• 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 1x10 - "Despite Yourself"

Rate the episode...


  • Total voters
    344
I don't have an issue with it not being creative, I certainly don't find it interesting or thought provoking.

I'm just sayin if someone wrre to say " yeah and that message on raxist nationalism was really somethin wasnt it" I'd just say "eh"

Well considering we haven't seen the message yet (if there's going to be one) I'm not sure how you could have an opinion on it either way.

That, and it is just such a weak and worn-out argument, a literal violation of "Godwin's Law".

When folks have to resort to calling mainstream people "racist", it generally just shows that they have nothing to say that is worthwhile. It is cheap and childish.

Again, the story and/or allegory hasn't played out yet (if it even will), so how do we know how simplistic, creative, original, or strong, it will be?

It sounds like you guys really lack imagination and are ready to write off stories before they're told.
 
It could be he changed because of the war and he has survivor guilt or it could be a writer's clue: "The truth is you are not the man I used to know". "It sure wasn't what it was like before". Women know these things...

Us dudes spent years being told to find certain spots and whatnot...now there’s a Quantum Signature Sensor Array there too? What would that evolve in response to? They always said size don’t matter, but if you gotta sense things on a quantum level....mind you, this does explain her behaviour in the episode...
 
I think that's what makes it interesting. There are other clues: Lorca's deflections when Cornwell brings up their past together, the strange marks on his back, his intentional redirection of the last spore jump...

But all of these things are vague enough that they could mean one of many different things. And part of me hopes it's trying to make us think he's a Mirror Lorca, and really it's something else.
I'll bite...

Here's a potential explanation for a couple of those things...

1) "It wasn't like before" and "You're not the man I knew" could easily be explained in one of two or three ways: 1--The tide of years. How long ago was it she was involved with Lorca? Episodic memory isn't perfect. It's quite possible either or both of them do not recall things precisely the same way. In fact, every time you access a memory and reconsolidate it, it takes on a bit of the shine from your current affective state. In short, memory isn't 1's and 0's. It changes every time you 'relook' at it. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that they recall things differently. 2--People change. I'm in my late forties. There are a lot of things I did when I was younger I wouldn't do now. And, in like manner, there are a lot of things I do now I wouldn't've done in my twenties. But there is one thing that occurs naturally in pretty much everyone as they grow older. They become more conservative. Not politically conservative--though that tends to happen, too--but conservative in the sense that their horizons change and the way they look at the world tends to switch towards taking more comfort in the familiar instead of taking part in things outside of their usual experience. Hence, nostalgia. And as a sequela to that, it's very easy for a person to look back on what they've done with "rose tinted glasses" and say, with a bit of suppression or even denial, "Oh, good lord, I would've never done (or liked) anything like that!" Not everyone is like that, though. What if the good admiral became more prudish as she grew older...and Lorca didn't? She projects that "It wasn't like it was before" but she doth protesteth too much. Again, that trick with memory and the natural tendency to suppress all those nasty li'l things we did as youth and, now that we're respectable, we wouldn't dare do now. 3--Uh oh, this isn't good for my career, is it...? Like I've said before, she crossed a line, ethically. And, moreover, she made a bullshit diagnosis she couldn't've possibly made because she didn't put him through the proper tests (nor could she, ethically, because she was romantically involved with him; a disqualifier). Recognising this, in the heat of the moment, once Lorca produced his phaser--which sounds horrible to a Brit or someone from a nation with a high degree of gun control, but in America...it isn't as controversial as one might think in many parts of the country--she pulls a piece of diagnostic legerdemain out of her derrière and starts retroactively justifying it by saying it was Lorca's fault. That's projection and it's a defence mechanism covering for her own sense that she retroactively thinks she made a mistake by sleeping with him.

2) Those scars are interesting. I find it more interesting that they're four lines in a pattern of 3+1. Yes, it's odd that Section 31 might brand their people. Then again, considering the writers, I'd just call that a tad heavy-handed fanwankery. Still, why not make him Section 31? Half the people who dislike Lorca seem to think he is anyway, so... Alternately, they're simply scars. I have scars on my body. I don't like them to be touched. Especially in the middle of the night, when I'm asleep. I found nothing of what he did even mildly controversial. And it certainly doesn't require him being MU-native to think that Lorca is a private man, with deep pains and scars, and doesn't want to be touched in his sleep.

3) Did he redirect the jump or is that what they want us to think? Could he simply have stopped the sequence? I'm not sure if what we saw is what we think it is. We don't know the controls of the ship. I don't recall any pre-TNG ship being able to be navigated from the Captain's position, but I could be wrong.

What I'm saying here is that we may--may--be seeing writers misdirection here. If so, all the more interesting, because I really think Lorca's the best character on the show.

If not, well...bother. 'Cause I really like Lorca. ;-)
 
I think that's what makes it interesting. There are other clues: Lorca's deflections when Cornwell brings up their past together, the strange marks on his back, his intentional redirection of the last spore jump...

But all of these things are vague enough that they could mean one of many different things. And part of me hopes it's trying to make us think he's a Mirror Lorca, and really it's something else.

I had forgotten the marks. Hmm. Agoniser perhaps?
 
I geddit! :lol:
Oh good, I was worried! :D

I went with the Wet Wet Wet song first before tossing my hat in the air!

This Tyler thing is disturbing me because he is layered onto presumably Voq. I'm not sure how that plan was meant to work. Yes he killed Culber but he's now pledging to always protect Michael. Now mirror Tyler?? Oh man, but maybe mirror Tyler is their Voq layered onto their Tyler? (Yeah I was trying too hard there :lol:)
It will twist you in knots, because the mirror universe episodes always do for me. I like the concept, but I'm not sure most TV writers are up to the task of a clear, concise path out of a MU episode without leaving a shipload of questions.
 
I went with the Wet Wet Wet song first before tossing my hat in the air!

This Tyler thing is disturbing me because he is layered onto presumably Voq. I'm not sure how that plan was meant to work. Yes he killed Culber but he's now pledging to always protect Michael. Now mirror Tyler?? Oh man, but maybe mirror Tyler is their Voq layered onto their Tyler? (Yeah I was trying too hard there :lol:)

Mirror Tyler More? I don’t know about that, but I can dance like buddy holly.
 
Well considering we haven't seen the message yet (if there's going to be one) I'm not sure how you could have an opinion on it either way.



Again, the story and/or allegory hasn't played out yet (if it even will), so how do we know how simplistic, creative, original, or strong, it will be?

It sounds like you guys really lack imagination and are ready to write off stories before they're told.

LOL, it was you who began this subject wondering if the MU was supposed to represent the "alt right".

It is old and worn out if that is their goal. Calling all of your mainstream political opponents "Nazis" isn't a winning strategy. My dad fought in WWII against the real Nazis, and I had to listen to idiots call him a "Nazi" simply because he voted Republican.

So yes, it is old, unimaginative, and incredibly offensive. It isn't what the Left terms "hate speech", it is quite literally genuine "hate speech", because there is absolutely nothing worse that you can call someone than to call them a Nazi.
2hmd0z9.jpg
 
I'll bite...

Here's a potential explanation for a couple of those things...

1) "It wasn't like before" and "You're not the man I knew" could easily be explained in one of two or three ways: 1--The tide of years. How long ago was it she was involved with Lorca? Episodic memory isn't perfect. It's quite possible either or both of them do not recall things precisely the same way. In fact, every time you access a memory and reconsolidate it, it takes on a bit of the shine from your current affective state. In short, memory isn't 1's and 0's. It changes every time you 'relook' at it. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that they recall things differently. 2--People change. I'm in my late forties. There are a lot of things I did when I was younger I wouldn't do now. And, in like manner, there are a lot of things I do now I wouldn't've done in my twenties. But there is one thing that occurs naturally in pretty much everyone as they grow older. They become more conservative. Not politically conservative--though that tends to happen, too--but conservative in the sense that their horizons change and the way they look at the world tends to switch towards taking more comfort in the familiar instead of taking part in things outside of their usual experience. Hence, nostalgia. And as a sequela to that, it's very easy for a person to look back on what they've done with "rose tinted glasses" and say, with a bit of suppression or even denial, "Oh, good lord, I would've never done (or liked) anything like that!" Not everyone is like that, though. What if the good admiral became more prudish as she grew older...and Lorca didn't? She projects that "It wasn't like it was before" but she doth protesteth too much. Again, that trick with memory and the natural tendency to suppress all those nasty li'l things we did as youth and, now that we're respectable, we wouldn't dare do now. 3--Uh oh, this isn't good for my career, is it...? Like I've said before, she crossed a line, ethically. And, moreover, she made a bullshit diagnosis she couldn't've possibly made because she didn't put him through the proper tests (nor could she, ethically, because she was romantically involved with him; a disqualifier). Recognising this, in the heat of the moment, once Lorca produced his phaser--which sounds horrible to a Brit or someone from a nation with a high degree of gun control, but in America...it isn't as controversial as one might think in many parts of the country--she pulls a piece of diagnostic legerdemain out of her derrière and starts retroactively justifying it by saying it was Lorca's fault. That's projection and it's a defence mechanism covering for her own sense that she retroactively thinks she made a mistake by sleeping with him.

2) Those scars are interesting. I find it more interesting that they're four lines in a pattern of 3+1. Yes, it's odd that Section 31 might brand their people. Then again, considering the writers, I'd just call that a tad heavy-handed fanwankery. Still, why not make him Section 31? Half the people who dislike Lorca seem to think he is anyway, so... Alternately, they're simply scars. I have scars on my body. I don't like them to be touched. Especially in the middle of the night, when I'm asleep. I found nothing of what he did even mildly controversial. And it certainly doesn't require him being MU-native to think that Lorca is a private man, with deep pains and scars, and doesn't want to be touched in his sleep.

3) Did he redirect the jump or is that what they want us to think? Could he simply have stopped the sequence? I'm not sure if what we saw is what we think it is. We don't know the controls of the ship. I don't recall any pre-TNG ship being able to be navigated from the Captain's position, but I could be wrong.

What I'm saying here is that we may--may--be seeing writers misdirection here. If so, all the more interesting, because I really think Lorca's the best character on the show.

If not, well...bother. 'Cause I really like Lorca. ;-)

TLDR for the moment (will go back and read momentarily) but I wanted to address the scars: Cornwell being a tad perplexed by them, despite them having had a sexual relationship in the past means that they must have appeared since they were last together. Or, as the theory goes...

I had forgotten the marks. Hmm. Agoniser perhaps?

....they are scars from an agonizer, as some have surmised, and evidence of his Mirror Universe origins.


Which is why I said "if true" in the original post

Yes, but we have no idea what the message precisely is, how it would play out, and how clever (or not) it might be delivered. There are many ways to go with an anti-racism message, whether it's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" or "Terra Prime" both of which lacked subtlety, but in very different ways.
 
LOL, it was you who began this subject wondering if the MU was supposed to represent the "alt right".

It is old and worn out if that is their goal. Calling all of your mainstream political opponents "Nazis" isn't a winning strategy. My dad fought in WWII against the real Nazis, and I had to listen to idiots call him a "Nazi" simply because he voted Republican.

So yes, it is old, unimaginative, and incredibly offensive. It isn't what the Left terms "hate speech", it is quite literally genuine "hate speech", because there is absolutely nothing worse that you can call someone than to call them a Nazi.
2hmd0z9.jpg

Yes, it is I who brought it up. I sparked a discussion. Isn't that what this is for? Continuing to lack imagination. And your chart does nothing but spark division between Left and Right, so it runs counter to any claims of fairness you might think you have.

Your belief system is a fraud. Pay each player $50.
 
Neither is calling all your opponents socialists.

Can we please leave political trolling and baiting out of this thread?
Both Hillary and Sanders self-describe as socialists, so using the terms that they themselves seem to like doesn't constitute slander, IMHO.

OTOH, claiming that a mainstream figure who has won numerous civil rights awards for helping minorities and who has Jewish members of his own family a "Nazi" is flat out crazy.

But I will indeed be happy to see politics kept out of the discussion. I didn't introduce the subject, I just responded to another person's post.
 
Socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism, communism, labour parties, eurocommunism, many different labels that can mean many things. And the point is many American right-wing people do use the term like it's just one kind of thinking people should be afraid of.

The Dems are economically right-wing btw, just socially progressive. Bernie hardly qualifies as a typical Dem.

But yes, enough of politics.
 
but I wanted to address the scars: Cornwell being a tad perplexed by them, despite them having had a sexual relationship in the past means that they must have appeared since they were last together.

You don't think Lorca's scars could have simply been the result of the Buran disaster and/or the torture he suffered at the hands of the Klingons?
 
TLDR for the moment (will go back and read momentarily) but I wanted to address the scars: Cornwell being a tad perplexed by them, despite them having had a sexual relationship in the past means that they must have appeared since they were last together. Or, as the theory goes...



....they are scars from an agonizer, as some have surmised, and evidence of his Mirror Universe origins.

Do we know that an agonizer leaves scars?

And why would MU Lorca have agonizer scars? Did he not command the ISS BURAN, apparently "honourably," until his attempted coup? What reason would he have to have presumed agonizer scars--again, presuming they leave scars?
 
You don't think Lorca's scars could have simply been the result of the Buran disaster and/or the torture he suffered at the hands of the Klingons?

He wasn’t on the Buran when it went boom, and Klingons tortured him by opening the curtains on a sunny day. L’rell was very clear on her personalised approach. Those scars are a dangling thread, given their odd pattern.
 
Really disturbing question I heard someone say today on a podcast ...

"Which universe do we live in? Are we sure we don't live in the Mirror Universe?"

:(
 
Do we know that an agonizer leaves scars?

And why would MU Lorca have agonizer scars? Did he not command the ISS BURAN, apparently "honourably," until his attempted coup? What reason would he have to have presumed agonizer scars--again, presuming they leave scars?

Everyone and their mother has agonisers in the MU. He wasn’t always captain. But yeah, assuming they leave scars.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top