Episode 5-9 titles revealed

[Succubint]

He actually loves it. But I do have to screen the episodes and warn him when scenes get 'mature' - if that makes sense. He's a surprisingly mature 10 year old, however, and simply leaves the room temporarily if he thinks he can't handle things.

In episode 4, he teared up at the hail messages, had to have a few hugs. This made him invested in the story and he really wanted the crew to find a way to save Corvan II. Then when they did, he was fist pumping and literally yelling out yes in the living room. But then he was saddened at how the Tardigrade was moaning in that scene with Michael. He told me that he thinks Burnham will be the one to try to stop Ripper from being tortured. I hope so too.
He didn't watch Landry get mauled, because I warned him beforehand about that.

We are also watching DS9, TOS and Babylon 5 together. It's become a fun event where I get to show him the Sci Fi that I love.

DSC is special, however, since we are going on the latest Trek journey together, in semi-real time. I say semi because I screen every ep first.

 

[Number One]

Except your point has one major flaw - we all hated TNG at first. I did. To this day I think TNG's first season was ass. But OVERALL it was an excellent show. I was in college when it first aired, there wasn't even Usenet yet to talk about it and I didn't have CompuServe or AOL.

I never commented on those issues though I've seen them discussed time and time again, cause really, arguing for argument's sake? Not my thing.

However I watched TNG a bit later(I think 1990) than alot of others who saw it and enjoyed Trek in its series form(wasn't available locally and there weren't services like Netflix and the like back then), and I liked it throughout its run(They did mess episodes up a bit, but afterwards I got the original order of things and I wouldn't like them any less). The fact it improved on its formula and the contributors came to understand their material better with time, doesn't make it a bad series. It's as pioneering for its time as TOS was for its own and it gives you a sense of wonder and you get to learn of their universe alongside with them, it is a learning process both for the viewer AND the creator(actors/writers/directors etc).

Somehow it seems that serious nitpicking came to play and people judging TNG potentially comparing it in their minds with Trek shows it granted with an advantage to begin with, or I don't know what. To me its good sci-fi which is its main purpose. Plus everything that starts anew, has a little bit of pathfinding to do before it is known what works best for it(That's not to say it was bad at the beginning though; it just explains the change of course in some aspects of it).

There are some Trek series that can be said lacking in terms of their own promoted background(as in "continuity") or perspective, but there isn't any Trek series so far that is bad at it's core. I'm obviously refraining from judging STD cause its too early for this and is made by another group of people. STD arguably has the best starting cast there has been in a Trek series, but times has changed and the TV field is not what it used to be, you often see Movie superstars participating in tv series now. The acting is not a problem so much for STD. It will be judged on its other merits.

For the record TOS had a very good cast for its time. TNG had a really good cast for its time as well. The rest not so much(theoretically), but they delivered as good as others which is what you're looking for. In fact, its often guest stars that define the episodes. STD is different, cause shows nowadays are defined more from their core players, which doesn't mean guests don't help if they deliver.(We can see they have some great ones like the Mudd guest and Amanda Greyson guest for instance).

But in the end, it will be judged imo on if it's good sci-fi, stays true to Trek to be related with it, how relatable its stories are and how defing are its moments, as in does it expand on the core or is just there to capitalize on it.

 

[Succubint]

But... It's, like, the most recognizable theme in Trek. One of the most recognizable themes in TV history.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I think GoT is likely more memorable to more people, but I could be wrong.

I love the TNG theme. I was just speaking anecdotally. Right now, the DSC theme (or at least parts of it) is easier to recall in my mind. I concede that is partly because I am focused on and watching DSC eps more than once right now.

My general point was that just because the DSC theme doesn't seem particularly memorable to them, it doesn't mean it's not memorable or catchy to anyone else. Sometimes statements are made which assert objectivity, but are entirely subjective. It is useful to point this out on occasion.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

He actually loves it. But I do have to screen the episodes and warn him when scenes get 'mature' - if that makes sense. He's a surprisingly mature 10 year old, however, and simply leaves the room temporarily if he thinks he can't handle things.

In episode 4, he teared up at the hail messages, had to have a few hugs. This made him invested in the story and he really wanted the crew to find a way to save Corvan II. Then when they did, he was fist pumping and literally yelling out yes in the living room. But then he was saddened at how the Tardigrade was moaning in that scene with Michael. He told me that he thinks Burnham will be the one to try to stop Ripper from being tortured. I hope so too.
He didn't watch Landry get mauled, because I warned him beforehand about that.

We are also watching DS9, TOS and Babylon 5 together. It's become a fun event where I get to show him the Sci Fi that I love.

DSC is special, however, since we are going on the latest Trek journey together, in semi-real time. I say semi because I screen every ep first.

It's awesome that you get to share Star Trek with your Son

Who know's maybe in 20 years he'll be on this board talking about how he used to watch Discovery with his Mother! Discovery might be is TOS.

 

[Succubint]

I never commented on those issues though I've seen them discussed time and time again, cause really, arguing for argument's sake? Not my thing.

However I watched TNG a bit later(I think 1990) than alot of others who saw it and enjoyed Trek in its series form(wasn't available locally and there weren't services like Netflix and the like back then), and I liked it throughout its run(They did mess episodes up a bit, but afterwards I got the original order of things and I wouldn't like them any less). The fact it improved on its formula and the contributors came to understand their material better with time, doesn't make it a bad series. It's as pioneering for its time as TOS was for its own and it gives you a sense of wonder and you get to learn of their universe alongside with them, it is a learning process both for the viewer AND the creator(actors/writers/directors etc).

Somehow it seems that serious nitpicking came to play and people judging TNG potentially comparing it in their minds with Trek shows it granted with an advantage to begin with, or I don't know what. To me its good sci-fi which is its main purpose. Plus everything that starts anew, has a little bit of pathfinding to do before it is known what works best for it(That's not to say it was bad at the beginning though; it just explains the change of course in some aspects of it).

There are some Trek series that can be said lacking in terms of their own promoted background(as in "continuity") or perspective, but there isn't any Trek series so far that is bad at it's core. I'm obviously refraining from judging STD cause its too early for this and is made by another group of people. STD arguably has the best starting cast there has been in a Trek series, but times has changed and the TV field is not what it used to be, you often see Movie superstars participating in tv series now. The acting is not a problem so much for STD. It will be judged on its other merits.

For the record TOS had a very good cast for its time. TNG had a really good cast for its time as well. The rest not so much(theoretically), but they delivered as good as others which is what you're looking for. In fact, its often guest stars that define the episodes. STD is different, cause shows nowadays are defined more from their core players, which doesn't mean guests don't help if they deliver.(We can see they have some great ones like the Mudd guest and Amanda Greyson guest for instance).

But in the end, it will be judged imo on if it's good sci-fi, stays true to Trek to be related with it, how relatable its stories are and how defing are its moments, as in does it expand on the core or is just there to capitalize on it.

Perhaps, if you want to keep an open mind, you could refrain from calling the show STD? No other Trek TV show is referred to with the ST added in the abbreviation. Too many detractors are using STD because it also means Sexually Transmitted Disease. It comes across as petty, deliberately defying previous naming conventions such as TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, even TOS. DIS, DSC are the most official, ST if you must.

 

[Succubint]

Oops created an emoticon by mistake. I meant ST : D

 

[F. King Daniel]

These are some mighty good, pretentious, sentence-y episode names. Exactly what I wanted. Good job, Team DSC

 

[Succubint]

I like the titles. It's fun speculating what plot relevance they impart. In the season trailers, it shows Burnham and I think Saru walking in a forest with tricorders. I think that must relate to ep 9.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Perhaps, if you want to keep an open mind, you could refrain from calling the show STD? No other Trek TV show is referred to with the ST added in the abbreviation. Too many detractors are using STD because it also means Sexually Transmitted Disease. It comes across as petty, deliberately defying previous naming conventions such as TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, even TOS. DIS, DSC are the most official, ST if you must.

STD is a funny abbreviation. Just because some detractors use it, shouldn't stop us fans from using it. I prefer DIS (which is also problematical), but I have no problem with STD, just like I had no problem when people joked about STID years ago. The creators knew about this issue when they named the show Star Trek: Discovery in the first place, so its on them, not us.

Looking on the internet, I can find a few small references to STV and STE (pinterest, fan fiction sites), so they're not completely unheard of. STD, due to the joke factor, will be much more prevalent than those two.

So, please, don't make assumptions on people who use common, sensical abbreviated terms as if they're trying to insult the show. I'm liable to start using STD myself now, just to belabor the point.

 

[Succubint]

I'm sorry but if I see anyone using STD I will unfortunately assume they are either ignorant to the naming conventions or a deliberate naysaying troll. That's not to say that you are, but with the amount of vitriol going through parts of the gatekeeping fandom, I think you its understandabe that someone who enjoys watching Discovery might react negatively.

 

[Succubint]

Argh pressed enter too soon. Sorry for the mistakes. I meant "I think it's understandable..."

 

[Michael]

Personally I never felt the urge to not write Discovery. It's not a long word.

The titles sound interesting. Nice to see that they're going with such classic Star Trek-sounding titles.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I'm sorry but if I see anyone using STD I will unfortunately assume they are either ignorant to the naming conventions or a deliberate naysaying troll.

It's your right to make the assumption to yourself, as long as it doesn't go any further than that to outright accusations of trolling against anyone on the forum. Your personal preference in how the show is named among fans is not any kind of official policy. If you think someone is deliberately trolling with overuse of the STD nick or making crass comments with it, then you can report their post and let the mods deal with it.

 

[Rhodan]

Here we go.
Ep 9: Into the forest I go

Anachronistic death of Neelix?

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

I'm guessing that in Episode 9 Michael is going to go into the mushroom lab again.

I predict Ripper finds a way to escape to a source of natural mushrooms that doesn't come with the Discovery strings attached, leaving the ship stranded somewhere distant.

Looking on the internet, I can find a few small references to STV and STE (pinterest, fan fiction sites), so they're not completely unheard of.

What does Steve have to do with anything.

I prefer Disco as an abbreviation . It makes me smile more than STD does anyway.

 

[Krandor]

STD is a funny abbreviation. Just because some detractors use it, shouldn't stop us fans from using it. I prefer DIS (which is also problematical), but I have no problem with STD, just like I had no problem when people joked about STID years ago. The creators knew about this issue when they named the show Star Trek: Discovery in the first place, so its on them, not us.

Looking on the internet, I can find a few small references to STV and STE (pinterest, fan fiction sites), so they're not completely unheard of. STD, due to the joke factor, will be much more prevalent than those two.

So, please, don't make assumptions on people who use common, sensical abbreviated terms as if they're trying to insult the show. I'm liable to start using STD myself now, just to belabor the point.

The STD thing stopped being funny months ago

 

[Krandor]

Um... TNG had stellar ratings right out of the gate and was renewed for a second season in late November of 1987. I know of no markets in this part of the country (the Midwest) that ran TNG between episodes of TOS. TNG was part of Paramount's syndication block and usually ran with War of the Worlds and Friday the 13th: The Series.

TNG, for the entirety of its run, was never in fear of being cancelled due to ratings.

But the important point there is the state of TV at the time. When TNG aired there really was no Sci-fi shows on TV at the time. So to many people (myself included) a not-so-great star trek episode was still better then most of the rest that was on. There were not options like orville, dark matter, expanse, etc. to move to.

In fact TNG opened up a golden age of genre programming by showing it could be done through a syndication model (because the network model wasn't favorable to genre programming) and we got a ton of genre shows airing the next few years after TNG.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The STD thing stopped being funny months ago

But that would imply that it ever started.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

It's too petty to bother looking for a cite, but I believe Bryan Fuller himself joked about "STD."

 

[starmike]

The STD thing stopped being funny months ago

This.