Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
The change is a whiplash and frankly, less believable because of how radically the character 'grows', unless you are comparing it to Saul of Tarses.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
If there's a defining quote of Deep Space Nine, it comes at the end of Season 2, in the two-part episode "The Maquis". I think it's probably the best line in the entire series universe when it comes to summing up the ethos of Trek. Sisko delivers it:
"On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints — just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!"
Starfleet isn't full of perfect people, but it is actually full of people trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. These are people motivated not by greed, not by disadvantage; merely people trying to better themselves and the rest of humanity (to borrow Picard's phrasing).
That's what Trek embodies: the idea that humanity and Earth can get to a point where those things have been eradicated, where humanity as a whole pursues noble ideals and its own betterment rather than selfish interest.
DS9 turned that on its head by mixing its idealistic crew into a far less perfect environment, one that would get progressively more difficult as the seasons went by, despite their efforts. It led to countless episodes - if we're focusing on Sisko as moral paragon, "For the Uniform" and especially "In the Pale Moonlight" are great examples of his failings in those areas. The latter of which in particular was an outstanding contrast between Federation ideals and the realities of warfare.
I don't recognize those ideals in Discovery. For example:
Burnham, a seasoned officer on the verge of her own command, takes a tiny little push to betray a) her loyalty to Starfleet b) her loyalty to Georgiou and c) her basic Federation commitment to taking chances in the name of peace rather than resorting to war at the slightest provocation
Landry, another seasoned officer and Starfleet commander, makes no attempt to study from or learn from the Tardigrade, shows no respect for sentient life, and gets stupidly killed for stupidly and blindly trying to kill it despite the fact that the fundamental mission of Starfleet is peaceful exploration
Most of all, and I mean most of all: the Federation-approved plan to end the (incredibly, barely explored) Klingon war is genocide, entrusted to a Terran who thinks so little of other sentient life that she literally eats them as food. Yeah, that checks out.
I also have to take exception to the whole 'real' thing.
Folks calling Discovery more 'real' for the above reasons is frankly insulting to the host of real people in this world who really do the right thing for the right reasons. The vast majority of first responders, active military, clergy who actually do their jobs and others. There are bad folks in those crowds, but they are the The folks who do go through trauma and are actually able to still do right.
It makes us happier with ourselves when we know we are looking for justifications for why we don't.
Yes we all fall short, but damn, it'd be nice if they tried a bit more.
And Sisko did fall short on more than one occasion, depending on how you view things. Most folks go to the Pale Moonlight, I go to the Javert incident.
Trek for some people had their heroes. The people that they strove to be and emulate. Look up Doohan and talks fan out of suicide. Those to inspire us to be greater than we are.
With an exception or two, there's not really any character in Discovery land that I'd even want to even be a coworker or voluntarily associated with.
You gave us two Burnham cadets, which I would like to use, but they are useless because they are not alien. I think they should have Vulcan, so they can be used every day, instead of occupying the vault.
Thank you.
You gave us two Burnham cadets, which I would like to use, but they are useless because they are not alien. I think they should have Vulcan, so they can be used every day, instead of occupying the vault.
Thank you.
One of them should have been a 3 star with high SCI/ENG that counts as an alien so I can vault Mendon in favor of a Cadet that can be used Sat & Sun.
PS. Dunno about Desert, but Prisoner Burnham CAN be used every day. She is eligible for Tuesday challenges.....
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
You'll get very few people to believe that bolded part. It simply isn't true, especially during the war. Watch an episode called 'in the pale moonlight' if you enjoy that kind of thing. I love that episode.
Saru is no different than Sisko in that regard. Your description of Burnham also sounds very much like Tom Paris. It's cool that Discovery is your favourite show, but none of this stuff is new to Star Trek. It's just new adventures from the same kind of crew that we have always seen in Star Trek and I'm happy about that.
For those annoyed by Discovery, give it time. The first season of all treks is their worst season then they get much better. Discovery does have some flaws and problems but it also has a lot of promise. All we are saying, is give Discovery a chance.
A crew in Discovery felt real until Mirror universe episode.
Then - Lorca isn't a PTSD war veteran with damaged eyes who is barely holding because of Discovery. Screw that - he is just a cartoonish villain from Mirror universe
Stamets's brain wasn't changed by mycelial network and he wasn't under a lot of stress - nah, that evil Stamets was implanting thoughts through the network in him.
Tyler isn't a prisoner with a severe case of PTSD because of torture. No, he is an undercover operative Voq. Nah, screw that, he is just Tyler with Voq's memories but no personality.
Michael Burnham - she is always right, she never gets injured, she could beat 12 Terran officers, Lorca, Kor and even when they blame her for starting the war she actually tried to prevent it, Klingons started the war.
Oh wait she also has PTSD.
For those annoyed by Discovery, give it time. The first season of all treks is their worst season then they get much better. Discovery does have some flaws and problems but it also has a lot of promise. All we are saying, is give Discovery a chance.
I'm guessing your not a TOS fan. They went the other way...
For those annoyed by Discovery, give it time. The first season of all treks is their worst season then they get much better. Discovery does have some flaws and problems but it also has a lot of promise. All we are saying, is give Discovery a chance.
I'm guessing your not a TOS fan. They went the other way...
TOS was more of an arc. It started a bit shakey, got better by the end of the first, peaked in the second, and fell on its face (generally) in the third
“Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” - Elim Garak
Cardassian wishlist: Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor
Getting back to the actual event...
Did anyone else notice the multiple grammar mistakes in the shuttle missions? I can recall the occasional goof, but this one had 3 or 4 before I stopped counting.
I also have to take exception to the whole 'real' thing.
Folks calling Discovery more 'real' for the above reasons is frankly insulting to the host of real people in this world who really do the right thing for the right reasons. The vast majority of first responders, active military, clergy who actually do their jobs and others. There are bad folks in those crowds, but they are the The folks who do go through trauma and are actually able to still do right.
It makes us happier with ourselves when we know we are looking for justifications for why we don't.
Yes we all fall short, but damn, it'd be nice if they tried a bit more.
And Sisko did fall short on more than one occasion, depending on how you view things. Most folks go to the Pale Moonlight, I go to the Javert incident.
Trek for some people had their heroes. The people that they strove to be and emulate. Look up Doohan and talks fan out of suicide. Those to inspire us to be greater than we are.
With an exception or two, there's not really any character in Discovery land that I'd even want to even be a coworker or voluntarily associated with.
Glad you can be so proud of being perfect. I haven't yet met anyone who has never made a mistake or always done the right thing. I think the mistakes and setbacks in my life have made me a stronger person and helped me become more compassionate towards others who may be facing difficult circumstances themselves. Sorry if I find redemption to be something inspiring and worth watching.
For those annoyed by Discovery, give it time. The first season of all treks is their worst season then they get much better. Discovery does have some flaws and problems but it also has a lot of promise. All we are saying, is give Discovery a chance.
I'm guessing your not a TOS fan. They went the other way...
TOS was more of an arc. It started a bit shakey, got better by the end of the first, peaked in the second, and fell on its face (generally) in the third
Bah! This is why I hate typing on mobiles. Now you've gone and quoted me and I can't edit that glaring typo.
I actually preferred S1 to S2 but we can all agree about S3. There were very, very few exceptions.
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
The change is a whiplash and frankly, less believable because of how radically the character 'grows', unless you are comparing it to Saul of Tarses.
The show wasn't a day by day summary of events on the Discovery. They made it clear they were going to tell a complete story in a a season from the outset. If you pay attention to the dialogue, it's made very clear that weeks and months pass between episodes that we are not privy to and aren't relevant to the story being told.
Getting back to the actual event...
Did anyone else notice the multiple grammar mistakes in the shuttle missions? I can recall the occasional goof, but this one had 3 or 4 before I stopped counting.
I did not notice. I will check. That kind of thing bothers my former English teacher sensibilities. A few typos and autocorrect mistakes in a post is common and understandable. Making those mistakes in a professional event is inexcusable. My 13 year old daughter was just asking me about earning more spending money. Perhaps she could proofread for DB?
Just to chime in about ENT, I'm among those who had become simply saturated with increasingly dissatisfying Trek altogether by then. I'd lost interest in VOY after its second season, only dropping in periodically to see if enough had changed for me to get into it (nope). I was underwhelmed by Insurrection and wholly disappointed by Nemesis.
I remember the night "Broken Bow" premiered. I had gone to a Chinese restaurant with my brother and they had it playing on a TV in the room where we were eating. I took casual note of a Klingon running through a cornfield. It felt surreal for the first time in so long to be so detached from Trek that I wasn't even bothering to stay home and tune into at least the pilot. I never bothered to watch a single episode during its four years. Not because I'd even heard anything bad about it; no one complained to me about the acting or the budget or any of the things cited as its key shortcomings. Rather, no one I knew even watched it at all, because they were as burnt out on Trek as I had become.
A couple years ago, I finally went back and streamed my way through the entire series. Turned out I actually kinda liked it. I have two strong complaints about it, though. One is how truly embarrassing it was to watch the frequent and entirely awkward attempts to infuse the show with sex, whether beaming Hoshi out of her uniform or the constant decontamination room rubdowns, etc. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch, in large part because it felt palpably uncomfortable and insulting to everyone involved in filming those scenes.
My other key complaint were the episodes that weren't about telling stories using Star Trek, but instead telling stories about Star Trek. For instance, the Augment three-parter, or that insipid two-parter positing the entirely convoluted attempt to reconcile Klingon makeup changes. "Regeneration" worked better, but it was still unnecessary and existed only to remind fans how much we loved First Contact.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed the ensemble and would gladly have kept watching more episodes about those characters. T'Pol grew a lot, but I also appreciated how being around her helped the others grow. That was different from what we'd seen before with Spock, Data, and Seven; they were all expected to learn to become human, but no one ever made any attempt to explore what it was like to become Vulcan or an android or a Borg. Archer, Tucker, and Sato to varying degrees, however, did come to better understand and even appreciate Vulcan ways. I liked that.
But above all, there was one thing I truly loved about ENT, and that was the kindness and generosity of Archer and his crew. Wherever they went, whoever they met, their first impulse was to find out if there was some way they could be helpful. Contrast that with VOY, where for seven years the constant refrain was, "We can't be helping all you poor people!" The Enterprise was still in the Alpha Quadrant, yes, but she was still farther away from Earth than any humans had ever been. They may as well have been in the Delta Quadrant for all the difficulty that parting with resources could have posed to them. Still, Archer never hesitated to open his hand and his door. He's still the single most consistently compassionate Starfleet captain I've seen, and I will always admire that about him.
Yes, he did some dubious and even appalling things in the third season. Those were dire circumstances, and I will at least give them credit for giving him an entire episode later to finally confront the guilt and shame he had stomached to get through those moments. He worked to resist becoming hardened by his experiences with the Xindi. In that respect, it was more of an earned kind of growth and tolerance than we saw of the others, for whom it was just written into the series bibles that they embraced everyone else by default.
I also have to take exception to the whole 'real' thing.
Folks calling Discovery more 'real' for the above reasons is frankly insulting to the host of real people in this world who really do the right thing for the right reasons. The vast majority of first responders, active military, clergy who actually do their jobs and others. There are bad folks in those crowds, but they are the The folks who do go through trauma and are actually able to still do right.
It makes us happier with ourselves when we know we are looking for justifications for why we don't.
Yes we all fall short, but damn, it'd be nice if they tried a bit more.
And Sisko did fall short on more than one occasion, depending on how you view things. Most folks go to the Pale Moonlight, I go to the Javert incident.
Trek for some people had their heroes. The people that they strove to be and emulate. Look up Doohan and talks fan out of suicide. Those to inspire us to be greater than we are.
With an exception or two, there's not really any character in Discovery land that I'd even want to even be a coworker or voluntarily associated with.
Glad you can be so proud of being perfect. I haven't yet met anyone who has never made a mistake or always done the right thing. I think the mistakes and setbacks in my life have made me a stronger person and helped me become more compassionate towards others who may be facing difficult circumstances themselves. Sorry if I find redemption to be something inspiring and worth watching.
Lol, the snark was nice on that one. You've sharpened your skills since you first showed up.
If you think Discovery is actually realistic redemption, wow.
Glad you're inspired. Glad you got something out of it.
I don't. And I think some of even the 'Redemption' has nothing to do with actually doing something right. Even "Redeemed" the actions and motivations of Burnham are questionable at best. Just like renting Easy Rider doesn't make you a Rebel, a cool speech and things turning out ok in the end doesn't justify many of the actions taken to get there.
I find Saul of Tarses and Anakin Skywalkers redemption more realistic and less shoehorned and that's saying a lot.
You'll note that I didn't claim to be perfect. I claimed that there are a lot better people out there that are breathing real people, but don't fit into your definition of 'real'. (Maybe I should be buying them velveteen jackets)
And yes, people screw up every day. But many many peoples screw ups are simply a stray bad thought. Not everyone commits actions that send them up the river, or result in unnecessary death. This constant idea that Discovery is 'real' because of their dysfunctional behavior, makes it seem like people like I listed above AREN'T REAL and DON'T EXIST. And I say that is an insult to them, and just as unrealistic a world view.
Pick up a Readers Digest and read the "Ordinary Heroes" section. There are people in the world that when they see the supermarket didn't charge them for an item they go back and pay. They wait for the light to change before crossing the street. When the fire is burning they charge back in, not to redeem themselves but because they are good people already. Not perfect. Good. When confronted with deadly force they do all in their power not to kill. (Many police and other first responders fall into this category despite actions of some bad apples). There are plenty of real people who don't need to be redeemed from unnecessary slaughter or exploitation. There are people who are Sisko, Picard, Janeway, and Kirk level heroes out there, who are real too.
Read Biographies of Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, hell I can list more if you want. Hell, Ghandi! Are they made of Velveteen?
Going over to Next Gen for a minute, looking at the psych test that Wesley had to take to try to enter the Academy. It feels like that test was put in place to screen out the Burnhams.
There's something key about Burnham's initial mutiny that I've been reflecting on lately that I haven't heard discussed much. Not bothering to spoiler any of this, because it's all just about the very first episode that aired on network TV. I don't go any farther than that, though I do talk about some TOS and ENT stuff. Whatever.
Mr. Spock told us that Vulcans had once been violent and contentious, but that the teachings of Surak had gotten them past all that, and the implication was that for centuries, they'd been some monolithic group of brainy, stoic zen masters. On the rare occasion that a Vulcan behaved differently, it was always attributed to some kind of infection or external factor. Healthy Vulcans all conformed to the same generic ways.
But then came ENT, which showed us that Vulcans as recently as the 22nd Century had still been contentious, outright arrogant, shady, and even petty. They weren't as enlightened as their descendants would have had us believe. It was a little jarring at first to have that stereotype busted, but the more I watched of ENT, the more I bought it. Pure logic--as Spock himself eventually came to see--was not a sufficient moral compass. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom...not the end." Sybok had been excommunicated for daring to reject Vulcan norms--which in itself is both logical and antithetical to the supposedly all-important doctrine of respecting "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". The all-inclusive Vulcans aren't all that tolerant after all.
So then we come to Burnham, who was raised on Vulcan, by Sarek. We've already seen what a number Sarek's high standards did to Spock. Burnham embraced Sarek in ways that Spock didn't, making her even more susceptible to Sarek's influence. It was Sarek who directed Burnham to take a hard line against the Klingons--because, logically, that had been demonstrated to be the "correct" course of action. That same Vulcan arrogance from the 22nd Century was clearly still alive and well within Sarek, and he passed it on to Burnham. Sarek himself would have made a preemptive strike had he been in command of the Shenzhou at that moment. It's no wonder his protege felt she was more enlightened than the human Captain Georgiou.
None of this is to say that Burnham was right, mind you. I'm not making excuses for her. But I do think it's important to place what she did in the proper context, and that context is an established, but often downplayed and overlooked, friction between Vulcans and humans in which the former have often believed themselves superior to the latter.
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
You'll get very few people to believe that bolded part. It simply isn't true, especially during the war. Watch an episode called 'in the pale moonlight' if you enjoy that kind of thing. I love that episode.
Saru is no different than Sisko in that regard. Your description of Burnham also sounds very much like Tom Paris. It's cool that Discovery is your favourite show, but none of this stuff is new to Star Trek. It's just new adventures from the same kind of crew that we have always seen in Star Trek and I'm happy about that.
This is a bit disingenuous, and @Nicole K is entirely right about the contrast between Disco Starfleet and the Starfleet of yesteryear. The conceit of TOS--and especially TNG--was that humanity had "evolved" to a point where our protagonists were pure. All the arguing on TOS was between Spock and Bones, because Spock was Vulcan and therefore had to be shown how the human way was the right way. Same with Worf on TNG, whose primitive Klingon values had to be educated in the ways of civilized humanity. But humans never had to be told to do the right thing, because it was inherent that we all knew what that was by default in the future.
Even the few other humans who were ever antagonists were clearly shown to have strayed from the path of righteousness--Starfleet captains who had become corrupted or deranged, or radicals who had rejected the ways of the Federation and had to be shown the error of their ways. Matt Decker was only an antagonist because of untreated PTSD and medical protocols we wouldn't even allow today. Richard Daystrom's M-5 computer wasn't malicious; it was simply hubris.
DS9 was created in large part because Rick Berman and Michael Piller saw that it had become almost impossible to tell interesting stories where none of our protagonists could ever be in conflict with one another unless acted on by some outside force like a spore or mind controlling alien. DS9 broke the mold, and rightly so, but let's not whitewash how simplistic, restrictive, and unrealistic that vaunted "Roddenberry vision" really was.
And yes, people screw up every day. But many many peoples screw ups are simply a stray bad thought. Not everyone commits actions that send them up the river, or result in unnecessary death. This constant idea that Discovery is 'real' because of their dysfunctional behavior, makes it seem like people like I listed above AREN'T REAL and DON'T EXIST. And I say that is an insult to them, and just as unrealistic a world view.
I love the either or false equivalence in your statement. Sure there are lots of great "heroes" as you put it, but I don't generally consider someone just doing their job heroic. I grew up in a military family and the fact of the mater is most people in the military are not spending their lives at grave risk being shot at. For every heroic solider facing that there are many more working in offices, doing logistics, science etc. And if they are officers they are more than compensated for it. When you factor in free housing, free healthcare for life if you serve 20 years, and what is basically a $2 million annuity around 45 when you retire and get a sweet contracting gig to go along with your retirement checks, I'm just not seeing anything particularly heroic about that. Meanwhile enlisted soldiers in combat units almost never make it to retirement and, are paid less. Joining an organization doesn't make anyone a hero by default. Doing something heroic makes you a hero.
I also think that seeing someone screw up and redeem themselves doesn't really detract from people that generally get it right. I do think it makes for a more interesting basis for a TV show. Redemption stories have been valued by virtually every culture for a long time for a reason.
Now I realize that I have probably just written the most unpopular post of all time, but it is actually what I happen to think and I'm not uncomfortable saying it.
Frankly, I don't like Discovery. I think the casting has been superb - I'm a fan of virtually every significant actor on the show - but the writing consistently fails to develop characters, who are tossed through betrayals and salvation and romance arcs seemingly solely for the convenience of its incoherent plot. The various alien races are generic; based on the pilot I thought we'd see Discovery do tremendous things in terms of exploring the Klingons but instead they've been generic space monsters.
Worst of all, Discovery has lost the basic moral compass that separates Trek from every other science fiction show out there. TNG and DS9 lived off the moral compass: TNG in idealizing it, DS9 in struggling to meet it under impossible circumstances, and whatever the flaws of VOY and ENT in execution, in aspiration they reflected those two shows in spirit. DIS is more Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galactica in tone and morality than Trek and to me that's a very basic betrayal of the franchise.
We were due for a new Trek, a revitalized Trek, but Discovery has yet to prove it can be that. I thought the S1 finale's heavy-handed speechifying was a clumsy step in the right direction, so I'll see what S2 brings before I write the show off entirely. If we look solely at S1 from other modern Trek series, they're all pretty weak, though for different reasons, so Disco deserves a bit of patience as it looks around to see if it actually has a soul.
* Exception to all of the above: Saru and the Kelpiens generally.
* Naturally this reflects my personal opinion and I don't begrudge people who actually like Discovery - in fact, I wish I shared their view because I *really* wanted to like this series. I've tried not to be overly negative about it on these boards out of respect to those people, but when I see 'why do people like garbage fires like Enterprise but hate an actual good show?' I get my nose out of joint.
I like that people are more real in Discovery. Starfleet isn't full of perfect people focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons all the time. I can relate to the themes of redemption, second chances, and growing over time into a better person that ran throughout this show. I find that much more real than Star Trek has ever been. People struggle with what it means to live up to the principles of the Federation, they just don't blindly believe them because it's accepted by everyone. In the end they still choose the hard right over the easy wrong, but it's nice to see some people struggle and fight to get to that point.
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
You'll get very few people to believe that bolded part. It simply isn't true, especially during the war. Watch an episode called 'in the pale moonlight' if you enjoy that kind of thing. I love that episode.
Saru is no different than Sisko in that regard. Your description of Burnham also sounds very much like Tom Paris. It's cool that Discovery is your favourite show, but none of this stuff is new to Star Trek. It's just new adventures from the same kind of crew that we have always seen in Star Trek and I'm happy about that.
This is a bit disingenuous, and @Nicole K is entirely right about the contrast between Disco Starfleet and the Starfleet of yesteryear. The conceit of TOS--and especially TNG--was that humanity had "evolved" to a point where our protagonists were pure. All the arguing on TOS was between Spock and Bones, because Spock was Vulcan and therefore had to be shown how the human way was the right way. Same with Worf on TNG, whose primitive Klingon values had to be educated in the ways of civilized humanity. But humans never had to be told to do the right thing, because it was inherent that we all knew what that was by default in the future.
Even the few other humans who were ever antagonists were clearly shown to have strayed from the path of righteousness--Starfleet captains who had become corrupted or deranged, or radicals who had rejected the ways of the Federation and had to be shown the error of their ways. Matt Decker was only an antagonist because of untreated PTSD and medical protocols we wouldn't even allow today. Richard Daystrom's M-5 computer wasn't malicious; it was simply hubris.
DS9 was created in large part because Rick Berman and Michael Piller saw that it had become almost impossible to tell interesting stories where none of our protagonists could ever be in conflict with one another unless acted on by some outside force like a spore or mind controlling alien. DS9 broke the mold, and rightly so, but let's not whitewash how simplistic, restrictive, and unrealistic that vaunted "Roddenberry vision" really was.
I'm sorry Travis but you're a bit off on your assessment. TOS never tried to show humanity, or our protagonists, as pure or perfectly enlightened. It tried to say we were getting there. Human antagonists and our heroes had their frailties and flaws and that drove the conflicts and drama just as much as extreme circumstances or alien influence.
TNG was when Roddenberry bought into the spin he'd built over the years and handcuffed the writers.
And yes, people screw up every day. But many many peoples screw ups are simply a stray bad thought. Not everyone commits actions that send them up the river, or result in unnecessary death. This constant idea that Discovery is 'real' because of their dysfunctional behavior, makes it seem like people like I listed above AREN'T REAL and DON'T EXIST. And I say that is an insult to them, and just as unrealistic a world view.
I love the either or false equivalence in your statement. Sure there are lots of great "heroes" as you put it, but I don't generally consider someone just doing their job heroic. I grew up in a military family and the fact of the mater is most people in the military are not spending their lives at grave risk being shot at. For every heroic solider facing that there are many more working in offices, doing logistics, science etc. And if they are officers they are more than compensated for it. When you factor in free housing, free healthcare for life if you serve 20 years, and what is basically a $2 million annuity around 45 when you retire and get a sweet contracting gig to go along with your retirement checks, I'm just not seeing anything particularly heroic about that. Meanwhile enlisted soldiers in combat units almost never make it to retirement and, are paid less. Joining an organization doesn't make anyone a hero by default. Doing something heroic makes you a hero.
I also think that seeing someone screw up and redeem themselves doesn't really detract from people that generally get it right. I do think it makes for a more interesting basis for a TV show. Redemption stories have been valued by virtually every culture for a long time for a reason.
Now I realize that I have probably just written the most unpopular post of all time, but it is actually what I happen to think and I'm not uncomfortable saying it.
You stated Disco is more 'real' because of it. That means those who aren't are thus less real. As you stated the ones in other Treks are less real because Disco is more real. Theres equivalency but nothing false to it.
Just because there are logistics folks out there does not detract from those who do well and go above and beyond and don't do so on some redemption journey. They do it because they are good people.
So while Disco may not take away from that, your statement clearly does as does your expressions of disdain for that element of prior Treks.
Just to chime in about ENT, I'm among those who had become simply saturated with increasingly dissatisfying Trek altogether by then. I'd lost interest in VOY after its second season, only dropping in periodically to see if enough had changed for me to get into it (nope). I was underwhelmed by Insurrection and wholly disappointed by Nemesis.
I remember the night "Broken Bow" premiered. I had gone to a Chinese restaurant with my brother and they had it playing on a TV in the room where we were eating. I took casual note of a Klingon running through a cornfield. It felt surreal for the first time in so long to be so detached from Trek that I wasn't even bothering to stay home and tune into at least the pilot. I never bothered to watch a single episode during its four years. Not because I'd even heard anything bad about it; no one complained to me about the acting or the budget or any of the things cited as its key shortcomings. Rather, no one I knew even watched it at all, because they were as burnt out on Trek as I had become.
A couple years ago, I finally went back and streamed my way through the entire series. Turned out I actually kinda liked it. I have two strong complaints about it, though. One is how truly embarrassing it was to watch the frequent and entirely awkward attempts to infuse the show with sex, whether beaming Hoshi out of her uniform or the constant decontamination room rubdowns, etc. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch, in large part because it felt palpably uncomfortable and insulting to everyone involved in filming those scenes.
My other key complaint were the episodes that weren't about telling stories using Star Trek, but instead telling stories about Star Trek. For instance, the Augment three-parter, or that insipid two-parter positing the entirely convoluted attempt to reconcile Klingon makeup changes. "Regeneration" worked better, but it was still unnecessary and existed only to remind fans how much we loved First Contact.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed the ensemble and would gladly have kept watching more episodes about those characters. T'Pol grew a lot, but I also appreciated how being around her helped the others grow. That was different from what we'd seen before with Spock, Data, and Seven; they were all expected to learn to become human, but no one ever made any attempt to explore what it was like to become Vulcan or an android or a Borg. Archer, Tucker, and Sato to varying degrees, however, did come to better understand and even appreciate Vulcan ways. I liked that.
But above all, there was one thing I truly loved about ENT, and that was the kindness and generosity of Archer and his crew. Wherever they went, whoever they met, their first impulse was to find out if there was some way they could be helpful. Contrast that with VOY, where for seven years the constant refrain was, "We can't be helping all you poor people!" The Enterprise was still in the Alpha Quadrant, yes, but she was still farther away from Earth than any humans had ever been. They may as well have been in the Delta Quadrant for all the difficulty that parting with resources could have posed to them. Still, Archer never hesitated to open his hand and his door. He's still the single most consistently compassionate Starfleet captain I've seen, and I will always admire that about him.
Yes, he did some dubious and even appalling things in the third season. Those were dire circumstances, and I will at least give them credit for giving him an entire episode later to finally confront the guilt and shame he had stomached to get through those moments. He worked to resist becoming hardened by his experiences with the Xindi. In that respect, it was more of an earned kind of growth and tolerance than we saw of the others, for whom it was just written into the series bibles that they embraced everyone else by default.
Actually I can appreciate that perspective, Janeway spent most of the first two seasons trying to make sure the Kazon and Vidiians didn't take tech and/or body parts from the ship and crew to further their fairly nasty plans. (The Kazon clearly would have enslaved or destroyed the Ocampa, and the Vidiians would have ramped up organ harvesting with new federation devices they would have weaponized.) But Janeway did show compassion, even if she did not share tech. There are episodes involving responding to distress calls and a very touching one in in which the Captain teaches Seven about 'random acts of kindness'. (Which I believe is the only time I can find that phrase listed in Trek Canon.)
She wasn't cuddly, though. Archer was much more willing to be compassionate. And lack of enjoyment with Enterprise has nothing to do with that quality. i find it endearing. I also find Bakula very wanting in the ability to express. I used to think it was just because it wasn't quantum leap until he appeared on Chuck and did Men of a Certain Age (with Andre Braugher, a personal favorite from Homicide Life in the Street). And man I almost stopped watching Chuck. And I loved that show. (I only later found out how much Robert Duncan McNeil was involved.) The only thing I can compare this to is footage I've seen of Geneviève Bujold. I think if there had be a more charismatic actor in the characters spot it might have gotten me over the hump where I could honestly say I'd ever try watching it again. I've tried. After the third try I shredded all the disks and burned the boxes.
I had actually had the opposite reaction to Broken Bow. I thought (and still do) thing that other that decontamination scenes (the bane of season 1 ent) the premier was fairly enjoyable. It did feel like a rerun of encounter at farpoint at times, though with Soval and the Vulcans being in the Q role. (feeling like a disingenuous retooling of Vulcans, though I know you feel this was a natural reveal and progression).
I also find Bakula very wanting in the ability to express. I used to think it was just because it wasn't quantum leap until he appeared on Chuck and did Men of a Certain Age (with Andre Braugher, a personal favorite from Homicide Life in the Street). And man I almost stopped watching Chuck. And I loved that show.
I realize I'm taking us even farther down the off-topic rabbit hole here, but I feel compelled to voice my personal view that Bakula as Stephen Bartowski was *perfection*. It took me quite a while to appreciate him as Archer, but as Chuck's dad he just perfectly combined the sort of crazy/offbeat/genius father we'd been expecting with the understated intelligence and caginess of Orion.
Just to chime in about ENT, I'm among those who had become simply saturated with increasingly dissatisfying Trek altogether by then. I'd lost interest in VOY after its second season, only dropping in periodically to see if enough had changed for me to get into it (nope). I was underwhelmed by Insurrection and wholly disappointed by Nemesis.
I remember the night "Broken Bow" premiered. I had gone to a Chinese restaurant with my brother and they had it playing on a TV in the room where we were eating. I took casual note of a Klingon running through a cornfield. It felt surreal for the first time in so long to be so detached from Trek that I wasn't even bothering to stay home and tune into at least the pilot. I never bothered to watch a single episode during its four years. Not because I'd even heard anything bad about it; no one complained to me about the acting or the budget or any of the things cited as its key shortcomings. Rather, no one I knew even watched it at all, because they were as burnt out on Trek as I had become.
A couple years ago, I finally went back and streamed my way through the entire series. Turned out I actually kinda liked it. I have two strong complaints about it, though. One is how truly embarrassing it was to watch the frequent and entirely awkward attempts to infuse the show with sex, whether beaming Hoshi out of her uniform or the constant decontamination room rubdowns, etc. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch, in large part because it felt palpably uncomfortable and insulting to everyone involved in filming those scenes.
My other key complaint were the episodes that weren't about telling stories using Star Trek, but instead telling stories about Star Trek. For instance, the Augment three-parter, or that insipid two-parter positing the entirely convoluted attempt to reconcile Klingon makeup changes. "Regeneration" worked better, but it was still unnecessary and existed only to remind fans how much we loved First Contact.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed the ensemble and would gladly have kept watching more episodes about those characters. T'Pol grew a lot, but I also appreciated how being around her helped the others grow. That was different from what we'd seen before with Spock, Data, and Seven; they were all expected to learn to become human, but no one ever made any attempt to explore what it was like to become Vulcan or an android or a Borg. Archer, Tucker, and Sato to varying degrees, however, did come to better understand and even appreciate Vulcan ways. I liked that.
But above all, there was one thing I truly loved about ENT, and that was the kindness and generosity of Archer and his crew. Wherever they went, whoever they met, their first impulse was to find out if there was some way they could be helpful. Contrast that with VOY, where for seven years the constant refrain was, "We can't be helping all you poor people!" The Enterprise was still in the Alpha Quadrant, yes, but she was still farther away from Earth than any humans had ever been. They may as well have been in the Delta Quadrant for all the difficulty that parting with resources could have posed to them. Still, Archer never hesitated to open his hand and his door. He's still the single most consistently compassionate Starfleet captain I've seen, and I will always admire that about him.
Yes, he did some dubious and even appalling things in the third season. Those were dire circumstances, and I will at least give them credit for giving him an entire episode later to finally confront the guilt and shame he had stomached to get through those moments. He worked to resist becoming hardened by his experiences with the Xindi. In that respect, it was more of an earned kind of growth and tolerance than we saw of the others, for whom it was just written into the series bibles that they embraced everyone else by default.
Actually I can appreciate that perspective, Janeway spent most of the first two seasons trying to make sure the Kazon and Vidiians didn't take tech and/or body parts from the ship and crew to further their fairly nasty plans. (The Kazon clearly would have enslaved or destroyed the Ocampa, and the Vidiians would have ramped up organ harvesting with new federation devices they would have weaponized.) But Janeway did show compassion, even if she did not share tech. There are episodes involving responding to distress calls and a very touching one in in which the Captain teaches Seven about 'random acts of kindness'. (Which I believe is the only time I can find that phrase listed in Trek Canon.)
Withholding from the Kazon and Vidiians was the right choice for Captain Janeway to make in those situations. But there were other instances throughout the series where it wasn't as obviously dangerous and the Voyager crew still took the attitude that there wasn't anything all those poor Delta Quadrant people could possibly have had to offer that would have been worth an exchange. In particular, I remember one scene where Neelix made a truly cringeworthy defense about how if they helped these poor people, they'd be besieged by all the other poor people in the Quadrant. There was something really off-putting about the whole thing.
She wasn't cuddly, though. Archer was much more willing to be compassionate. And lack of enjoyment with Enterprise has nothing to do with that quality. i find it endearing. I also find Bakula very wanting in the ability to express. I used to think it was just because it wasn't quantum leap until he appeared on Chuck and did Men of a Certain Age (with Andre Braugher, a personal favorite from Homicide Life in the Street). And man I almost stopped watching Chuck. And I loved that show. (I only later found out how much Robert Duncan McNeil was involved.) The only thing I can compare this to is footage I've seen of Geneviève Bujold. I think if there had be a more charismatic actor in the characters spot it might have gotten me over the hump where I could honestly say I'd ever try watching it again. I've tried. After the third try I shredded all the disks and burned the boxes.
I had actually had the opposite reaction to Broken Bow. I thought (and still do) thing that other that decontamination scenes (the bane of season 1 ent) the premier was fairly enjoyable. It did feel like a rerun of encounter at farpoint at times, though with Soval and the Vulcans being in the Q role. (feeling like a disingenuous retooling of Vulcans, though I know you feel this was a natural reveal and progression).
I don't even care about ENT or Disco now. I just want to talk about how amazing Andre Braugher was on Homicide and how brilliant that show was. The fact he didn't have an entire shelf of Emmy's invalidates the entire awards system.
Comments
Did you not watch DS9? You described that series far better than you described Discovery.
Not so much. I did watch DS9 and have to disagree. The lead, Sisko, was the moral compass of the show and very much almost always did what was right with little hesitancy. There were others who didn't embrace the Starfleet Way, but the Starfleet crew were all pretty much doing what they were supposed to most of the time without much internal struggle/questioning of basic principles. Don't get me wrong DS9 is my favorite behind Discovery. But this show had Burnham completely change from who she was at the first episode and at her lowest to the last where she's earned back her respect, grown into a person who is finally comfortable in her own skin, and justified her place in the crew. It was very well done and I enjoyed watching it play out.
The change is a whiplash and frankly, less believable because of how radically the character 'grows', unless you are comparing it to Saul of Tarses.
If there's a defining quote of Deep Space Nine, it comes at the end of Season 2, in the two-part episode "The Maquis". I think it's probably the best line in the entire series universe when it comes to summing up the ethos of Trek. Sisko delivers it:
"On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints — just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!"
Starfleet isn't full of perfect people, but it is actually full of people trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. These are people motivated not by greed, not by disadvantage; merely people trying to better themselves and the rest of humanity (to borrow Picard's phrasing).
That's what Trek embodies: the idea that humanity and Earth can get to a point where those things have been eradicated, where humanity as a whole pursues noble ideals and its own betterment rather than selfish interest.
DS9 turned that on its head by mixing its idealistic crew into a far less perfect environment, one that would get progressively more difficult as the seasons went by, despite their efforts. It led to countless episodes - if we're focusing on Sisko as moral paragon, "For the Uniform" and especially "In the Pale Moonlight" are great examples of his failings in those areas. The latter of which in particular was an outstanding contrast between Federation ideals and the realities of warfare.
I don't recognize those ideals in Discovery. For example:
Folks calling Discovery more 'real' for the above reasons is frankly insulting to the host of real people in this world who really do the right thing for the right reasons. The vast majority of first responders, active military, clergy who actually do their jobs and others. There are bad folks in those crowds, but they are the The folks who do go through trauma and are actually able to still do right.
It makes us happier with ourselves when we know we are looking for justifications for why we don't.
Yes we all fall short, but damn, it'd be nice if they tried a bit more.
And Sisko did fall short on more than one occasion, depending on how you view things. Most folks go to the Pale Moonlight, I go to the Javert incident.
Trek for some people had their heroes. The people that they strove to be and emulate. Look up Doohan and talks fan out of suicide. Those to inspire us to be greater than we are.
With an exception or two, there's not really any character in Discovery land that I'd even want to even be a coworker or voluntarily associated with.
Thank you.
One of them should have been a 3 star with high SCI/ENG that counts as an alien so I can vault Mendon in favor of a Cadet that can be used Sat & Sun.
PS. Dunno about Desert, but Prisoner Burnham CAN be used every day. She is eligible for Tuesday challenges.....
You'll get very few people to believe that bolded part. It simply isn't true, especially during the war. Watch an episode called 'in the pale moonlight' if you enjoy that kind of thing. I love that episode.
Saru is no different than Sisko in that regard. Your description of Burnham also sounds very much like Tom Paris. It's cool that Discovery is your favourite show, but none of this stuff is new to Star Trek. It's just new adventures from the same kind of crew that we have always seen in Star Trek and I'm happy about that.
Then - Lorca isn't a PTSD war veteran with damaged eyes who is barely holding because of Discovery. Screw that - he is just a cartoonish villain from Mirror universe
Stamets's brain wasn't changed by mycelial network and he wasn't under a lot of stress - nah, that evil Stamets was implanting thoughts through the network in him.
Tyler isn't a prisoner with a severe case of PTSD because of torture. No, he is an undercover operative Voq. Nah, screw that, he is just Tyler with Voq's memories but no personality.
Michael Burnham - she is always right, she never gets injured, she could beat 12 Terran officers, Lorca, Kor and even when they blame her for starting the war she actually tried to prevent it, Klingons started the war.
Oh wait she also has PTSD.
That whole show should be called Star Trek PTSD.
I'm guessing your not a TOS fan. They went the other way...
TOS was more of an arc. It started a bit shakey, got better by the end of the first, peaked in the second, and fell on its face (generally) in the third
Cardassian wishlist:
Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor
Did anyone else notice the multiple grammar mistakes in the shuttle missions? I can recall the occasional goof, but this one had 3 or 4 before I stopped counting.
Glad you can be so proud of being perfect. I haven't yet met anyone who has never made a mistake or always done the right thing. I think the mistakes and setbacks in my life have made me a stronger person and helped me become more compassionate towards others who may be facing difficult circumstances themselves. Sorry if I find redemption to be something inspiring and worth watching.
Bah! This is why I hate typing on mobiles. Now you've gone and quoted me and I can't edit that glaring typo.
I actually preferred S1 to S2 but we can all agree about S3. There were very, very few exceptions.
The show wasn't a day by day summary of events on the Discovery. They made it clear they were going to tell a complete story in a a season from the outset. If you pay attention to the dialogue, it's made very clear that weeks and months pass between episodes that we are not privy to and aren't relevant to the story being told.
I did not notice. I will check. That kind of thing bothers my former English teacher sensibilities. A few typos and autocorrect mistakes in a post is common and understandable. Making those mistakes in a professional event is inexcusable. My 13 year old daughter was just asking me about earning more spending money. Perhaps she could proofread for DB?
I remember the night "Broken Bow" premiered. I had gone to a Chinese restaurant with my brother and they had it playing on a TV in the room where we were eating. I took casual note of a Klingon running through a cornfield. It felt surreal for the first time in so long to be so detached from Trek that I wasn't even bothering to stay home and tune into at least the pilot. I never bothered to watch a single episode during its four years. Not because I'd even heard anything bad about it; no one complained to me about the acting or the budget or any of the things cited as its key shortcomings. Rather, no one I knew even watched it at all, because they were as burnt out on Trek as I had become.
A couple years ago, I finally went back and streamed my way through the entire series. Turned out I actually kinda liked it. I have two strong complaints about it, though. One is how truly embarrassing it was to watch the frequent and entirely awkward attempts to infuse the show with sex, whether beaming Hoshi out of her uniform or the constant decontamination room rubdowns, etc. It was pretty uncomfortable to watch, in large part because it felt palpably uncomfortable and insulting to everyone involved in filming those scenes.
My other key complaint were the episodes that weren't about telling stories using Star Trek, but instead telling stories about Star Trek. For instance, the Augment three-parter, or that insipid two-parter positing the entirely convoluted attempt to reconcile Klingon makeup changes. "Regeneration" worked better, but it was still unnecessary and existed only to remind fans how much we loved First Contact.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed the ensemble and would gladly have kept watching more episodes about those characters. T'Pol grew a lot, but I also appreciated how being around her helped the others grow. That was different from what we'd seen before with Spock, Data, and Seven; they were all expected to learn to become human, but no one ever made any attempt to explore what it was like to become Vulcan or an android or a Borg. Archer, Tucker, and Sato to varying degrees, however, did come to better understand and even appreciate Vulcan ways. I liked that.
But above all, there was one thing I truly loved about ENT, and that was the kindness and generosity of Archer and his crew. Wherever they went, whoever they met, their first impulse was to find out if there was some way they could be helpful. Contrast that with VOY, where for seven years the constant refrain was, "We can't be helping all you poor people!" The Enterprise was still in the Alpha Quadrant, yes, but she was still farther away from Earth than any humans had ever been. They may as well have been in the Delta Quadrant for all the difficulty that parting with resources could have posed to them. Still, Archer never hesitated to open his hand and his door. He's still the single most consistently compassionate Starfleet captain I've seen, and I will always admire that about him.
Yes, he did some dubious and even appalling things in the third season. Those were dire circumstances, and I will at least give them credit for giving him an entire episode later to finally confront the guilt and shame he had stomached to get through those moments. He worked to resist becoming hardened by his experiences with the Xindi. In that respect, it was more of an earned kind of growth and tolerance than we saw of the others, for whom it was just written into the series bibles that they embraced everyone else by default.
Lol, the snark was nice on that one. You've sharpened your skills since you first showed up.
If you think Discovery is actually realistic redemption, wow.
Glad you're inspired. Glad you got something out of it.
I don't. And I think some of even the 'Redemption' has nothing to do with actually doing something right. Even "Redeemed" the actions and motivations of Burnham are questionable at best. Just like renting Easy Rider doesn't make you a Rebel, a cool speech and things turning out ok in the end doesn't justify many of the actions taken to get there.
I find Saul of Tarses and Anakin Skywalkers redemption more realistic and less shoehorned and that's saying a lot.
You'll note that I didn't claim to be perfect. I claimed that there are a lot better people out there that are breathing real people, but don't fit into your definition of 'real'. (Maybe I should be buying them velveteen jackets)
And yes, people screw up every day. But many many peoples screw ups are simply a stray bad thought. Not everyone commits actions that send them up the river, or result in unnecessary death. This constant idea that Discovery is 'real' because of their dysfunctional behavior, makes it seem like people like I listed above AREN'T REAL and DON'T EXIST. And I say that is an insult to them, and just as unrealistic a world view.
Pick up a Readers Digest and read the "Ordinary Heroes" section. There are people in the world that when they see the supermarket didn't charge them for an item they go back and pay. They wait for the light to change before crossing the street. When the fire is burning they charge back in, not to redeem themselves but because they are good people already. Not perfect. Good. When confronted with deadly force they do all in their power not to kill. (Many police and other first responders fall into this category despite actions of some bad apples). There are plenty of real people who don't need to be redeemed from unnecessary slaughter or exploitation. There are people who are Sisko, Picard, Janeway, and Kirk level heroes out there, who are real too.
Read Biographies of Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, hell I can list more if you want. Hell, Ghandi! Are they made of Velveteen?
Going over to Next Gen for a minute, looking at the psych test that Wesley had to take to try to enter the Academy. It feels like that test was put in place to screen out the Burnhams.
Well said.
Mr. Spock told us that Vulcans had once been violent and contentious, but that the teachings of Surak had gotten them past all that, and the implication was that for centuries, they'd been some monolithic group of brainy, stoic zen masters. On the rare occasion that a Vulcan behaved differently, it was always attributed to some kind of infection or external factor. Healthy Vulcans all conformed to the same generic ways.
But then came ENT, which showed us that Vulcans as recently as the 22nd Century had still been contentious, outright arrogant, shady, and even petty. They weren't as enlightened as their descendants would have had us believe. It was a little jarring at first to have that stereotype busted, but the more I watched of ENT, the more I bought it. Pure logic--as Spock himself eventually came to see--was not a sufficient moral compass. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom...not the end." Sybok had been excommunicated for daring to reject Vulcan norms--which in itself is both logical and antithetical to the supposedly all-important doctrine of respecting "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". The all-inclusive Vulcans aren't all that tolerant after all.
So then we come to Burnham, who was raised on Vulcan, by Sarek. We've already seen what a number Sarek's high standards did to Spock. Burnham embraced Sarek in ways that Spock didn't, making her even more susceptible to Sarek's influence. It was Sarek who directed Burnham to take a hard line against the Klingons--because, logically, that had been demonstrated to be the "correct" course of action. That same Vulcan arrogance from the 22nd Century was clearly still alive and well within Sarek, and he passed it on to Burnham. Sarek himself would have made a preemptive strike had he been in command of the Shenzhou at that moment. It's no wonder his protege felt she was more enlightened than the human Captain Georgiou.
None of this is to say that Burnham was right, mind you. I'm not making excuses for her. But I do think it's important to place what she did in the proper context, and that context is an established, but often downplayed and overlooked, friction between Vulcans and humans in which the former have often believed themselves superior to the latter.
This is a bit disingenuous, and @Nicole K is entirely right about the contrast between Disco Starfleet and the Starfleet of yesteryear. The conceit of TOS--and especially TNG--was that humanity had "evolved" to a point where our protagonists were pure. All the arguing on TOS was between Spock and Bones, because Spock was Vulcan and therefore had to be shown how the human way was the right way. Same with Worf on TNG, whose primitive Klingon values had to be educated in the ways of civilized humanity. But humans never had to be told to do the right thing, because it was inherent that we all knew what that was by default in the future.
Even the few other humans who were ever antagonists were clearly shown to have strayed from the path of righteousness--Starfleet captains who had become corrupted or deranged, or radicals who had rejected the ways of the Federation and had to be shown the error of their ways. Matt Decker was only an antagonist because of untreated PTSD and medical protocols we wouldn't even allow today. Richard Daystrom's M-5 computer wasn't malicious; it was simply hubris.
DS9 was created in large part because Rick Berman and Michael Piller saw that it had become almost impossible to tell interesting stories where none of our protagonists could ever be in conflict with one another unless acted on by some outside force like a spore or mind controlling alien. DS9 broke the mold, and rightly so, but let's not whitewash how simplistic, restrictive, and unrealistic that vaunted "Roddenberry vision" really was.
I love the either or false equivalence in your statement. Sure there are lots of great "heroes" as you put it, but I don't generally consider someone just doing their job heroic. I grew up in a military family and the fact of the mater is most people in the military are not spending their lives at grave risk being shot at. For every heroic solider facing that there are many more working in offices, doing logistics, science etc. And if they are officers they are more than compensated for it. When you factor in free housing, free healthcare for life if you serve 20 years, and what is basically a $2 million annuity around 45 when you retire and get a sweet contracting gig to go along with your retirement checks, I'm just not seeing anything particularly heroic about that. Meanwhile enlisted soldiers in combat units almost never make it to retirement and, are paid less. Joining an organization doesn't make anyone a hero by default. Doing something heroic makes you a hero.
I also think that seeing someone screw up and redeem themselves doesn't really detract from people that generally get it right. I do think it makes for a more interesting basis for a TV show. Redemption stories have been valued by virtually every culture for a long time for a reason.
Now I realize that I have probably just written the most unpopular post of all time, but it is actually what I happen to think and I'm not uncomfortable saying it.
I'm sorry Travis but you're a bit off on your assessment. TOS never tried to show humanity, or our protagonists, as pure or perfectly enlightened. It tried to say we were getting there. Human antagonists and our heroes had their frailties and flaws and that drove the conflicts and drama just as much as extreme circumstances or alien influence.
TNG was when Roddenberry bought into the spin he'd built over the years and handcuffed the writers.
You stated Disco is more 'real' because of it. That means those who aren't are thus less real. As you stated the ones in other Treks are less real because Disco is more real. Theres equivalency but nothing false to it.
Just because there are logistics folks out there does not detract from those who do well and go above and beyond and don't do so on some redemption journey. They do it because they are good people.
So while Disco may not take away from that, your statement clearly does as does your expressions of disdain for that element of prior Treks.
Actually I can appreciate that perspective, Janeway spent most of the first two seasons trying to make sure the Kazon and Vidiians didn't take tech and/or body parts from the ship and crew to further their fairly nasty plans. (The Kazon clearly would have enslaved or destroyed the Ocampa, and the Vidiians would have ramped up organ harvesting with new federation devices they would have weaponized.) But Janeway did show compassion, even if she did not share tech. There are episodes involving responding to distress calls and a very touching one in in which the Captain teaches Seven about 'random acts of kindness'. (Which I believe is the only time I can find that phrase listed in Trek Canon.)
She wasn't cuddly, though. Archer was much more willing to be compassionate. And lack of enjoyment with Enterprise has nothing to do with that quality. i find it endearing. I also find Bakula very wanting in the ability to express. I used to think it was just because it wasn't quantum leap until he appeared on Chuck and did Men of a Certain Age (with Andre Braugher, a personal favorite from Homicide Life in the Street). And man I almost stopped watching Chuck. And I loved that show. (I only later found out how much Robert Duncan McNeil was involved.) The only thing I can compare this to is footage I've seen of Geneviève Bujold. I think if there had be a more charismatic actor in the characters spot it might have gotten me over the hump where I could honestly say I'd ever try watching it again. I've tried. After the third try I shredded all the disks and burned the boxes.
I had actually had the opposite reaction to Broken Bow. I thought (and still do) thing that other that decontamination scenes (the bane of season 1 ent) the premier was fairly enjoyable. It did feel like a rerun of encounter at farpoint at times, though with Soval and the Vulcans being in the Q role. (feeling like a disingenuous retooling of Vulcans, though I know you feel this was a natural reveal and progression).
I realize I'm taking us even farther down the off-topic rabbit hole here, but I feel compelled to voice my personal view that Bakula as Stephen Bartowski was *perfection*. It took me quite a while to appreciate him as Archer, but as Chuck's dad he just perfectly combined the sort of crazy/offbeat/genius father we'd been expecting with the understated intelligence and caginess of Orion.
Aces, Charles. Aces.