Page 4 of 5

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 17. Oct 20, 12:05
by Ketraar
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 17. Oct 20, 05:03
oh come on. you have to be exaggerating. Maybe your expectations are astronomically high? But the first episode did exactly what it was supposed to do, set the state for the rest of the season.
I'm not exaggerating and also have no expectations, I do however have "demands" to like a show. For example it has to have logic in it, it need to adhere to its own rules and not bounce back and forth as they run out of ideas and another rather important thing is charisma, or chemistry if you like, so that one can have connection to the characters, they are selling this as a drama scifi show but they forgot to make people care. If this is too much to ask then sure its my bad, but considering the quality of shows we had its sad that STD cant get inspiration from those, instead they keep going for the eye candy and hope that it being called Star Trek would be enough, sotty but it isnt.
I didn't find Burnham's role annoying. I don't really understand your comment there. She was raised on Vulcan, by Spock's parents no less. And she was still with the Vulcans up until she was appointed to the Shenzhou. Why would you be surprised if the character exhibits Vulcan traits from time to time?
You misunderstood or I was not clear, she has not been acting as a Vulcan since season 1 episode 2, this is what I'm saying, no traces of logic or rational behaviour, the writers wanted the marketable lineage (same stupid shit they did with Rey) but then wanted all the overacting drama and cheesy outburst that they can cram in. 5 min into the episode this was again happening and she was ALONE!!!!! talking to a robot.

Just for the sake of it I would wager a large family pizza worth that if they had this episode without Burnam at all it would have been much better, they could have had use live in this new "universe" and have follow that Book dude around showing us the inner workings it would have made so much more sense instead of having a rather contrived plot point about WALKING for a gazillion miles to a place where magically they have all the solutions for this rather very specific problem, including plot armour. At one point, not quite 20min in, they made this wide shot and I wonder how the mother of all teleportation devices did they get here?

And this is the problem, they care about looks and very little about content, imho. So yes it was not atrocious or anything, it was just bland and boring and if demanding more from a show is "having expectations" then sure maybe I'm guilty of that.

MFG

Ketraar

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 17. Oct 20, 16:08
by Vertigo 7
Ketraar wrote:
Sat, 17. Oct 20, 12:05
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 17. Oct 20, 05:03
oh come on. you have to be exaggerating. Maybe your expectations are astronomically high? But the first episode did exactly what it was supposed to do, set the state for the rest of the season.
I'm not exaggerating and also have no expectations, I do however have "demands" to like a show. For example it has to have logic in it, it need to adhere to its own rules and not bounce back and forth as they run out of ideas and another rather important thing is charisma, or chemistry if you like, so that one can have connection to the characters, they are selling this as a drama scifi show but they forgot to make people care. If this is too much to ask then sure its my bad, but considering the quality of shows we had its sad that STD cant get inspiration from those, instead they keep going for the eye candy and hope that it being called Star Trek would be enough, sotty but it isnt.
I didn't find Burnham's role annoying. I don't really understand your comment there. She was raised on Vulcan, by Spock's parents no less. And she was still with the Vulcans up until she was appointed to the Shenzhou. Why would you be surprised if the character exhibits Vulcan traits from time to time?
You misunderstood or I was not clear, she has not been acting as a Vulcan since season 1 episode 2, this is what I'm saying, no traces of logic or rational behaviour, the writers wanted the marketable lineage (same stupid shit they did with Rey) but then wanted all the overacting drama and cheesy outburst that they can cram in. 5 min into the episode this was again happening and she was ALONE!!!!! talking to a robot.

Just for the sake of it I would wager a large family pizza worth that if they had this episode without Burnam at all it would have been much better, they could have had use live in this new "universe" and have follow that Book dude around showing us the inner workings it would have made so much more sense instead of having a rather contrived plot point about WALKING for a gazillion miles to a place where magically they have all the solutions for this rather very specific problem, including plot armour. At one point, not quite 20min in, they made this wide shot and I wonder how the mother of all teleportation devices did they get here?

And this is the problem, they care about looks and very little about content, imho. So yes it was not atrocious or anything, it was just bland and boring and if demanding more from a show is "having expectations" then sure maybe I'm guilty of that.

MFG

Ketraar
I don't see how this episode could not have centered around Burnham.
Spoiler
Show
I mean, she literally jumped through time to save all sentient life in the galaxy and found herself stranded but her mission succeeded. Now she had to figure out what's going on in this future, find her crew, and oh, there's no Federation anymore. and oh, dilithium blew up in everyone's face 110 years prior to her arrival. Those were the two big plot openings this episode revealed. If it had centered around Book w/o Burnham, sure we may have picked up on there not being a Federation. But the why, the "burn", probably wouldn't have been mentioned as that is just fact of life for the people in this time. Book even mentioned that himself, it happened long before he was born and his attitude towards it is just that of acceptance and nothing on the why or how of it. It had to be Burnham to ask those questions to set the stage for what's to come.
As far as Burnham not acting like a Vulcan, I don't mean to be snarky but I have to ask, did you see the rest of the series? Just before the end of season 2, Burnham was literally helping Spock put his mind back together, to help him return to logic. Yes, she gets emotional. She's human. She doesn't actively repress her emotions and Sarek even counseled her against doing so. But those Vulcan traits have shown throughout the series, with her budding relationship with Tyler/Voq, to her initial interactions with Tilly. If anything, her relationships with the Discovery crew have helped her to act more human. But just because she doesn't say "live long and prosper" every episode, that doesn't mean her actions don't have a Vulcan influence to them.
Spoiler
Show
Her fight with Book was her using Vulcan martial arts.
I'm just sayin =p

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 12:18
by Ketraar
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 17. Oct 20, 16:08
I don't see how this episode could not have centered around Burnham.
Why not? They are basically rebooting the Series, why then not start from scratch? Establish the world in more dtail so that when they arrive we are not as lost as we are now.

But that was just a suggestion, I dont mind them centering it on Burnham, I mind they skimming over information, spending lots of time on idiotic and pointless details that add nothing to the story or characters. All the important things we got to know were TOLD to us, but these writers never grasped the notion of show dont tell, so no surprise there. In addition, and here is my main beef with it (also a long running issue in this series), characters are not consistent at all.
Spoiler
Show
How long do you recon took Burnham to walk from where she crashed to Book's ship? When we first see the smoke from the crashed ship, its flatland rather long way off. Then after she tells herself to walk (that was cringe worthy more than once) we cut to a scenery with the smoke on the left near a lake and suddenly high rise mountains, so either those teleported in or she was so far away that they were no visible. How far do you think you have to be to not see mountaintops on the horizon? After the title screen we arrive at the crash site and for some reason this dude that is hiding something only now decided to activate cloak, that the lake is now surrounded by some hills I wont even mention, I gave up on consistent landscape 5 min go.

Then this dude attacks some random person for no reason (failing too which is even more stupid), instead of warning or make a threat from a vantage point, considering the defensive stance. No the writer just wanted to force conflict for no reason, because they want to get somewhere. Did I mention the cringe line "no I will count"? That was painful...

So I'll skip a bunch of other nonsense like suddenly being friends and letting her in the ship and all that, including that she immediately understands the console without any explanation, etc etc. I'll just ask again, how long do you think it took for them to WALK to that rather huge city, in total how much time has passed now? Do you think thay had to sleep or eat? Also Burnham forgot she was injured at some point, no longer needing to tel herself to stand or walk anymore.
I could go on and on and on... But I reckon its a waist of time and I suspect so will watching the series be, I dont see them changing the writing style, but I open to be wrong.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.:
Spoiler
Show
You do realise that in season 2 they didnt need to jump to the future as they had defeated the AI BEFORE jumping yes?

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 17:17
by Vertigo 7
Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 18. Oct 20, 12:18
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 17. Oct 20, 16:08
I don't see how this episode could not have centered around Burnham.
Why not? They are basically rebooting the Series, why then not start from scratch? Establish the world in more dtail so that when they arrive we are not as lost as we are now.

But that was just a suggestion, I dont mind them centering it on Burnham, I mind they skimming over information, spending lots of time on idiotic and pointless details that add nothing to the story or characters. All the important things we got to know were TOLD to us, but these writers never grasped the notion of show dont tell, so no surprise there. In addition, and here is my main beef with it (also a long running issue in this series), characters are not consistent at all.
Spoiler
Show
How long do you recon took Burnham to walk from where she crashed to Book's ship? When we first see the smoke from the crashed ship, its flatland rather long way off. Then after she tells herself to walk (that was cringe worthy more than once) we cut to a scenery with the smoke on the left near a lake and suddenly high rise mountains, so either those teleported in or she was so far away that they were no visible. How far do you think you have to be to not see mountaintops on the horizon? After the title screen we arrive at the crash site and for some reason this dude that is hiding something only now decided to activate cloak, that the lake is now surrounded by some hills I wont even mention, I gave up on consistent landscape 5 min go.

Then this dude attacks some random person for no reason (failing too which is even more stupid), instead of warning or make a threat from a vantage point, considering the defensive stance. No the writer just wanted to force conflict for no reason, because they want to get somewhere. Did I mention the cringe line "no I will count"? That was painful...

So I'll skip a bunch of other nonsense like suddenly being friends and letting her in the ship and all that, including that she immediately understands the console without any explanation, etc etc. I'll just ask again, how long do you think it took for them to WALK to that rather huge city, in total how much time has passed now? Do you think thay had to sleep or eat? Also Burnham forgot she was injured at some point, no longer needing to tel herself to stand or walk anymore.
I could go on and on and on... But I reckon its a waist of time and I suspect so will watching the series be, I dont see them changing the writing style, but I open to be wrong.

MFG

Ketraar
Okay, you're being waaaayyy too nitpicky. Name for me one episode of Star Trek from any series where someone went to the bathroom on any of the ships. You can find discontinuity in just about anything. How about Troi throughout the entirety of TNG sometimes being able to empathically read Ferengi despite it being canon that telepaths can't read them at all and established at their very first encounter with them. Or somehow a snowball gets thrown through the holodeck hatch by Crusher and nails Picard and somehow he catches a virus from it? I didn't think things created on the holodeck could exist outside of it, something Picard himself demonstrated to Moriarty by throwing a book through the holodeck door. Star Trek has broken its own rules countless times. Are you going to say that all of Star Trek is horrible now?
Spoiler
Show
Anywho, looks like the landscape is pretty consistent to me. The lake is clearly in some kind of a crater or depression of some type and surrounded by hills. I don't see what your beef there is.
pre intro
post intro

Who cares how long it took for them to walk to the space port? She had rations in her kit. The port itself was surrounded by mountains, who's to say it wasn't that far away? It was obvious from some of the backgrounds that they're on a moon. Do you really need every little detail explained in a single episode?
PS.:
Spoiler
Show
You do realise that in season 2 they didnt need to jump to the future as they had defeated the AI BEFORE jumping yes?
Spoiler
Show
Except that they didn't destroy the AI. Sure they won the battle but the AI still exists on the section 31 station and in what's her face's body, and who knows where else. But what they did though was to prevent control from merging with the sphere data to become sentient. And the only reason that battle was won was because of Burnham's manipulation of time to get the Ba'ul and Kelpiens to live together and the Klingons to unite and fight with the Federation. Remember also, there was little left of Star Fleet at this point in time. While Discovery was in the mirror universe, the Klingons had almost wiped out the federation. It's entirely possible that Section 31 had more ships than regular Star Fleet did at this point. Without the aliens joining the fight, it's likely both Discovery and the Enterprise would have been destroyed.

Also bear in mind, that in this new season, from Burnham's prospective this is immediately after that battle. Just food for thought on what state her body and mind could be in.

As far as this being a reboot, no body said this was a reboot of Discovery. The main cast isn't changing other than the addition of a few new people. It's a future, unknown to us, timeline, that's all.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 18:32
by Ketraar
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 18. Oct 20, 17:17
Okay, you're being waaaayyy too nitpicky. Name for me one episode of Star Trek from any series where someone went to the bathroom on any of the ships.
Dont think I'm asking too much tbh, also dont see how pointing out flaws in writing in older shows serves as argument to excuse flaws in newer ones. Flaws are flaws. What I would argue though is that TNG was a cheese feel good scifi with some good social and philosophical ideas sprinkled in, whereas STD is clearly aiming to "clone" this new vibe of dark a serious tone, so I'll be more critical of the one that is trying hard to be serious. No one went and said Bill & Ted was bad because its silly, its meant to be.

If a series is interesting and fun enough that I'm engaged, chances are I wont pick up on the nitpicks so much, but for the first 10-15 minutes I was bored out of my mind, it got better after that but the writing is still rather bad and nonsensical, its forced and things happen due to script reasons and not believable. even the last scene that was kinda interesting was so forced and unearned that it ended up just being pitifully sad.

Wrt to Season 2 ending, Georgiou said "I'm in engineering, Control is neutralised!" so there is no real need to even go to the future anymore from a plot point view. The reason they went was to soft-reboot the series that keeps struggling to engage fans (yet again show runners were fired mid season, which is hardly ever a good sine especially the second time)

Anyway, we'll see what Part 2 brings but I have absolutely no hope in this being any good (and mind I kinda liked Picard so I'm not that hard to please)

MFG

Ketraar

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 19:40
by Vertigo 7
Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 18. Oct 20, 18:32
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 18. Oct 20, 17:17
Okay, you're being waaaayyy too nitpicky. Name for me one episode of Star Trek from any series where someone went to the bathroom on any of the ships.
Dont think I'm asking too much tbh, also dont see how pointing out flaws in writing in older shows serves as argument to excuse flaws in newer ones. Flaws are flaws. What I would argue though is that TNG was a cheese feel good scifi with some good social and philosophical ideas sprinkled in, whereas STD is clearly aiming to "clone" this new vibe of dark a serious tone, so I'll be more critical of the one that is trying hard to be serious. No one went and said Bill & Ted was bad because its silly, its meant to be.

If a series is interesting and fun enough that I'm engaged, chances are I wont pick up on the nitpicks so much, but for the first 10-15 minutes I was bored out of my mind, it got better after that but the writing is still rather bad and nonsensical, its forced and things happen due to script reasons and not believable. even the last scene that was kinda interesting was so forced and unearned that it ended up just being pitifully sad.

Wrt to Season 2 ending, Georgiou said "I'm in engineering, Control is neutralised!" so there is no real need to even go to the future anymore from a plot point view. The reason they went was to soft-reboot the series that keeps struggling to engage fans (yet again show runners were fired mid season, which is hardly ever a good sine especially the second time)

Anyway, we'll see what Part 2 brings but I have absolutely no hope in this being any good (and mind I kinda liked Picard so I'm not that hard to please)

MFG

Ketraar
Well, I'm enjoying the series. And apparently there's enough people out there enjoying it as well to have already been renewed for a 4th season with production starting next month. Sure, it's different from the other Treks, but they were all different and had their individual quirks. I mean, hell, I had to watch Enterprise 4 or 5 times before I started to appreciate the series and there are still things about it that bug me to no end. There's also things about the TNG era movies that were just pure moments of 'huh?'

Fans of Firefly loved the series but it didn't perform until after it was canceled. It's broadcast viewership was practically non existent. But Discovery seems to be attracting more than enough fans to keep the series going. I dunno man, you're certainly entitled to your opinions but it seems to me that you're in the minority on this one and from what I see, your opinions are, again, nitpicky. CBS is even doing a spin off of the series. TV shows just don't get that kind of traction if they're not any good, as you said.

You don't have to be a fan. If you think you've found enough reasons to dislike the show, then that's your call. I haven't found it, but I'm also not going into it looking for reasons to hate it.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 20:32
by Ketraar
This is the Star Trek Discovery topic is not? :gruebel:

There are many reason CBS wants Discovery for another season and I'd wager viewership is not the one, this does not apply to me since here we get it on Netflix, but I recon in the US CBS needs SOMETHING to sell the streaming thing they are re-branding, guess sales are not as good as expected. In addition it has a 45% viewer score on RT so dont think I'm in the minority, not that it matters tbh, but since you brought it up I thought I'd check.

Also also I dont hate it, I'm disappointed and since this is the STD topic I thought I'd share my view on it, one of the fun bits of watching entertainment is also the possibility to discuss it. I dont think I was trying to convince anyone to change their opinion, is this something people try to do with subjective stuff like a TV show?

Anyway, anyone having fun with it, is clearly better off and I wish I could be part of that group, but alas I'm not.

MFG

Ketraar

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sun, 18. Oct 20, 22:44
by Gavrushka
It seems to be the way of many series (and films) to have tenuous plots and implausible happenings. I shifted seats from critical armchair to simply letting the episodes wash over me, like listening to a decent song with awful lyrics. - And this is why I thoroughly enjoyed Titans, Warrior Nun* and several other series that would have made me cringe beforehand. It's down to 'me like' or 'me no like' rather than looking for fault. - The flipside is I've abandoned watching 'The Expanse' during series 3 as tedious (me no like.)

*I watch Warrior Nun just to pay homage to Lilith's cheekbones. - It's a mid/low budget, available of Netflix and recently renewed for a second series. It starts off slowly, but accelerates in the later episodes.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Fri, 23. Oct 20, 23:50
by berth
I just watched the first episode of the new season and I am surprised to say I quite enjoyed it. Maybe to do with the red wine consumed before and during :gruebel:
To be sure, it was dumb and flashy and has very little to do with Star Trek but it was quite fun, imho.

Btw, I now realise that I linked to the original (i.e. this) thread about STD rather than the season 2 one but it was higher in the search ranking so...

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 00:11
by Vertigo 7
Just curious, but what would make you feel like it had more to do with Star Trek? More technobabble and reversing polarity of tachyon beams? If that's what you're missing, you'll get your fill in the 2nd episode.

I'm just not seeing the detachment. If Star Trek is supposed to be about exploring the unknown, you can't get much more unknown by being deposited on an unknown planet far into the future with no knowledge of the state of civilization and the history of the last 600, 900, however many years in between.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 00:49
by Ketraar
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 00:11
If Star Trek is supposed to be about exploring the unknown
But was it? Or was it to explore the human condition, take us into utopia and then scrutinise current social norms at leisure. Its not as deep, but it was interesting as it usually made us care about characters. Its quite the difference, Star Trek was never really about the tachyon and beaming, it was about dreams and hopes, to see ourselves in all the various versions..

Just saw EP2 and well, sad to say no surprise, still consistent low quality writing and more cringe worthy conversations and nonsensical plot.
Spoiler
Show
Obviously Burnham Deus Ex Machina it again to save the day, yes again as no one else seems to be even remotely competent, one stupid decision after the other its infuriating.
MFG

Ketraar

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:00
by Gavrushka
Why do you torture yourself so, Ketraar? :P

I did enjoy episode 2 even more than 1, and I guess the premise for the new series is to reestablish what was lost during 'The Burn.' I like that, and it does give it plenty of scope.

Gotta say the ice around the ship scene looked spectacularly low budget. It did induce a cringe-laugh or two.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:17
by Vertigo 7
Ketraar wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 00:49
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 00:11
If Star Trek is supposed to be about exploring the unknown
But was it? Or was it to explore the human condition, take us into utopia and then scrutinise current social norms at leisure. Its not as deep, but it was interesting as it usually made us care about characters. Its quite the difference, Star Trek was never really about the tachyon and beaming, it was about dreams and hopes, to see ourselves in all the various versions..
Ahh right, I forgot, the show that wanted us to examine the human condition while having the only black female cast member answering the space phone. Seriously, what part of the human condition did the repeated encounters with the Borg represent? The umpteen different times the Klingons and Federation were at war? Shape shifters controlling an entire civilization... whats the meaning there? Transgenders gonna rule us all?

Even if your interpretation as to the purpose of Star Trek is remotely accurate, wouldn't survival in an unknown and hostile environment be part of said condition?

I think I've identified your issue with Discovery. You seem to be looking for some grand philosophical meaning from it and when that fails to meet your expectations, you can't just enjoy the show for what its actually intended for - entertainment. It's not a documentary. It never was. Sure, you can draw parallels on occasion between events in Star Trek and modern day society. But you can also do that with just about anything on TV if you dig deep enough.
Just saw EP2 and well, sad to say no surprise, still consistent low quality writing and more cringe worthy conversations and nonsensical plot.
Spoiler
Show
Obviously Burnham Deus Ex Machina it again to save the day, yes again as no one else seems to be even remotely competent, one stupid decision after the other its infuriating.
MFG

Ketraar
I'm pretty sure you missed all the parts between the opening scene and the last 3 minutes. If you followed what was going on, you would have understood why the episode wrapped up the way it did. Oh, and the last episode as well. Gave a pretty big clue what was to come.

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:48
by Ketraar
Gavrushka wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:00
Why do you torture yourself so, Ketraar? :P
Well I like Star Trek and considering there is no other scifi stuff one has to grab what one gets.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:17
I'm pretty sure you missed all the parts between the opening scene and the last 3 minutes. If you followed what was going on, you would have understood why the episode wrapped up the way it did.
I already knew the ending and the episodes premise from the last episode, when they "subtly" (irony) mentioned that coming though the wormhole could mean they arrive at different times, the only thing I had not foreseen was how much time would pass, but that would be irrelevant. So again instead of seeing what happened during the wait, we get it TOLD. Showing Burnham adapting to the new place might have induced her character with some growth and no one wants that...

MFG

Ketraar

Re: Star Trek Discovery

Posted: Sat, 24. Oct 20, 02:01
by Vertigo 7
Ketraar wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:48
Gavrushka wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:00
Why do you torture yourself so, Ketraar? :P
Well I like Star Trek and considering there is no other scifi stuff one has to grab what one gets.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sat, 24. Oct 20, 01:17
I'm pretty sure you missed all the parts between the opening scene and the last 3 minutes. If you followed what was going on, you would have understood why the episode wrapped up the way it did.
I already knew the ending and the episodes premise from the last episode, when they "subtly" (irony) mentioned that coming though the wormhole could mean they arrive at different times, the only thing I had not foreseen was how much time would pass, but that would be irrelevant. So again instead of seeing what happened during the wait, we get it TOLD. Showing Burnham adapting to the new place might have induced her character with some growth and no one wants that...

MFG

Ketraar
So whose to say we won't see it? They only have an hour time slot to fill. Burnham farting around for a year may not be all that relevant to the story. At this point, we don't know what she's discovered, or looked into, or anything. But do you think that they're gonna just let that go? Have you never seen a flash back sequence in film? And why take exception to mentioning a possible time discrepancy from the wormhole? Wormholes are rips in time and space. I'm fine with it. But not everyone knows that. DS9 made out the only stable wormhole in the entire Star Trek universe some kind of magic tunnel that bore no relation to science fact or theory. Maybe they're just trying to float a better understanding out there, if you're looking for deeper meaning, that is.

But what we do know is
Spoiler
Show
the Feds are gone. Dilithium is a rare commodity. The Gorn somehow destroyed a pocket of subspace. And Burnham, thanks to her interaction with Book, made contact with one of, if not the only, remaining Star Fleet sector monitoring stations and had dude there scanning for Discovery. And omg, it worked! dun dun dun, plot continuity!
All of the bits and pieces that led to the final moment of episode 2 made perfect sense to me. I see no reason to take a hammer to it.

Like I said before. You don't have to like Discovery. Clearly, you don't since you manage to find a problem with it every episode. So... if you don't like it, why are you watching it? Surely you can find something else that meets your standards.