Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x02 - "Battle at the Binary Stars"

[Guy Gardener]

And the the Suliban cell Ship that was in the NX-01's hold for 4 years?

They got it in the pilot, and then we saw it again 2 years later in the Communicator.

Although, considering Trip accidentally invisiblized his arm that episode, shouldn't that week have called "the invisible hand" or "The invisible touch" or "how to make it seem like you're not masturbating, when you're masturbating"??

 

[Samuel]

From Starfleet's perspective most officers probably had no clue what cloaking devices were or how they worked. Any Romulan cloaking technology encountered by the United Earth Starfleet and ships like Enterprise NX-01 would likely have been classified or downplayed as rumor, and in either case Federation officers living 100 years later wouldn't have a history of encountering cloaking technology except as old, unproven stories or theory.

If the British battleship the HMS dreadnought was transported to the 21st century would modern naval officers not be able to understand the ships big guns?

 

[cooleddie74]

If they were written by modern television writers? Probably not.

 

[Ovation]

Yet had no issue dropping that training and philosophy when she used a corpse to bomb T'Whothehellcares ship.

After the fleet was decimated. Highly unlikely she's experienced anything remotely as stressful as that battle, so her trauma can easily explain her actions.

One thing this new Trek hasn't shown us (admittedly a tiny sample size) is "the perfect officer". And while I have many complaints about the two episodes, this isn't one of them. I view the imperfect characters as refreshing--much as I did the Kents in Man of Steel. No paragons of virtue to be found.

I think Starfleet has become complacent in this iteration and that complacency was on full display with Georgiou and Admiral What's his face. A Kirk stands out with his ability to adapt in a way senior officers seem unprepared to do and that sets him apart. But that's hardly the only way to tell a story. Burnham may end up being an interesting character for her path of redemption rather than being "the best _______ in the fleet". Nothing wrong with such an approach.

Guess we'll see how well TPTB can tell such a story.

 

[nutshell]

I disagree. Because she is openly ignoring the evidence of prior contacts with the Klingons.

Scattered contacts over a hundred years. Not much to go on. Also, at that point, the Klingons had yet to show any aggression whatsoever.

 

[Samuel]

I think Starfleet has become complacent in this iteration and that complacency was on full display with Georgiou and Admiral What's his face.

Starfleet is always complacent. This is the same organization that thought about junking their military forces after Praxis blew up and halted work on the Defiant class ships because the Borg threat somehow "receded". Oh yeah, how did that work out.

The only fictional organization I can think of as worse was on Babylon Five. Earthforce "We handled the Dilgar. We can handle the Minbari".

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

Starfleet is always complacent. This is the same organization that thought about junking their military forces after Praxis blew up and halted work on the Defiant class ships because the Borg threat somehow "receded". Oh yeah, how did that work out.

The only fictional organization I can think of as worse was on Babylon Five. Earthforce "We handled the Dilgar. We can handle the Minbari".

UDC is my absolute favourite trek movie. And yet everytime I hear about them basically going "well Klingons are gone, no need for self defense!!" I feel like punching something. It's soooooo stupid. I mean it's almost like if Canada after world war 2 disbanded the third largest navy in the world because they thought they wouldn't need it anymore....oh wait....(look it up)

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Yeah, that line is very bad. "Mothball the Starfleet?" What in seven hecks. (I love that movie, too.)

 

[Noname Given]

The Klingon ship didn't seem all that sound. One torpedo split it in two with the shields down.

One Torpedo SHOULD cause MASSIVE damage to any ship with its defenses down. IMO - over the years they have really weakened these weapons across the board. One torpedo should be a massive threat if your defenses aren't up. The ship wasn't 'weak' or 'in bad shape' - T'Kuvma did not expect that level of guile from a Federation Captain and he paid for it.

 

[rahullak]

Yes, and one could argue that given T'Kuvma's betrayal of agreeing to a ceasefire and using that as a ruse to ram the Admiral's ship with one of his cloaked ships, tilted the scales in favor of no-holds-barred, and any and all conventions of war ceased to be relevant; hence Georgiou and the transported torpedo.

 

[Refuge]

5. Lost interest a bit half way through.

 

[cooleddie74]

Considering the aggression of the Klingons and their ships opening fire after the fleet warped in, Burnham and Georgiou did the right thing with the torpedo warhead. Frankly, most other Starfleet captains in the Trek franchise would have done the same or something very similar in order to turn the tide of a battle and win.

 

[theblitz]

The only fictional organization I can think of as worse was on Babylon Five. Earthforce "We handled the Dilgar. We can handle the Minbari".

Na.
Worst was Senator Kinsey in SG-1 "Politics":
"Then I think they'll (the Goa'uld) regret taking on the United States military."

 

[Timo]

I'm not quite sure what should be "wrong" about all this cruel stuff going on here. I mean, it may be a contested point of law and everything, but it's still everyday practice here and now, and people only ever get prosecuted over it as publicity stunts.

Hollywood always justifies hero violence by making the perpetrator the underdog. All the militaries of the world do the very same thing, down to the superpower ones. The US is always under attack, Russia has but defended herself for centuries or millennia, China cannot afford not to keep internal unrest from being flamed by evil outside agents. Hollywood has it easy with the heroes facing enemies the size of small moons; it's much more difficult not to look ridiculous playing victim down here on Earth.

I'd expect DSC to feature lots of talk about justification. After all, that's the gig of the central character - she isn't short on means (she even gets a supership despite being prisoner for life), she's short on means of telling herself the absolute right from the absolute wrong (her Vulcan logic makes this damned difficult). Hearing it out ought to be fun, across dozens of episodes if need be.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[OpenMaw]

One Torpedo SHOULD cause MASSIVE damage to any ship with its defenses down. IMO - over the years they have really weakened these weapons across the board. One torpedo should be a massive threat if your defenses aren't up. The ship wasn't 'weak' or 'in bad shape' - T'Kuvma did not expect that level of guile from a Federation Captain and he paid for it.

Indeed. Klingons have a recurring trait of ego that get's the comeuppance. One is closing to point-blank range for a killing shot, often allow their target the chance to attack first.

And yeah, back in the days of TOS and TWOK, torpedos on an unshielded target were straight up devastating. Just look at Elaan of Troyius when the Enterprise hit's a SHIELDED Klingon vessel at point blank range and cripples it.

Yes, and one could argue that given T'Kuvma's betrayal of agreeing to a ceasefire and using that as a ruse to ram the Admiral's ship with one of his cloaked ships, tilted the scales in favor of no-holds-barred, and any and all conventions of war ceased to be relevant; hence Georgiou and the transported torpedo.

I honestly don't see the problem with the ambush. No, it's not the most heroic move, but the alternative is thousands more dead. The Federation colony/outpost that was apparently now vulnerable was a GREAT concern here. In the words of John Wayne, send em to Hell!

 

[cultcross]

This is the problem with these kinds of characters. She was right (about the Klingons) and Georgiou had to be the idiot (Yeoh deserved better), in order for Burnham to mutiny.

I don't agree at all, either about her being right, or about Georgiou being an idiot - in that respect. I do think Georgiou was a character with big ideals and lacked the competence to enact them. She wasn't inherently a good Captain, either in her risk averseness to explore an unknown object, or in her actions in a crisis - locking onto the torchbearer, dismissing withdrawal as an option out of hand but refusing to fire first, etc. But I don't think she was an idiot to reject a course of action which was fully contrary to her principles, especially from an officer clearly coming from an emotional position.

 

[starri]

She wasn't inherently a good Captain, either

Wouldn't the fact that Sarek entrusted Michael to her go against that?

 

[Rhodan]

I think I am sentenced to be in the middle about everything new. This two-part´s story was mostly contrivance to make cool battle and to make Federation and Klingons starting the war. And neither side felt like having any depth. Nevertheless, I liked the character representation, some dialogue and despite how little substance the plot had, I felt this is something what was Enterprise desparately trying to be and never suceeded.

Also, I don´t exactly like Nemesis, but don´t you now feel how greatly it foreshadowed future incarnations of Trek?

 

[Zeppster]

It still doesn't feel like Trek to me. It's using some characters and language and objects that are vaguely trek but it's not really substantive. This episode is better because we get less Burnham. Who is easily the worst main character in Trek. As bad as Archer was as a main character I can't completely hate Scott Bakula very long. His charisma is enough to at least not completely hate a very badly written character. Also he didn't pull of a mutiny that ended up starting a war just because she talked to a Vulcan. Most of the crew were just serviceable and there. Villains are kinda the same. You can't even recognize them as Klingons as we know them. I'm not sure who we as the audience are really supposed to like in all of it.

Not a particularly good start so far.

 

[EyalM]

I don't agree at all, either about her being right, or about Georgiou being an idiot - in that respect. I do think Georgiou was a character with big ideals and lacked the competence to enact them. She wasn't inherently a good Captain, either in her risk adverseness to explore an unknown object, or in her actions in a crisis - locking onto the torchbearer, dismissing withdrawal as an option out of hand but refusing to fire first, etc. But I don't think she was an idiot to reject a course of action which was fully contrary to her principles, especially from an officer clearly coming from an emotional position.

I don't think Picard, for example, would have acted differently. He wasn't the type to fire first either. He even didn't fight back on occasion.