Star Trek: Discovery

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
The ship is officially Crossfield class.

dsc-s01e04-prevz-04.jpg
 
  1. Saru is my man. I love a shameless coward. :grin: And the actor manages to convey a surprising lot of emotional depth considering how much cosmetics he has to do it through.
You realize that's Doug Jones, right? If there's any actor ever who has experience at acting through prosthetics, it's Doug Jones.
 
Doug Jones is amazing as Saru; easily in my top five favorite Trek characters of all time, and only after three episodes. Cadet Tilly may be heading in that direction as well. And I enjoyed the haze of crazy coming off of Captain Malfoy.
 
Doug Jones is amazing as Saru; easily in my top five favorite Trek characters of all time, and only after three episodes. Cadet Tilly may be heading in that direction as well. And I enjoyed the haze of crazy coming off of Captain Malfoy.

+1 for Saru and Cap'n Malfoy. Picking up a strong "what if Picard had a Magnificent Bastard, vaguely psychopathic brother" vibe off of him.

Also if you have a corny Spanish last name*, and keep the lights out and manipulate people I will assume you are a Lasombra vampire. Holy crap, their conquer the Universe screed in the VtM2 clanbook was for realsies. And come think of it, these Klingon look Vicissitude-y...**

* calling your character "Gabriel Lorca", presumably after Gabriel García Marquez and Federico García Lorca, is like calling your English-speaking character, I don't know, Caprain Norman Hemingway or something. I could give the Gabriel a free pass but the Lorca is suspicious. Imperator Imperator wanna weigh in?

** Doc Sammy Doc Sammy should totally write this fanfic.
 
Last edited:
* calling your character "Gabriel Lorca", presumably after Gabriel García Marquez and Federico García Lorca, is like calling your English-speaking character, I don't know, Caprain Norman Hemingway or something. I could give the Gabriel a free pass but the Lorca is suspicious. Imperator Imperator wanna weigh in?

I'm not familiar enough with Spanish names to pick up on that, but I stop to note that "Brett Anderson" is pretty much the most Scandinavian-sounding name I can think of, and that it was accordingly attached to a guy who was so white that he practically glowed in the dark. So the lack of subtlety might be spread evenly across the board, actually. :p
 
+1 for Saru and Cap'n Malfoy. Picking up a strong "what if Picard had a Magnificent Bastard, vaguely psychopathic brother" vibe off of him.

Also if you have a corny Spanish last name*, and keep the lights out and manipulate people I will assume you are a Lasombra vampire. Holy crap, their conquer the Universe screed in the VtM2 clanbook was for realsies. And come think of it, these Klingon look Vicissitude-y...**
Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand was right. Vicissitude is from outer space.

* calling your character "Gabriel Lorca", presumably after Gabriel García Marquez and Federico García Lorca, is like calling your English-speaking character, I don't know, Caprain Norman Hemingway or something. I could give the Gabriel a free pass but the Lorca is suspicious. Imperator Imperator wanna weigh in?
I just have to note that I have an ethnically half Spanish/half British nephew with the first and middle name Gabriel Norman.

** Doc Sammy Doc Sammy should totally write this fanfic.
He's finally getting his campaign started! Stop trying to distract him.
 
Last edited:
I very much enjoyed this week's episode. You gotta give the show credit - it's one thing to make a ham-fisted peace-and-love message by showing a pointless quarrel between aliens with two different kinds of rubber foreheads. It's another to make you feel sorry for a huge, slimy bug-monster who's gone on repeated killer rampages. And yet... :sad:

Also, someone really needs to make a "and yet my ganglia remain unconvinced" meme.
 
Captain Gabriel Lorca may just be one of my favorite Star Trek characters. It's a shame that I'm almost positive that the character bites the dust by the second season.
 
I very much enjoyed this week's episode. You gotta give the show credit - it's one thing to make a ham-fisted peace-and-love message by showing a pointless quarrel between aliens with two different kinds of rubber foreheads. It's another to make you feel sorry for a huge, slimy bug-monster who's gone on repeated killer rampages. And yet... :sad:

Also, someone really needs to make a "and yet my ganglia remain unconvinced" meme.

Your wish is my command ...
 

Attachments

  • my-ganglia-remain-unconvinced.jpg
    my-ganglia-remain-unconvinced.jpg
    126.5 KB · Views: 16
Sadly, even though I subscribed for one year to CBS All Access' commercial-free tier last month, it looks like that I'm done with the show. The third and fifth episodes sadly confirmed my fears. The show may be Star Trek, but it's definitely not for me no matter how much I wish otherwise.
 
Huh, it's getting a second season.

I am like three episodes behind now. Coordinating with my roommates to watch at the same time is not working out.
 
The fourth episode was good, but episodes three and five were pretty danged gory for no good reason. I'm glad that the show was renewed for a second season though. It's not my Star Trek, but I'm glad that new Star Trek is around in some form.

There will be about a year break between seasons though. And there's a rumor...

Towards the end of the second season, the U.S.S. Discovery will run into the U.S.S. Enterprise as captained by Christopher Pike. Then CBS will work on a second Star Trek show, set on the Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D) with Captain Christopher Pike. The Enterprise show would alternate with Discovery, so every week there would be new Star Trek.
 
My best friend in high school and college was a huge Star Wars nerd, and I am a huge Star Trek nerd. We had Star Trek vs. Star Wars arguments all the time, albeit mostly jokingly. Sadly, I lost touch with him by the time The Phantom Menace rolled around, or I could have had laughs for months...
I'll see your Phantom Menace and raise you Voyager, Nemesis and Enterprise. :grin:

(I love them both, but I love Star Wars more.)
 
The fourth episode was good, but episodes three and five were pretty danged gory for no good reason. I'm glad that the show was renewed for a second season though. It's not my Star Trek, but I'm glad that new Star Trek is around in some form.

There will be about a year break between seasons though. And there's a rumor...

Towards the end of the second season, the U.S.S. Discovery will run into the U.S.S. Enterprise as captained by Christopher Pike. Then CBS will work on a second Star Trek show, set on the Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D) with Captain Christopher Pike. The Enterprise show would alternate with Discovery, so every week there would be new Star Trek.

Ack, gore is so not necessary. D:

Also, interesting rumor!
 
I can live without gore, but I don't consider it a dealbreaker. I continue to like the show. I feel it has a good balance between idealism and cynicism, and I've ended up warming to all the characters (except maybe Lorca, who kind of needs a kick in the ass... but even he has his moments).

Actually, given that I like the latest Star Trek installment, and I like the latest Star Wars installment, I find myself in the unusual (for me) position of not hating the current state of sci-fi. 0_o I think that hasn't been the case since the late nineties. Maybe I should try to make it three for three and take another look at Doctor Who, now that they've changed showrunners again...
 
So...

Not a Trek fan.

Trek likes to get political. Not political in the sense of, "We use politics and intrigue in some of our story arcs" political, but "We have a VISION of the future, and you're going to love it!" political.

And that's okay. I'm not making a criticism; I'm making an observation. B5, which I loved, had its own political and even religious overtones. The difference is that in B5 and other shows like it, the ideology didn't get in the way of the story, and in Trek, it did.

And this is okay too. Trek's political vision is a feature, not a bug. It's part of what makes Trek Trek. Me complaining about it is like complaining about exploding dice in Savage Worlds. You can take it out, but it kinda stops being Savage Worlds. Likewise, you take the political futurism out of Trek, and it stops being Trek.

I get the impression that some people who complain about Savage Worlds do so because they like to complain about Savage Worlds. Likewise, I think some people who complain about Trek do so because they like to complain about Trek.

So I kept this in mind while I watched STD. I went into this looking to test my assumptions, mindful that the producers have stated they were...how shall I put this...going to integrate modern American political issues into their story arcs.

And I'm like:

a6984aabbb5d3a2249abac266b44bd266214648332f0aeb5bdd8b4fdd9d00331.jpg


But I watched it anyway. Up to episode 8.

It's...meh.

It's not terrible. It's not great. It's not even good. But it's...okay. Like cold pizza at 4:00 a.m. You're hungry, and it's food.

Are the much-dreaded politics there? Yep. But...It's actually behind the plot, not out in front of it. Others may disagree with me here, but, honestly, there's little chance of anyone convincing me that STD's politics are equally or more intrusive as TNG. I have to actively look to see it, and even then, the political derp is background noise.

For some, the races and sexual identity of the major characters may be construed as political signaling, but honestly, no. You have to cherry pick to make that a thing. And who cares anyway? Are the characters interesting? That's what I care about.

So, the politics are far less than what I expected, far less than some have proclaimed, and otherwise not even an issue at all. At least that's how I see it.

And with that out of the way, what about the show itself? Is it worth watching? Is it worth signing up to stream it?

Meh.

If you're a Trek fan, or a hard core Sci-Fi fan, then yes. It's worth it. If you're not one of those things, then no.

I don't think the show is very good. "Meh" might be too generous.

I have three problems with show:

(1) The main character is a mary sue. No, don't deny it. Search your feelings. You know this to be true.

(2) Related to (1), the writing is crap. Weak, annoyingly predicable plot twists, predicable interpersonal, moral, and emotional conflicts, and most of all, the characters are predicable and boring. The characters might as well be empty uniforms; I have no emotional investment in them, and they're just...dull.

I mean, I don't like TNG, but most every character on that show was interesting. Perhaps is was the actors' skills that was able to give life to something that would otherwise be equally dull, but their characters had something that caught and held my attention. STD lacks this for me.

(3) It's not my Trek. Trek was, at it's heart, about exploration. STD is about war. War, war, war. Also war. And the MCs efforts to fit in and deal with her crush.

I'm surprised to find this to be a major turn-off for me. DS9 pushed this more militant version of Trek to a certain extent, and I loved it, but at its heart, it was still about exploration. Here, I'm finding myself thinking that this isn't Trek. Eight episodes before our first away team and first contact situation, and that's only because we need this planet for war.

I never thought I'd say this, but I found myself actually missing TNG.

Was there anything I did like?

Meh.

The action scenes were okay. CGI was up to par. Interpersonal banter was good. The acting was not bad, really. My disdain isn't leveled at the actors at all, but the writers. The Klingons are...meh. The new version is...meh. There's little to no techobabble, which is an actual plus. That's all I can think of.

And that's it. My rant/review/commentary on STD.
 
Well... I disagree, but I'd be hard pressed to put into words why. I mean, you say the characters aren't interesting, but they interest me. I'm not sure I can describe exactly why, I can just report that I keep wanting to tune in week after week to see what happens to them. :smile: I'll grant you that the plot is nothing special, though. It works, but it's not what you'd call impressive.

At least we can agree that the complaints about the politics are overblown. I'm if anything oversensitive to being preached at, and I didn't find anything risable there.
 
So...

Not a Trek fan.

Trek likes to get political. Not political in the sense of, "We use politics and intrigue in some of our story arcs" political, but "We have a VISION of the future, and you're going to love it!" political.

And that's okay. I'm not making a criticism; I'm making an observation. B5, which I loved, had its own political and even religious overtones. The difference is that in B5 and other shows like it, the ideology didn't get in the way of the story, and in Trek, it did.

Okay, before I say anything, I am going to use the word politics in my post, but I am in no way going to bring in any real world politics. I am just talking about the concept of politics abstractly.

I feel like people often use the term "politics" when they mean "ideology". Let's look at the dictionary definition...

The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

The key here for me is "debate or conflict". The original Star Trek had a little of this, with Kirk, Spock and McCoy having slightly different ideologies. However, TNG was completely free of this. The Federation was a hive mind with a single ideology and no politics at all. It would kind of introduce politics through the planet of the week, but this was just a straw conflict to show us that main characters were smarter and better then them.

Babylon 5 certainly had an underlying ideology at times, but it also had genuine politics going on. Even the main characters had deadly conflicts between each other. You mostly got a sense of what side the show was on, but that often didn't affect who was actually going to win this week. Being right wasn't always enough.

With TNG, the ideology always determined the outcome. With B5, the politics could determine the outcome even if it meant things went badly for the good guys sometimes. Not that Babylon 5 was a relentless misery fest. The good guys got away with a lot. It was just a never a sure thing.

I think it is easier to like B5 even if you disagree with JMS' ideology because the plots aren't all set up to show the inevitable victory of his ideology in the same way that TNG was set up to show the rightness of Roddenberry's ideas. Then there are the characters. People are basically just people on B5, for good and bad. People on TNG are too hemmed in by having to represent ideas. I remember during the first run of the show, watching the first season episode where they find the frozen people from the 20th Century. The episode was supposed to be lesson about how flawed and inferior 20th Century people were compared to the awesome characters on the show. Personally, that was a defining moment where I realized what plastic pod people they all were.

It's my head canon that the parasite bugs from "Conspiracy" had already won. Humans are gone in TNG. They are just hosts for alien parasites unconvincingly masquerading as humans.

I can't say where Discovery comes down on this line, as I still haven't been willing to pay money for All Access. If Fuller had stayed on as a showrunner, it would be a must watch, but right now, it is something I will certainly watch if it shows up on a service I have, but I am not dipping into my entertainment budget to watch it.
 
I can't say where Discovery comes down on this line, as I still haven't been willing to pay money for All Access. If Fuller had stayed on as a showrunner, it would be a must watch, but right now, it is something I will certainly watch if it shows up on a service I have, but I am not dipping into my entertainment budget to watch it.

Well, I can tell you that characters on the show do a lot of things because they feel it's necessary, and often those things are what ensures that they win and survive. The universe does not guarantee victory for morally upright people, and while most people want to be morally upright if reasonably possible, they also aren't willing to be martyred. In that respect, I'd almost go so far as to call it "realistic" - people want to be good, it's just not the only thing they want, and often the other things they want take precedence.

On the other hand, there is no real conflict of idealogy. All the characters more or less believe in the rightness of the Federation's ideals, where they differ is on when and how much it's okay to compromise them for the greater good.
 
I stopped watching after the fifth episode, but yeah, Discovery's politics are pretty subdued. They're there, but you have to go looking for them. Unlike Supergirl, which consistently hits you upside the head with a 2 by 4 with its political ideology nearly every episode, especially after the first season.
 
Well, I can tell you that characters on the show do a lot of things because they feel it's necessary, and often those things are what ensures that they win and survive. The universe does not guarantee victory for morally upright people, and while most people want to be morally upright if reasonably possible, they also aren't willing to be martyred. In that respect, I'd almost go so far as to call it "realistic" - people want to be good, it's just not the only thing they want, and often the other things they want take precedence.

On the other hand, there is no real conflict of idealogy. All the characters more or less believe in the rightness of the Federation's ideals, where they differ is on when and how much it's okay to compromise them for the greater good.
That sounds reasonable.
 
I stopped watching after the fifth episode, but yeah, Discovery's politics are pretty subdued. They're there, but you have to go looking for them. Unlike Supergirl, which consistently hits you upside the head with a 2 by 4 with its political ideology nearly every episode, especially after the first season.

Jesus, you're telling me it gets worse? I lasted a dozen episodes before I had to give it up, and that's despite otherwise liking the show and the characters.

Oddly enough, in some ways I think my problem with that show was that the politics didn't go deep enough. They felt painted on, like someone wrote a completely unrelated story and then added some feminist rhetoric at the last moment. If it had really been about a Strong Independent Woman Who Is Also Flawed And Human fighting rapists and misogynists, I think I could have gone for that - because, hey, I'm a big fan of Jessica Jones. But instead, I felt like the show showed a world where even the worst villains weren't particularly sexist, and then just constantly reassured us that it was all about fighting the Patriarchy, yo. And in doing so, I felt that it kept doing the actual characters and plots they had established a disservice - for instance, dismissing Max's pathological (though not in itself unreasonable) distrust of unaccountable authority as him just being afraid of a strong woman, and constantly shilling Caty Grant as a perfect rolemodel instead of acknowledging her as the interesting, complex character that we actually saw on the screen.
 
Well... I disagree, but I'd be hard pressed to put into words why. I mean, you say the characters aren't interesting, but they interest me. I'm not sure I can describe exactly why, I can just report that I keep wanting to tune in week after week to see what happens to them. :smile: I'll grant you that the plot is nothing special, though. It works, but it's not what you'd call impressive.

At least we can agree that the complaints about the politics are overblown. I'm if anything oversensitive to being preached at, and I didn't find anything risable there.

I agree completely. Even if you disagree with my assertion that the characters are boring, I still respect your opinion and agree with your perspective. If you find them interesting, then they're interesting. :smile:

I'm only voicing my opinion, and my opinion is subjective.

It's important that we get a counterpoint to my assertions, for the benefit of anyone reading this thread trying to make up their mind whether or not to spend the money and time to watch the show.

Well, I can tell you that characters on the show do a lot of things because they feel it's necessary, and often those things are what ensures that they win and survive. The universe does not guarantee victory for morally upright people, and while most people want to be morally upright if reasonably possible, they also aren't willing to be martyred. In that respect, I'd almost go so far as to call it "realistic" - people want to be good, it's just not the only thing they want, and often the other things they want take precedence.

On the other hand, there is no real conflict of idealogy. All the characters more or less believe in the rightness of the Federation's ideals, where they differ is on when and how much it's okay to compromise them for the greater good.

I agree with this as well, and I'll note that you brought up a very important point that I missed in my above commentary.

One of my pet peeves in TV is when the characters consistently make terribly stupid decisions for no apparent reason other to further the sense of melodrama. Decisions are not made because of character personality, motivation, survival sense, logic, or even just some clear emotional drive. Decisions are made instead to create unnecessary melodrama that wouldn't otherwise exist if not for the stupid decisions in question. It drives me batty. The Walking Dead is my Exhibit A for this nonsense.

STD is blissfully free of this. Most decisions make sense, given character personalty, motivation, and the conflict situation. Not all decisions made in the show are good decisions, but they make sense. There's little sense of drama for drama's sake. Decisions are made that (mostly) make sense within the context, and further the development of the plot.

This is a huge plus for the show, and I'd watch it just because of this.
 
Okay, before I say anything, I am going to use the word politics in my post, but I am in no way going to bring in any real world politics. I am just talking about the concept of politics abstractly.

I feel like people often use the term "politics" when they mean "ideology". Let's look at the dictionary definition...

The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

The key here for me is "debate or conflict". The original Star Trek had a little of this, with Kirk, Spock and McCoy having slightly different ideologies. However, TNG was completely free of this. The Federation was a hive mind with a single ideology and no politics at all. It would kind of introduce politics through the planet of the week, but this was just a straw conflict to show us that main characters were smarter and better then them.

Babylon 5 certainly had an underlying ideology at times, but it also had genuine politics going on. Even the main characters had deadly conflicts between each other. You mostly got a sense of what side the show was on, but that often didn't affect who was actually going to win this week. Being right wasn't always enough.

With TNG, the ideology always determined the outcome. With B5, the politics could determine the outcome even if it meant things went badly for the good guys sometimes. Not that Babylon 5 was a relentless misery fest. The good guys got away with a lot. It was just a never a sure thing.

I think it is easier to like B5 even if you disagree with JMS' ideology because the plots aren't all set up to show the inevitable victory of his ideology in the same way that TNG was set up to show the rightness of Roddenberry's ideas. Then there are the characters. People are basically just people on B5, for good and bad. People on TNG are too hemmed in by having to represent ideas. I remember during the first run of the show, watching the first season episode where they find the frozen people from the 20th Century. The episode was supposed to be lesson about how flawed and inferior 20th Century people were compared to the awesome characters on the show. Personally, that was a defining moment where I realized what plastic pod people they all were.

It's my head canon that the parasite bugs from "Conspiracy" had already won. Humans are gone in TNG. They are just hosts for alien parasites unconvincingly masquerading as humans.

I can't say where Discovery comes down on this line, as I still haven't been willing to pay money for All Access. If Fuller had stayed on as a showrunner, it would be a must watch, but right now, it is something I will certainly watch if it shows up on a service I have, but I am not dipping into my entertainment budget to watch it.

*Standing ovation*

:smile:

I use the terms "politics" and "ideology" interchangeably. For reasons, that if I try to explain, I'll be pushing the No Politics rule too hard. I think you understand what I mean here.

Getting back to Trek. Yes, I agree with what you wrote. *Nods vigorously*

Talking about STD is difficult because I don't want to get too political* and I don't want to hate on the show.

The ideological bias is there. But you have to look for it, know what you're looking for, and front-load the outrage by understanding the creators' stated agenda**.

But if you don't know about said agenda, don't care, or don't mind it, the ideological biases fade into the background. What I'm tying to get across here, as someone who's become somewhat hypesenstive to ideology in media, is the show itself has far less of this kind of thing than one would expect.

You can easily ignore the ideology and just enjoy the show for what it is: a mediocre sci-fi drama.

The point of my two recent posts isn't to dissect the ideology of the show; I want to get it out of the goddamn way so we can get to the actual show.

It comes down to a single question: Is it worth paying to sign up to watch it?

My answer: probably not.

For me, a story is about the characters. Upthread I said I found them boring. Let me explain why.

In the other Trek series, each character was relevant, important, and interesting. Each one was given focus, allowed their own storylines to develop, and played a vital role in the overall story.

Think of TNG as a ST roleplaying campaign, with each bridge officer as a PC. The characters all played a role in the campaign, each contributing to the party, each one given focus, and none of them overshadowing the other. Picard was clearly the alpha PC, but his role was party leader and diplomacy. He never out-teched Gerodi or Data, out martial-arted Worf or Yar, or out-psied Troi. Even Riker filled his role as the ladies man, the face on the ground, and the field commander. Everybody did their thing, did it well, and it all worked like a well-run campaign.

The point I really lost interest in STD was when I realized that the MC is totes a GM pet NPC. She's better at everything. She makes better command decisions than both captains, helps the genius head engineer solve a problem no one else could solve, she's a better hand-to-hand fighter than everyone else, and can go toe-to-toe with fucking Sarik telepathically.

But she's awkward around people. Not too awkward apparently, as she was a command officer prior to being demoted. :rolleyes:

But the real problem is the focus is constantly and eternally on her. The other characters exist only to affirm how much better she is than everyone else. Subtract her from the show, and what do you have left? Can the other characters carry the show without her? When I do this in my head, I'm left with the sense that I'm just looking at a bunch of extras.

I want to know about the other characters! The redhead. The captain. The borg-looking chick on the bridge (what's her story), the Asian tactical officer who gets yelled at a lot by the captain. The chief engineer gets a good deal of focus, but only to establish the setup for the importance of Discovery. What do we really know about him other than he's a genius, snarky, and gay?

And, yes. I'm being a little unfair here. It's a nine episode season, so you can't do much character development with the secondary characters. But that's my whole point. They're secondary characters to begin with. The focus is only put on them when it's relevant to the MCs storyline. I mean, even The Walking Dead was able to focus on individual characters and develop them, and they did this in a 12 or so episode season.

This is my main complaint. All other flaws of the show are easily forgiven if the writers would drop the mary sue bullshit.

So, back the main question. Is it worth signing up for? If you're a hard-core Trek fan, then yes. Otherwise, you'll be paying for a nine episode sci-fi drama with what I consider to be some glaring flaws.

* You can't talk about STD without engageing the politics, just a little, because the creators themselves made the show political, by their own words.

** The creators stated clearly that the Klingons were going to represent a particular American voting faction. As far as I can tell, the Klingons are warmongering barbarians with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. So, either the creators misunderstand the voting faction they're trying to represent, or are just being deliberately insulting.
 
The point I really lost interest in STD was when I realized that the MC is totes a GM pet NPC.

That's uncharitable. :p Though I do see what you mean. It's true that all previous Trek series have had ensemble casts, while this one has a main character with a supporting cast. I can understand that making people feel like it's "not Trek anymore," because it's certainly a fairly major change to the formula, but at the same time... the formula is half a decade old. They needed to try something new with it.

But she's awkward around people. Not too awkward apparently, as she was a command officer prior to being demoted. :rolleyes:

Meh, so she's awkward around people when she has to treat them as people instead of as moving parts in an ongoing tactical scenario. That's not an unheard-of character type.

I want to know about the other characters! The redhead. The captain. The borg-looking chick on the bridge (what's her story), the Asian tactical officer who gets yelled at a lot by the captain.

I admit, I'd kind of like to know more about them too.

The chief engineer gets a good deal of focus, but only to establish the setup for the importance of Discovery. What do we really know about him other than he's a genius, snarky, and gay?

Well... he's a peaceful researcher who's passionate about the pursuit of science, and deeply resentful at having been commendeered into the war effort. He's vain and ambitious and can get manipulated by appealing to his hope of going down in history. He and his boyfriend bicker like an old married couple but value each other's forthrightness. He's rude and pessimistic, but is something of a softie at heart. I dunno, it's not that he's that complex, but I'd say I know about as much about him as I do about Burnham?

You can't talk about STD without engageing the politics, just a little, because the creators themselves made the show political, by their own words.

This is why I've come to avoid creator commentary like the plague. Creators always manage to say something stupid that makes me like their work less. :p
 
That's uncharitable. :p Though I do see what you mean. It's true that all previous Trek series have had ensemble casts, while this one has a main character with a supporting cast. I can understand that making people feel like it's "not Trek anymore," because it's certainly a fairly major change to the formula, but at the same time... the formula is half a decade old. They needed to try something new with it.

I'm not complaining that it's "not my Trek", becuse it isn't, and I can accept that. I'm complaining that the writing is lazy. :mad:

Meh, so she's awkward around people when she has to treat them as people instead of as moving parts in an ongoing tactical scenario. That's not an unheard-of character type.

That's a fair point.

I admit, I'd kind of like to know more about them too.

I really want to see more of the cyborg girl. She's just cool!

Well... he's a peaceful researcher who's passionate about the pursuit of science, and deeply resentful at having been commendeered into the war effort. He's vain and ambitious and can get manipulated by appealing to his hope of going down in history. He and his boyfriend bicker like an old married couple but value each other's forthrightness. He's rude and pessimistic, but is something of a softie at heart. I dunno, it's not that he's that complex, but I'd say I know about as much about him as I do about Burnham?

I'll concede that some detail was given to the engineer, but he's more of the exception than the rule. Nobody else gets this treatment.

This is why I've come to avoid creator commentary like the plague. Creators always manage to say something stupid that makes me like their work less. :p

Totally agree. I only followed the STD commentary because I kinda had to. Beyond that, I'd rather be ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes of my favorite shows.
 
Last edited:
I'll concede that some detail was given to the engineer, but he's more of the exception than the rule. Nobody else gets this treatment.

Aw, I'd at the very least want to nominate my man Saru. I'm not sure how detailed he is, but I'd definitely say he's a very interesting and unique character in that he's ambitious, cowardly and a good person - something that I don't think I have ever seen a character being more than two out of three of. Normally, it's considered a given that a coward with ambition is a deceitful, backstabbing bastard, but with Saru they have broken some genuine new ground in making his pathalogical fear an obstacle that he's dealing with. Sometimes even an asset, since it gives him a different perspective on things than a hothead like Burnham.

I'll admit to being slightly biased. As a card-carrying yellow-bellied, lily-livered pultroon, it is SO COOL for me to get to see a character who thinks like me and who still occasionally gets to slouch in the big chair and drawl, "go to Black Alert!" :grin:
 
Fuck Saru, Burnham, Stamets (unsubtly named after a famous mycologist), Tyler and his Klingon or Klingon-porking ass, Tilly, everyone.

This show should be named Star Trek: Captain Motherfucking Lorca.

He’s the real secret weapon. They took Picard’s sophisticated uppity Euro brain and sewed Kirk’s colossal blue-black testicles on it.
 
Fuck Saru, Burnham, Stamets (unsubtly named after a famous mycologist), Tyler and his Klingon or Klingon-porking ass, Tilly, everyone.

This show should be named Star Trek: Captain Motherfucking Lorca.

He’s the real secret weapon. They took Picard’s sophisticated uppity Euro brain and sewed Kirk’s colossal blue-black testicles on it.

LOL!

Also, I have a feeling Lorka is being set up as a future villain that the MC will have to foil and then take his captain's chair.
 
Not to offend any hardcore fans but I don't think any of the major Star Trek series were particularly well written: OT or TNG. OT got by on charm, humour and cheese.

Discovery I would put above TNG in terms of writing. I've heard/read that later DS9 is among the better written Trek but I stopped watching a few seasons in and apparently it improves about mid-way through.

So far I'd say, not great but not bad, I like the actors enough to keep watching.

Complaining about the politics of Trek is of course silly, it was always there from the beginning of OT.
 
I’m one of those people who like Trek movies (except the NG ones) and have watched maybe two or three episodes of all the shows combined. I like the Abramsverse quite a bit, although from what I understand it disgusts the old hardcore fans.
 
The difference is that in B5 and other shows like it, the ideology didn't get in the way of the story, and in Trek, it did.

Isn't that the show where, right in the middle of a war, the chief medical officer decides to leave everything and go on a "walkabout" to "discover himself"?
 
Isn't that the show where, right in the middle of a war, the chief medical officer decides to leave everything and go on a "walkabout" to "discover himself"?

It is. But IMO, his actions weren't driven by an ideological motive. Rather, he had become addicted to stims, they were affecting his long-term performance, and he was doing what he thought he needed to do to overcome his addition.
 
It is. But IMO, his actions weren't driven by an ideological motive. Rather, he had become addicted to stims, they were affecting his long-term performance, and he was doing what he thought he needed to do to overcome his addition.

I just remember catching that episode way back when and it seemed such a bizarrely self-indulgent thing considering what was going on around him that its stuck with me to this day. I'm not saying it has anything to do with ideology specifically, it was just this bizarre thing I associate with B5 as a show.
 
I just remember catching that episode way back when and it seemed such a bizarrely self-indulgent thing considering what was going on around him that its stuck with me to this day. I'm not saying it has anything to do with ideology specifically, it was just this bizarre thing I associate with B5 as a show.

That's a fair conclusion. They built up the Doc and his stem demons plot over the course of several episodes, with the conclusion being he reaized he was endangering Medical in a time of war. He took off becuse it was the only thing he could do, really.

Additicion was a regular theme of the series: the Doc's stem addiction and Garibaldi's alcoholism being the major two.

By the by, I cant believe they went with a name for this show that they knew was going to be acronym-ized as "STD"

I'm not surprised at all. Hollywood's business decisions make a lot of sense to me when I assume that everyone that's in any way involved in said decisions are constantly high on cocaine.
 
well, it'll be different, thats for sure. Like Lynch's Dune, but with more swearing.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top