• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x04 - "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry"

Rate the episode...


  • Total voters
    332
You might convince me of this had that mother figure not given her life for a plan that specifically involved not killing him. So she dies in vain, and Burnham continues the emotionally unstable behavior that abruptly began when she mutinied against that same trusted mother figure. It's a mess, IMO.

My biggest issue is I don't know how to argue as outside of the first two episodes, she's been insufferably goodie goodie and high minded when she should be something more rounded.

The big difference between Michael Burnham and Kirk is that her actions FAILED and she failed.

Which is why she needs redemption and is contrasted against the evils of the Discovery's crew of pirates. Honestly, she's coming off as way-way too idealistic.

I mean, yes, it's a cute Space Pig but people are DYING.
 
I just happened to watch the DS9 episode 'Hard Time' and I love this quote from O'Brien: "When we were growing up, they used to tell us... Humanity had evolved, that mankind had outgrown hate and rage. But when it came down to it, when I had the chance to show, that no matter what anybody did to me, that I was still an evolved Human being... I failed.'

90's Trek was generally at it's best when it was showing that the perfect members of Starfleet had human foibles. It's probably why I like DS9 so much.
Indeed. I'm a Niner as well, and I love the flawed characters on that show.

I think they could just brush aside any questions from survivors about how they got there so fast.
The closest ship was 84 hours away. The Discovery shows up in under 5. Rumors have a tendency to spread, but if you don't show yourself at all to the survivors, problem avoided in the first place.

You might convince me of this had that mother figure not given her life for a plan that specifically involved not killing him. So she dies in vain, and Burnham continues the emotionally unstable behavior that abruptly began when she mutinied against that same trusted mother figure. It's a mess, IMO.
Emotionally unstable? Again:

Sisko brought billions of lives into a war that would cost millions, in order to fight the Dominion. Said he could live with it. Apparently did.
Janeway possibly erased the lives of BILLIONS because she couldn't stand the idea of her crew taking a quarter century to get home from the Delta Quadrant.
Picard nearly lost his entire crew when he took on the white whale of the Borg. Poor Ensign Lynch certainly paid the cost as Picard reached into her corpse to remove a piece of borg technology. Classy.
Kirk stole the U.S.S. Enterprise to go save his best friend, endangering the lives of others, and getting his own son murdered in the process.

If I wanted to take the time, I could pull together more examples, but suffice to say, if this were the real world, none of these people would have ever seen command again. Ever.
 
a Starfleet captain warmongering
Have watched Star Trek? More than a few warmongering Captains. Sometimes it's the lead character.

IMDB is wrong or something weird is going to happen.
IMDB is wrong until someone makes it right.

But then, starving humans eat dead humans at times.
Good point.

Being cannibals was very unsettling, and this kind of radical departure (especially given they are not at all like this in TOS
The radical departure happened in TNG. It's like the writers never watched TOS.

Appearance is one thing, but the characterization from TOS to the movies to TNG era seemed to elaborate and build on itself. These Klingons are nothing like what would grow into what we see in TOS.
I see no real continuity between what TOS established and where TNG went. Nothing in TOS suggested quasi-medieval viking space biker samurais.
 
I liked the episode, but still getting used to the idea of each episode being a chapter in a larger story instead of a group of individual stories that wrap up neatly at the end. Not a criticism, but an acknowledgement that the format has changed.

I have to agree that Landry was reckless, but I'm willing to chalk up her behavior to being driven to get results. You could describe her as recklessly pragmatic.

We already have an emerging explanation as to why Starfleet doesn't ultimately embrace the spore drive. Things that are done in wartime begun harder to swallow in peacetime. In war, there's always the rationale that things were done to win, that victory demanded sacrifice, an attitude that's harder to justify when hostilities have ceased.

We're also beginning to see a better side to Stamets, as he has not only helped produce desirable results for Lorca, but the tardigrade is the breakthrough he's been looking for. Of course, at some point, he will have to forsake his work, but that's something for down the road.

The moment between Voq and L'Rell in the Shenzhou engine room has some of the best acting we've seen thus far from the Klingons. We see a quiet moment between two people with all the rhetoric stripped away, and the actors, particularly Mary Chieffo, do so much acting with their eyes; it's fun to see something resembling subtlety from characters who by their nature do so much posturing.
 
My biggest issue is I don't know how to argue as outside of the first two episodes, she's been insufferably goodie goodie and high minded when she should be something more rounded.

The big difference between Michael Burnham and Kirk is that her actions FAILED and she failed.

Which is why she needs redemption and is contrasted against the evils of the Discovery's crew of pirates. Honestly, she's coming off as way-way too idealistic.

I mean, yes, it's a cute Space Pig but people are DYING.
Slavery is never acceptable, even when people are dying. If the spore drive were to catch on, there would be a need to find more of these creatures, and have one or more on each ship, traveling about the galaxy. An enslaved species at the beck and call of Starfleet ambition.
 
After the events of this episode specifically, I'm starting to get this really strong suspicion that the people who have a problem with this series have a very distorted view of what Star Trek actually is, because there are endless parallels between what's happening in the show and things that have happened in previous iterations of the franchise.

This episode felt particularly "Voyager"-ey, reminding me of Year of Hell, Scorpion, and Equinox.
 
You might convince me of this had that mother figure not given her life for a plan that specifically involved not killing him. So she dies in vain, and Burnham continues the emotionally unstable behavior that abruptly began when she mutinied against that same trusted mother figure. It's a mess, IMO.

Burnham pretty much displayed all the signs of PTSD when faced with the Klingons. This is why an otherwise stable and competent officer behaved in such an irrational manner. Not only did the Klingons kill her real parents, they also killed her mother figure. It's totally reasonable that someone under that level of psychological stress would react as Burnham did.
 
In any case, I feel like the writers are writing about an entirely different species than the Klingons. We get mention of the Great Houses and their complicated politics but they've really made them DUMB.

Which the Klingons have never been.

1. Refuse to fix their ship with enemy parts.
2. Cannibalism designed to make them more villainous.
3. The weird love moment between the two lead Klingons that would be romantic if they weren't a pair of psychotic cannibals.
4. The fact T'Kuvma's fanatics abandon their new leader because of a bucket of fried chicken.
I mean, the villains of the show aren't even in the frigging war!
5. Apparently, they have instantaneous communication in the Federation but a distress call is impossible.

What the hell!
 
We drill into the central nervous systems of horses and use their bodies to pilot our highly advanced warships against their will? Our relationship to horses is symbiotic. The act taking place with the tardigrade and the spore drive was parasitic.

Stirrups, riding crops, riding horses to death in battle. Hannibal getting his elephants drunk and then stabbing them with spears in the ankles to get them nice and pissed and sending them towards the Romans. That's just off the top of my head.

There is zero symbiotic about any of the situations I just stated. Unless you're talking farm horses, and obviously we're not.
 
I'm not saying animal cruelty isn't terrible but it's her REACTION which confuses me. Shouldn't she be more panicked about the dying miners?
 
In any case, I feel like the writers are writing about an entirely different species than the Klingons. We get mention of the Great Houses and their complicated politics but they've really made them DUMB.

Which the Klingons have never been.

1. Refuse to fix their ship with enemy parts.
Voq considered using the parts of the Shenzhou as being blasphemous, because Voq sees T'Kuvma as the Klingon messiah. It's a cult.

2. Cannibalism designed to make them more villainous.
It wasn't cannibalism. Humans are an entirely different species. That they can mate doesn't make them the same species, even if they are compatible. Humans eat meat. We can be villainous, too.

3. The weird love moment between the two lead Klingons that would be romantic if they weren't a pair of psychotic cannibals.
They're cultish, but not cannibals. Anyway, they both believe in purity of vision and loyalty. Cult leaders bed partners because of this dynamic.

4. The fact T'Kuvma's fanatics abandon their new leader because of a bucket of fried chicken.
The Klingon cult members were starving to death. Kol comes along with food, drink, and the promise of much more if they switch sides. Of course they switch sides. Hell, humans have been doing that shit for thousands of years.

I mean, the villains of the show aren't even in the frigging war!
5. Apparently, they have instantaneous communication in the Federation but a distress call is impossible.

What the hell!
When have they not had instantaneous communication in the Federation? Every example of communication we've ever seen has been instantaneous, even hundreds of light years away. As for a distress call, what are you talking about?

Honestly, rewatch the episode, you may have missed a few key scenes.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top