The Discovery episode I watched had lots of complex drama and interactions, consequences, realizations, dilemmas, and so on.
I don't doubt it.

The Discovery episode I watched had lots of complex drama and interactions, consequences, realizations, dilemmas, and so on.
And that's utter bullshit.The whole point was that Burnham acted the way she did because of PTSD from the klingon attack that killed her parents. It's made pretty clear that for the seven years that Burnham served on the Shenzhou she was a model officer, so much so that Georgiou was ready to support Burnham getting her own command. She comes face to face with Klingons and she was not prepared to deal with them. Living with the Vulcans was detrimental to Burnham, because all they did was teach her to suppress her emotions and not actually face and deal with them. Burnhams actions are pretty much classic post traumatic stress disorder.
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 don't doubt it.![]()
I'd say you're raising the bar on what an "action scene" is in order to justify having more of it compared to the other star trek series. The series begins in a state of war and thousands of people dying. Of course it has more action.
http://www.englishbaby.com/vocab/word/12845/action-sequence
"Definition (n.) part of a movie with a lot of action, especially fighting"
The battle simulation is still fighting, simulated or not. The 6 cases I mention stand. I excluded scenes with tension and drama like the ones with the Klingon characters.
Please name the 2/3 of the season that had no relationship to the arc.Season 3 is overrated. At its best, it felt like a cheap knockoff of DS9. Except they didn't bother even thinking things through in the writing room (just it "Xindi weapon" and "Xindi homeworld"? Really? ). And the level in which it was a season long arc was oversold because about 2/3rds of it had nothing to do with the greater arc except that the Enterprise was wandering around in the Delphic Expanse looking for the McGuffin.
Thank You, I never got the love for that ep. It is funny though, to read the pure HATE that some "Fans" have for this show, The Trek Universe is huge, we will always have it now, we can always "play" in it with our imaginations, but to read some of these posts, you'd think they found their beloved pet hanging from a tree in the back yard, it's only a show, an interpretation of a small part of the Trek Mythos by a group of writers, nothing more. The point of Trek has always been to gear up your imagination, to imagine the possibilities of a Galaxy where we work together.....if Trek "Died" to you because of this show, than you missed the entire point of the franchise.Darmok is overrated and the premise doesn't make much sense.
That would be ... interesting. How would he be able to disguise his lifesigns, though?Wonder if "You have to give up everything" means the Torchbearer becomes the first human-looking Klingon. The show hasn't exactly been subtle so far, so i won't be surprised.
I don't get what's wrong with this.I actually heard the screams of millions of disaffected Star Trek continuity buffs when Lorca mentioned Elon Musk.
Dukat is, in my opinion, the best TNG-era villain (at least until the end of DS9.)Of course, but Dukat was meant to be a villain, but due to the way Mark Alaimo played him (as absolutely sure he was actually the hero) people began identifying with him even though that was not the intent of the writers at all, who wanted him to be...quite literally...Hitler.
I don't like Lorca at all. It's like someone distilled all the things that bugged me about Archer to create this character. Bleh.I don't like Lorca, and really want him to not be yet another "evil captain" who never should have been in Starfleet to begin with. As someone else pointed out, saving the colony but then taking off without checking up on them in any way is definitely not what I'd expect Starfleet to do.
She's acting like a Vulcan. Or--if you'd rather--a human who has been trained to act Vulcan, but has been through a lot of shit lately, so she's not quite up on her game with either aspect of her heritage. So, basically an asshole.She was a dick from Tilly's first words. She's a bully.
Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian. ;-)Yeah, but it's probably why Voq's crew switched loyalty so fast as Chinese food always seems to leave one hungry again, soon.
The only one I've cared about so far was Georgiou. I really wish she was the captain instead of Lorca.The biggest one is that I haven't started caring for any of the characters. The closest is Burnham and probably Capt. Georgiou. Quite honestly that relationship drew me in at first
I agree. I wish the whole story revolved around the Shenzhou.I've been underwhelmed since they got to Discovery. The pilot, prologue, whatever they call it was more interesting for me.
Amen. There are few costuming pet peeves that bother me more than women being dressed inappropriately just for sex appeal--especially if we're talking about battle gear or military uniforms.One thing I would like to applaud this show for getting right: how the women are dressed.
Ditto. He's not even endearing unlike, say, Mackenzie Calhoun.Kind of surprised people are liking him so much. Sure, Isaacs is awesome. But the character is pretty despicable to me.
So, basically, just like modern warfare?Unless you’re one of the very few people who happen to serve on a Starfleet vessel, or hear about it on the news, you probably wouldn’t even know it’s happening.
Is that how it works? Honest question.And that's utter bullshit.
The event in question was an explosion, not a bunch of Klingons with guns shooting her parents while she watched. Meaning if she had PTSD it would have been triggered by explosion like events, not Klingons.
And that's utter bullshit.
The event in question was an explosion, not a bunch of Klingons with guns shooting her parents while she watched. Meaning if she had PTSD it would have been triggered by explosion like events, not Klingons.
Is that how it works? Honest question.
Your knowledge of how PTSD works is lacking. Depending on the person, even little, insignificant-seeming (on the surface) things can trigger fight-or-flight, panic, paranoia, flashbacks, or any other PTSD-related response. Sights, sounds, and smells--among other more complicated things--can all be triggers.The event in question was an explosion, not a bunch of Klingons with guns shooting her parents while she watched. Meaning if she had PTSD it would have been triggered by explosion like events, not Klingons.
Yes it is.Is that how it works? Honest question.
Actually it does.The trigger doesn't have to be directly related or connected to the trauma.
Yeah, people have already come forward to say your understanding of PTSD wrong.Yes it is.
PTSD flashbacks are connected to the event that caused the PTSD. Be it a smell, a sight, a sound. The trigger will be something connected to the event that puts the person back into the state of mind they were when they event occurred. Because that's how associative memory works.
And the fact is there's nothing to associate the sight of Klingon's with the traumatic event Burnham experienced.
From an ethnic Chinese family....Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian. ;-)
...
Actually the one person who claims to have had it agreed with my explanation.Yeah, people have already come forward to say your understanding of PTSD wrong.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.