PC" what else could they possibly mean other than "I am a raging bigot"? One has to wonder if they've ever watched Star Trek before, and if so, why. Every series is a product of it's time, but they all are pretty much textbook PC.
And trying to minimize the impact of racism in cultural analysis is itself, pretty racist. The problem isn't that people talk too much about racism, it's the failure to understand what racism consists of and how deeply it's encoded into the communities, politics, and economics all around us.
Also, calling Burnham a Mary Sue is also incredibly lazy and quite possibly sexist. Again I would say, have you watched Star Trek before? So many characters across all series are basically good at everything and right most of the time. Trek is good at a lot of things, but realistic contemporary characterizations is not one of them.
From what I've seen on the 'net since even before it actually premiered, I think a lot of the knee-jerk negative response to DSC is not usually race-based, but is just as unsavory. Much of it is sexist, and much of it is homophobic. You will see references to "SJWs" tossed around a lot — which, I guess in their case, is anyone who is seen as promoting equal rights & representation not only for women but for anyone who isn't as straight as a 2-by-4.
The other day, I was paging through the comments section on a YouTube video (I know, I know — that was my first mistake) that was decrying all the issues and problems with Discovery, and the sheer volume of intolerance and hate from so many people almost made me physically ill. I've gotta think that the majority of these people have just not been exposed to many different viewpoints in their lives, and anything that is too different from what they already believe is automatically thrown out as garbage in their minds before even being considered as another potential way of viewing the world or living one's life.
The people I referenced above in that video's comments section are dismissing it out of hand, and have no desire to watch it at all. (The fact that these are all self-professed Star Trek fans makes that sort of headspace even more baffling to ponder. Have they never seen TOS? For all his reputation as a womanizer, Kirk was in actuality a huge feminist. Have they never seen TNG and DS9 with their episodes exploring gender and "non-normative" sexuality?) On the other side of things, however, I have little issue with folks who dislike Discovery after having given it an honest chance. Truthfully, I probably would have been one of those people if I had given up after the first 3 episodes. In my mind, it got so much better as it went along. And although it's still not of the quality that I feel it could be, I am hopeful that the upward trend in writing and overall arc continues.
It's definitely got a different feel than any previous TV Treks, but so did DS9, and so, even, did TNG. I'm not saying this show will go down as one of the best, I'm just saying that when you've had a franchise going for this long, fans will all have specific ideas and notions about what Trek is, what it should be, and what it shouldn't be — so it's completely understandable that there's not widespread immediate acceptance of something that is so different than what's come before.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
The other day, I was paging through the comments section on a YouTube video
I continue to make this mistake as well! I agree with everything you and the OP have said, and I think we’re just in a time where consistently Trek values that have been part of the series’ for decades are seen as PC/overly-political instead of just sort of logical (I.e. genocide is bad, xenophobia is often about racism, goatees are not to be trusted) and the criticisms are a bit blown out of proportion on the internet, as it is wan to do.
I hope they focus more on the crew as a whole next season, as the best Treks always had great chemistry among the main cast. If they can capture even a tenth of the chemistry between the TNG crew I’d be one happy trekkie. They’ve got that big bridge after all, let’s just throw in an engineering console à la the Enterprise-D and we’ve got ourselves an ensemble!
Just finished watching Calypso, the Michael Chabon-written Short Trek, and it is excellent. A little treacly at the end but overall very nice indeed, though perhaps more as general science fiction than as Trek in particular — it really could have been set aboard any derelict spaceship.
Chabon is an excellent writer. I greatly enjoyed The Yiddish Policeman's Union and his other works, so I was psyched to see Calypso. It did not disappoint.
Honestly, I am more excited to watch the Picard series because Chabon is involved than simply because it's Picard's return.
I just watched Discovery for the first time. To save myself time, I've copied and pasted my review from Facebook:
"Ok folks. I've witnessed the controversy, complaints, arguments, hate, and disparaging comments and reviews about Discovery.
I finally got to watch Season 1.
I gotta say, I highly enjoyed it. It was intense, edgy, interesting, with twists and turns and surprises.
Loved Burnham, Lorca, Saru, Stamets. Especially loved Phillipa - both the Captain and Emperor. I think Burnham's character was well constructed.
This Trek had all the elements we've come to love: life and death decisions, personal relationships, cool background stories, galactic consequences, interesting side-stories and characters.
I also liked how it was obvious the ENTIRE story was thought out in advance - its obvious they weren't winging it, episode by episode.
Only 2 things I didn't like: the look of the Klingons WAS awful; and the ending. Ending the War, just like that, was lame, lol - worse ending than Enterprise, lol.
Overall I thought it was well done and I look forward to Season 2."
There are some interesting Easter Eggs in the overhead pages if you listen. When Burnham is getting off the Prison Shuttle, they page "Ensign Chiefowitz". Perhaps a nod to Mary Chieffo, who plays L'Rell? In a later episode, they page "Cadet Decker". Perhaps the son of Commdore Matt Decker, William? Who later was slated to command the refitted NCC-1701, but was replaced for the V'Ger Incident?
EDIT: CADET DECKER, NOT ENSIGN DECKER. It's right after Admiral Terral tells Lorca he is getting the Legion of Merit, when Burnham is walking down the corridor to Ash's room........
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
I just watched Discovery for the first time. To save myself time, I've copied and pasted my review from Facebook:
"Ok folks. I've witnessed the controversy, complaints, arguments, hate, and disparaging comments and reviews about Discovery.
I finally got to watch Season 1.
I gotta say, I highly enjoyed it. It was intense, edgy, interesting, with twists and turns and surprises.
Loved Burnham, Lorca, Saru, Stamets. Especially loved Phillipa - both the Captain and Emperor. I think Burnham's character was well constructed.
This Trek had all the elements we've come to love: life and death decisions, personal relationships, cool background stories, galactic consequences, interesting side-stories and characters.
I also liked how it was obvious the ENTIRE story was thought out in advance - its obvious they weren't winging it, episode by episode.
Only 2 things I didn't like: the look of the Klingons WAS awful; and the ending. Ending the War, just like that, was lame, lol - worse ending than Enterprise, lol.
Overall I thought it was well done and I look forward to Season 2."
I also really liked Ash as a character and the plot twist associated with him.
Great and enjoyable show (and very much Star Trek in my opinion), really looking forward to Season 2. A pity we cannot watch the Short Treks here in Germany.
I'm about six episodes in and enjoying it. It definitely is Trek. The Klingons look a little different but they are clearly Klingons culturally. The visual style is a nice bridge between TOS and ENT. The Spore Drive, once explained in detail, did not seem as crazy and as gamebreaking as I feared. Burnham is not nearly as annoying as the detractors claim, and is actually a compelling character, and the rest of the cast are all interesting too.
Yeah, have to agree with you. The criticism that makes the least sense to me is when people say "it's not Trek".
Virtually everything is a retread with modern production values. The second half of the season in the Mirror Universe is textbook fan service.
It's also easily the most solid post-TOS first season of Trek, with only DS9 even in the same zip code. I give the edge to Disco since DS9 was much more of a slow burn.
Can't believe what I read here. Burnham is worse than Wesley?! Lol! There is nobody worse than Wesley....except maybe T'Brat.
Burnham is one of the few characters to like about DIS, the others being Culber, Lorca and the new Mudd (Roger Carmel is the superior version, though) -and I don't even like the show. But I don't have time to engage in the "DIS fanboys vs DIS haters" feud, nor do I want Apollo to have a heart attack upon reading all the reasons for why DIS is the worst Trek of all time, so I'll leave it at that here.
I'm gonna watch season 2, although my expectations aren't high. But maybe it gets better, just like TNG, ENY and VOY did. We'll see what happens.
I'm more curious about the new Picard show, though.
Star Trek first season rankings from best to worst: DS9, TOS, ENT, VOY, TNG, TAS, ORV, DIS
I can see where some of the Burnham annoying reputation comes from...she does have a tendency to deliver self-righteous monologues to superior officers and villains at dramatuc moments (Particularly Into the Forest I Go), but that's still the worst I can say about the character.
The show also has alot in common with other modern streaming shows, ie long-range storytelling, darker tone, moral ambiguity, character-based plot development, etc. At the end it also comes out of the darker ambiguity and demonstrates that Starfleet principles can be triumphant even in the face of the challanges the crew faced. The TV-MA stuff may be a little much, and I can't recommend the show to certain family members who would otherwise like it because of Ash's flashbacks.
Magic to Make the Sanest Men Go Mad is probably my favorite. Not only is it a time-travel episode (one of my favorite types of Treks regardless of series), but we get to see Mudd in his full power.
The Mirror stuff may have been fan service, but it was a great next step in exploring that universe from TOS to DS9 to ENT to the recent TNG graphic novel. They found a good way to get the crew up to speed with the audience. I also enjoyed the device of having the Emperor be an unknown figure...not only was it a great way to reintroduce Georgau, but in-universe it makes sense...Terran Starfleet doesn't deferentiate the emperors to hide from the civilian population how often coups occur.
The one thing that did make me roll my eyes was the terraforming of the planet in less than five minutes...and I'm sure Staments needs to answer for augmenting himself, but hopefully that will be explored in season two.
Okay after binge watching DSC, I went back and watched a early season episode of TNG, and my brain went "Wow! This is archaic!" Just like going back and watching an episode of TOS after binging on TNG.
There is just no way to do a prequel without making the assumption that the tech is way ahead of what they dreamed up in 1960. Let face it, those of us who are using mobile devices on this forum are holding devices that are 10's (100's?) of times more powerful than the TNG/DS9 era PADD. Does Jake really have to replicate a new PADD every time he wants to start a new book?
Does Jake really have to replicate a new PADD every time he wants to start a new book?
This is my personal favorite piece of outdated technology to observe in Trek. The absolute best is when they show that someone has really been studying by putting a pile of PADDs on a table. I take genuine, unironic delight in this.
If you would have a bunch of tablets easily available and you would need a lot of going back and forth between materials you would do the same.
It's more efficient to upload 12 different subjects on 12 different tablets and go between tablets than to switch 12 different subjects on the same tablet.
Also, they both have a laptop on their desks.
It's like when companies are currently having multiple PC monitors showing different screens instead of dividing a single PC monitor screen.
If you would have a bunch of tablets easily available and you would need a lot of going back and forth between materials you would do the same.
It's more efficient to upload 12 different subjects on 12 different tablets and go between tablets than to switch 12 different subjects on the same tablet.
Also, they both have a laptop on their desks.
It's like when companies are currently having multiple PC monitors showing different screens instead of dividing a single PC monitor screen.
This. I also can imagine that PADDs aren’t the do-everything devices like current tablets - less complexity leads to easier and cheaper construction. I think of them more like an e-reader than an iPad.
Comments
That episode. When Mudd told Gabriel he had killed him 53 times, and then it showed some of the more creative ones.......
Call it copping out if you like, but I can’t really put it better than the folks on this Reddit thread (there are arguments to the contrary there too):
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/766e6c/is_michael_burnham_too_much_of_a_mary_sue/
This snippet sums up the problem with the thread. Gee I wonder why Lorca picked her as his favourite? Its like people made their judgements after watching a few episodes.
She's a Starfleet Officer. She's supposed to be exceptional. All of the lead characters have been Captains. Its assumed that they earned their position and their capabilities are presumed. Burnham is the only one who has to earn her position.
And just to lay it out there, I do think a good chunk of the backlash against Burnham is because she's a Woman of Colour.
@Ivanstone, I’m sure some of the backlash is a result of that. Thanks for being careful not to paint too broadly with that brush. I think the vast majority of Trek fans, whether they like or dislike Disco, couldn’t care less what sex or ethnicity the main character is; we all just want a good story. A character who succeeds at everything effortlessly, whose only “mistakes” are the result of misunderstandings by her less-capable colleagues, and who is ultimately validated emotionally by everyone around her, makes for poor drama. YMMV, as we used to say in the dark ages when the Internet was young.
Throw away your race card, it is tired. Calling everything racism when a particular point of view isn't agreed with cheapens the term for when actual racism exists.
The Klingon language spoken in the pilots was almost as upsetting as their makeup. It occurred to me that perhaps the facial prostheses made it challenging to speak in anything other than single-word sentences. That, or they hired Shatner or Christopher Walken to be the dialogue coach for the Klingons.
This questionable compulsion that some feel to deny racism as a possibility is exactly why it needs to be brought to light. Acknowledging that racism exists and that it would factor into the over the top dislike of Burnham is hardly a “lazy argument;” rather your insinuation that it couldn’t be a factor and that the ‘race card’ (lovely, by the way) has been overplayed or that being aware of and pointing out potential racist concerns “cheapens the term” is very lazy, harmful, and ignorant. Rather than performing these cognitive contortions to ‘prove’ that racism isn’t a factor, perhaps examining why you feel the need to do so would better serve you.
Nobody is denying racism exists, I just have never once heard it in regards to Discovery or the actress playing Burnam. There are always wackjobs who hate people for many stupid reasons but they are a tiny minority of Trek fans that dislike this show. She came to DIS from TWD and was a beloved character on that show, so I just don't see people hating on her as a person in this case. Read the reddit thread posted up thread and you will see the dislike of her character is that she is too unbelievable, that is in the writing not on the actress.
People awesomed this?!?
idontwantoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg
If someone says Discovery is "too PC" what else could they possibly mean other than "I am a raging bigot"? One has to wonder if they've ever watched Star Trek before, and if so, why. Every series is a product of it's time, but they all are pretty much textbook PC.
And trying to minimize the impact of racism in cultural analysis is itself, pretty racist. The problem isn't that people talk too much about racism, it's the failure to understand what racism consists of and how deeply it's encoded into the communities, politics, and economics all around us.
Also, calling Burnham a Mary Sue is also incredibly lazy and quite possibly sexist. Again I would say, have you watched Star Trek before? So many characters across all series are basically good at everything and right most of the time. Trek is good at a lot of things, but realistic contemporary characterizations is not one of them.
That you haven’t witnessed or experienced it personally does not mean it doesn’t exist, and is one of the most common and infuriating denials of racism in any context. I’m sorry, but that you don’t like the character and that one reddit thread isn’t racist doesn’t justify saying to “throw away your race card” because you’re tired of people complaining about racism.
Spot on. Thank you for all of this.
The other day, I was paging through the comments section on a YouTube video (I know, I know — that was my first mistake) that was decrying all the issues and problems with Discovery, and the sheer volume of intolerance and hate from so many people almost made me physically ill. I've gotta think that the majority of these people have just not been exposed to many different viewpoints in their lives, and anything that is too different from what they already believe is automatically thrown out as garbage in their minds before even being considered as another potential way of viewing the world or living one's life.
The people I referenced above in that video's comments section are dismissing it out of hand, and have no desire to watch it at all. (The fact that these are all self-professed Star Trek fans makes that sort of headspace even more baffling to ponder. Have they never seen TOS? For all his reputation as a womanizer, Kirk was in actuality a huge feminist. Have they never seen TNG and DS9 with their episodes exploring gender and "non-normative" sexuality?) On the other side of things, however, I have little issue with folks who dislike Discovery after having given it an honest chance. Truthfully, I probably would have been one of those people if I had given up after the first 3 episodes. In my mind, it got so much better as it went along. And although it's still not of the quality that I feel it could be, I am hopeful that the upward trend in writing and overall arc continues.
It's definitely got a different feel than any previous TV Treks, but so did DS9, and so, even, did TNG. I'm not saying this show will go down as one of the best, I'm just saying that when you've had a franchise going for this long, fans will all have specific ideas and notions about what Trek is, what it should be, and what it shouldn't be — so it's completely understandable that there's not widespread immediate acceptance of something that is so different than what's come before.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I continue to make this mistake as well! I agree with everything you and the OP have said, and I think we’re just in a time where consistently Trek values that have been part of the series’ for decades are seen as PC/overly-political instead of just sort of logical (I.e. genocide is bad, xenophobia is often about racism, goatees are not to be trusted) and the criticisms are a bit blown out of proportion on the internet, as it is wan to do.
I hope they focus more on the crew as a whole next season, as the best Treks always had great chemistry among the main cast. If they can capture even a tenth of the chemistry between the TNG crew I’d be one happy trekkie. They’ve got that big bridge after all, let’s just throw in an engineering console à la the Enterprise-D and we’ve got ourselves an ensemble!
Chabon is an excellent writer. I greatly enjoyed The Yiddish Policeman's Union and his other works, so I was psyched to see Calypso. It did not disappoint.
Honestly, I am more excited to watch the Picard series because Chabon is involved than simply because it's Picard's return.
"Ok folks. I've witnessed the controversy, complaints, arguments, hate, and disparaging comments and reviews about Discovery.
I finally got to watch Season 1.
I gotta say, I highly enjoyed it. It was intense, edgy, interesting, with twists and turns and surprises.
Loved Burnham, Lorca, Saru, Stamets. Especially loved Phillipa - both the Captain and Emperor. I think Burnham's character was well constructed.
This Trek had all the elements we've come to love: life and death decisions, personal relationships, cool background stories, galactic consequences, interesting side-stories and characters.
I also liked how it was obvious the ENTIRE story was thought out in advance - its obvious they weren't winging it, episode by episode.
Only 2 things I didn't like: the look of the Klingons WAS awful; and the ending. Ending the War, just like that, was lame, lol - worse ending than Enterprise, lol.
Overall I thought it was well done and I look forward to Season 2."
EDIT: CADET DECKER, NOT ENSIGN DECKER. It's right after Admiral Terral tells Lorca he is getting the Legion of Merit, when Burnham is walking down the corridor to Ash's room........
I also really liked Ash as a character and the plot twist associated with him.
Great and enjoyable show (and very much Star Trek in my opinion), really looking forward to Season 2. A pity we cannot watch the Short Treks here in Germany.
Yeah, have to agree with you. The criticism that makes the least sense to me is when people say "it's not Trek".
Virtually everything is a retread with modern production values. The second half of the season in the Mirror Universe is textbook fan service.
It's also easily the most solid post-TOS first season of Trek, with only DS9 even in the same zip code. I give the edge to Disco since DS9 was much more of a slow burn.
Burnham is one of the few characters to like about DIS, the others being Culber, Lorca and the new Mudd (Roger Carmel is the superior version, though) -and I don't even like the show. But I don't have time to engage in the "DIS fanboys vs DIS haters" feud, nor do I want Apollo to have a heart attack upon reading all the reasons for why DIS is the worst Trek of all time, so I'll leave it at that here.
I'm gonna watch season 2, although my expectations aren't high. But maybe it gets better, just like TNG, ENY and VOY did. We'll see what happens.
I'm more curious about the new Picard show, though.
I can see where some of the Burnham annoying reputation comes from...she does have a tendency to deliver self-righteous monologues to superior officers and villains at dramatuc moments (Particularly Into the Forest I Go), but that's still the worst I can say about the character.
The show also has alot in common with other modern streaming shows, ie long-range storytelling, darker tone, moral ambiguity, character-based plot development, etc. At the end it also comes out of the darker ambiguity and demonstrates that Starfleet principles can be triumphant even in the face of the challanges the crew faced. The TV-MA stuff may be a little much, and I can't recommend the show to certain family members who would otherwise like it because of Ash's flashbacks.
Magic to Make the Sanest Men Go Mad is probably my favorite. Not only is it a time-travel episode (one of my favorite types of Treks regardless of series), but we get to see Mudd in his full power.
The Mirror stuff may have been fan service, but it was a great next step in exploring that universe from TOS to DS9 to ENT to the recent TNG graphic novel. They found a good way to get the crew up to speed with the audience. I also enjoyed the device of having the Emperor be an unknown figure...not only was it a great way to reintroduce Georgau, but in-universe it makes sense...Terran Starfleet doesn't deferentiate the emperors to hide from the civilian population how often coups occur.
The one thing that did make me roll my eyes was the terraforming of the planet in less than five minutes...and I'm sure Staments needs to answer for augmenting himself, but hopefully that will be explored in season two.
There is just no way to do a prequel without making the assumption that the tech is way ahead of what they dreamed up in 1960. Let face it, those of us who are using mobile devices on this forum are holding devices that are 10's (100's?) of times more powerful than the TNG/DS9 era PADD. Does Jake really have to replicate a new PADD every time he wants to start a new book?
This is my personal favorite piece of outdated technology to observe in Trek. The absolute best is when they show that someone has really been studying by putting a pile of PADDs on a table. I take genuine, unironic delight in this.
It's more efficient to upload 12 different subjects on 12 different tablets and go between tablets than to switch 12 different subjects on the same tablet.
Also, they both have a laptop on their desks.
It's like when companies are currently having multiple PC monitors showing different screens instead of dividing a single PC monitor screen.
This. I also can imagine that PADDs aren’t the do-everything devices like current tablets - less complexity leads to easier and cheaper construction. I think of them more like an e-reader than an iPad.