Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x04 - "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Sounds like you were watching a different show than I. The Discovery episode I watched had lots of complex drama and interactions, consequences, realizations, dilemmas, and so on.
I think A/B plot structures work with shows that are largely episodic. Most drama on tv in the last 17 years has become more serialised with many characters and plot threads (Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica and Lost for example). People have come to expect A/B/C/D/E type storytelling in tv dramas so I think the creators of Discovery are just following the trend.
Does that mean we can milk it?
It's a shame. I'd prefer Trek go in the opposite direction, and lose the "B plot" entirely. Basically every superb Trek episode lacked a B plot. Often the cast members not involved in the primary plot are given a few token scenes for credits, but really their scenes add nothing to the show. It would be better if they were ditched entirely, and each episode focuses on only the cast members needed to further the core story of the week along.
I don't agree with this criticism at all. You could say this about nearly every Star Trek episode if you really tried.
I'll use very well-known and well -liked episodes as examples
Yesterday's Enterprise
A. Anomaly causes Enterprise C appearance and timeline shift
B. Tasha's presence perceived as wrong or unnatural
C. Tasha's relationship with Castillo
D. Picard's moral dilemma
E. Klingon crap
City On The Edge
A. McCoy's well being/sanity at risk, rescue mission ensues
B. Investigate the mysteries of The Guardian
C. Timeline contaminated- must fix
D. Kirk lovestory crap
E. Fish-out-of-water survival and blend-in in 1930s
Best of Both Worlds 1
A. Mystery of changed Borg priorities
B. Update to Starfleet capabilities and prep for an inevitable conflict
C. Shelby vs Riker crap / Riker career and defining moment stuff
D. Picard kidnapped and rescue plan
E. Strategy and tension around defending sector 001
None of this is "too much." It's just fully integrated elements of a relatively involved story.
Exactly like the last DSC episode.
People make jokes about nipple clamps (I even did to my hubby in passing after seeing it mentioned on other forums) but it's pretty clear that Ripper is not a mammal and doesn't, therefore, actually have any nipples. Perhaps the CGI artists should have rethought where the needle tubes attached, though?
They are cramming a lot into the episode. It feels rushed. Running, fighting. Even in those 3 episodes you mentioned things progressed slower where the characters could chill and have some good conversations. More emphasis on character development and less emphasis on action sequences.
I don't see the similarity at all. All of the breakdowns you listed were basically just different elements within the overall thematic thrust of a single episode. For example. the central conflict on City On the Edge of Forever was about Kirk's love for Edith Keeler versus his knowledge she had to die for the greater good of everyone. Everything else was either constructed to create the scenario (drug-addled McCoy. the Guardian of Forever, the corrupted timeline with no Federation) or crap which just added humor to the show (the "fish out of water" gags.
In contrast, the only one of the five plots I mentioned which wasn't a central conflict was the Klingon attack on the dilithium mine. It was the precondition needed to move along two other conflicts - between Burnham and Landry and between Stamets and Lorca. And two other conflicts - Burham's conflicted feelings about opening the box, and the Klingon junk - had nothing to do with this whatsoever.
How many action sequences were there? I know Trek fans in general struggle with this, but any sequence taking place outside the ready room and lacking tea drinking isn't automatically an "action scene"
Some of this shit is really funny. There's another guy just pages back complaining about too much hoopla with developing the characters.
Can't please everyone, I guess. No better example than passionate fandoms.
Often that had to do with the fact that Star Trek seasons were 26 episodes long and episodic. I think it's easier to have an A or and A/B plot when all you need to focus on is the mission of the week. Having said that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a great example of a show that did both episodic a/b storytelling and maintained a season long arc across 22 episodes. As far as I know, i don't think any tv series get more than an order for 13 or 15 episodes nowadays. I think when writers are restricted to telling a story in that amount of time, they feel that more has to be crammed in per episode. Also I think shows are now being developed with binge watching in mind and I think that sort of A/B/C/D/E storytelling works better when the episodes are watched one after the other, but that is just me.
Maybe you have gotten to see an episode more than the rest of us, but Michal didn't "try to get people" to treat it humanely - I think she will try to do so in episode 5. What she did was try to get people to examine it not from the perspective that it must be a killing machine due to its outward appearance and actions on the Glenn, but from a position of analyzing it dispassionately for what it actually is. And at no point, so far, has she advocated anything to the determent of the miners or others.
The Admiral says the blockade that was protecting the colony was wiped out by the Klingons and the miner says, during one of the transmissions, that their defensive ships were destroyed. The Federation wasn't incompetent, it just got defeated in a battle for a strategic planet.
First of all, just putting the animal in the machine isn't immoral in itself. Yeah, putting it in there without knowing what would happen isn't the most ethical approach, but working within the timeframe they had, they didn't have time to work on all the options. Given Burnham's clear response to the events, it seems definite that she will be bringing the ethics of the situation up with rest of the crew shortly. I can't see where you have cause to trash Burnham for this; it was happening for the first time and she alone seemed to be aware of and affected by it. She is the last person to blame for this.
That isn't how I see Tilly at all. She has issues with interpersonal relationships. At first she was warry of working with Burnham because of the poor light it might cast on Tilly. But she immediately appologized for it. Other than that one time in engineering, Tilly has been nothing but nice and helpful.
And for those who have been saying that Burnham has been an asshole to Tilly the whole time. I can't agree with that either. At first Burnham was standoffish due to her prison-funk and being stuck on the Discovery against her wishes. Since their initial friendship started, I haven't seen anything outwardly negative from Burnham. The one potential event was when Tilly found herself to be rambling on and shut herself down. Sure, Tilly was playing off of the look that Burnham was giving her, but it isn't like Tilly is constantly being berated by Burnham. Tilly is aware of her own flaws and has worked with others (her instructors) on things she needs to improve. No difference here.
Welcome to the board.
I personally think the pew pew action has been rather restrained so far. Big fight in episode 2, action on the Glenn in ep 3, one short simulation and one real fight in ep 4. They can afford more action than other Treks but its not like it's wall-to-wall.
As for the defense of Corvan 2 and how many ships can get there in X time. You have to keep in mind that since the war has started, deployments have changed. In the pilot it was every ship in a couple hour's range, and we saw how well that worked out in a battle. Now the ships are likely redeployed into fleets or other groupings that make them less vulnerable to attack, but also make them more widely spaced. Guarding key points - like the "blockade" which was guarding Corvan 2 which was destroyed by the Klingons.
I think the cynicism that is being displayed and justified here is your own. As this show is a serialized one, not every bad decision will be analyzed and corrected within one 45 minute episode like in previous Treks. If you don't want to believe the producers when they say that this a process, and that this show will get to "what/where Trek is in TOS" by the end, that is up to you. But I hope you are at least willing to accede that they story that they are trying to tell, and the optimism or lack thereof, the idealism or lack thereof, etc. will only really be proven or disproven by the end of the season. And even then we will likely only be part of the way there, as there will be fallout from this season, and additional character growth in later seasons. This show isn't TOS, with characters fully formed in episode 1. In Discovery, the characters we are seeing are making decisions (both good and bad) and learning and growing (or not) episode by episode.
What a shocking revelation. I thought for sure my example would suddenly make you realize how biased and incorrect you were.
How could I have misjudged this so poorly?
Linked to that earlier. No one can say Zack Handlen doesn't understand Star Trek.
Here
1) replicating a uniform making it look like the intro to Matrix Reloaded
2) klingon battle simulation on the bridge
3) teleporting by a sun then trying to avoid destruction there
4) hearing the audio broadcasts being played shipwide from the place being attacked by the klingons
5) security lady fighting the creature
6) teleporting into a battle with the klingons, fire raining on the planet after the battle
The AV Club review supports my views concerning the episode and the series so far. They need to work harder on the writing part, i.e., proper execution of ideas. That's why I rated the episode and the series so far 6 or 7 (i.e., a bit more than average).
Ultimately, one realizes that the effectiveness of a show is not hinged on one element or another (like set design or special effects) but the story: in this case, pacing and characterization that makes sense.
Ultimately, one realizes that the effectiveness of a show is not hinged on one element or another (like set design or special effects) but the story: in this case, pacing and characterization that makes sense.
The funny thing is with the exception of maybe the battle simulation, I think every one of those lasted less than 60 seconds.
I'll give you 1.5 there, but not 6. Not by a long shot.
The battle simulation was a simulation, and more to prove a dramatic point. So that 0.5. The post-teleport scene is definitely and action scene.
There's a big difference between dramatic, kinetic tension and "action scenes."
Everything else??? Ummmm grasping at straws bruh...
Trek fans for some reason do the weird thing where their estimation of the shittiness of a story is somehow directly related to the amount of time the characters DON'T spend sitting at a conference room table.
i have no doubt the ramifications of this will carry forward in future episodes and i'm confident burnham will decide it's unethical to use the tardigrade the way they did. but i find it hard to believe that she would act like this in the first place, even hastily.
and there's nothing new here. this is well trodden stuff. exploitation of animals is wrong, it shouldn't be an arc on a star trek show in 2017.
not to mention it's as emotionally manipulative as if the writers had thrown a kid in there instead.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
