Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x13 - "What's Past Is Prologue"

[SolarisOne]

Preachyness and nuance? On Star Trek? It's like you've never seen the show.

Bullshit. On more than one occasion Picard debated with himself over what he was preaching. That discussion with the time traveler, for instance. This show?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Bullshit. On more than one occasion Picard debated with himself over what he was preaching. That discussion with the time traveler, for instance. This show?

So that means Star Trek isn't preachy? I love Sir Pat, but he can make the phone book sound preachy if goes full Picard on it.

 

[STR]

I wish the whole "Social Justice Warriors" thing would die out already. The only thing I don't like about Discovery's preachy-ness, is that the writers don't seem to know what the word "nuance" means. They're being lazy with it. The prime example being making Lorca a Trump clone. It's low-hanging, fanfic level absurd, fruit. THAT is what pisses me off so much about Lorca's departure.

I honestly have zero faith in the writers now.

What part of Lorca's speech made him a Trump clone? Was it the part where he said he was the best Lorca "believe me", and then asked everyone to look at his big hands?

Because I made that part up. Everything real-mirror-Lorca said was out of Mein Kampf school of Empire, which (along with shiny sashes and scenery chewing) has been the mirror universe since episode 1. Christ, even MAGA was deliberately ripped from the Nazi playbook. Am I the only one that remembers that? Terrans are crazy space Nazis. Always have been.

Anyone or anything else that's also derivative of the Nazis is coincidental.

 

[Lord Garth]

I guess now we don't have to worry about seeing the Defiant. Clever move, guys. Stir the pot just enough to get us all whipped up and then keep the stew hidden and just out of reach.

We'll probably be seeing a Constitution-class starship soon, though.

I called it a Chekhov's Gun up-thread but then I've thought to myself, "Maybe it did have a role, no one ever said how major it had to be." It served as a way for Georgiou to be up-to-speed on the existence of the Prime Universe, so that we could just move on with the story instead of seeing her have to learn everything about it.

If the ISS Discovery is in the Prime Universe, then it's been there for nine months, so -- again -- it's going to spare us the time of watching Burnham and Saru having to explain everything to Cornwell. Possibly.

 

[SolarisOne]

So that means Star Trek isn't preachy? I love Sir Pat, but he can make the phone book sound preachy if goes full Picard on it.

Goddamn it. Perhaps I should have italicized "Discovery" in my statement. It was not my intention to imply that Star Trek isn't preachy, but that Discovery's preachy-ness has ZERO nuance, versus what came before. The writers of this show are being lazy about it, and that irks me. That was a misstep in communication on my part.

Also, come to think of it, maybe I'm being too hard on them for making Lorca like Trump, because I fucking hate him.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I would have l

Mary Sue is one of those terms like Baby Bump I'd like to see buried in some phrase graveyard. I get what the term is, I get that it's a bonafide Trekker invention, but the danger of calling tropes all the time is that it doesn't allow for variations on a theme. Vox populi est vox tedium. There are only so many characters, only so many stories, everything is a variation on a limited number of themes. Anyway, I like Burnham's character, and she's been more interesting and relatable since the Mirror Universe episodes started.

Just about every heroic character in the classlic literary catalog has some Mary-Suesque traits in them. And the term was specifically coined for fan-fic characters.

Unfortunately, it's been hijacked to be used as a pejorative--mostly by white men about women characters who show andy amount of self-reliance and initiative.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It was not my intention to imply that Star Trek isn't preachy, but that Discovery's preachy-ness has ZERO nuance, versus what came before.

Star Trek's "politics" have always been about as nuanced as a rock through a windshield.

 

[lawman]

If you're not watching After Trek, you are missing out on a lot of insights about the direction and intent of S1. Interesting stuff.
...
I thought it was fascinating that they basically said that the whole theme of the season was that Lorca's presence was essentially poisoning the crew of the Discovery and casting the shadow over the typical Starfleet ideals, and that the whole idea was to show the contrast in how the crew reacts and comes together once they are kind of freed up. They said that the bridge crew is now headed toward becoming a family.
...
It's worth it to get the insights about the writing and production process.

I haven't watched it at all. I'm probably jaded by my experience of the post-episode segments for Game of Thrones, where showrunners Benioff and Weiss consistently demonstrate considerably less insight into what's going on with their characters and stories than any number of critics and fans I've read online.

Perhaps After Trek is better than that, but if the example you describe here is typical, I remain skeptical. I mean, the "Lorca poisoning the crew's morale" concept could've been an interesting theme, hypothetically... but that's the only way I can approach it, because I've seen literally no evidence of it in the actual episodes.

Nobody "wasted" isaacs for burnham. Thay doesn't make much sense to say anyway. There are the actors isaacs and green, characters lorca and michael. ... It'd be one thing to say they wasted LORCA in favor of burnham, but not isaacs. The character and the story werr written before they knew exactly who would do the acting.

And my own personal opinion, Burnham is a much more interesting character.
...
Once upon a time, before they cast the show, the wrote a story about these characters. The cadt and crew are simply fulfilling the story. They aren't making this up from one week to the other.

Thats the point you people keep missing. Her continuing to be the maon character isn't a thing they are "pushing" that's just the story that was conceived, casted, and shot.

I agree about your first point here, and disagree about the second (Burnham just hasn't really grabbed my interest so far, compared even to Tilly or Stamets, never mind Lorca).

But even if the plan was laid before the casting was done and the shooting started, smart showrunners know how to adapt their show midstream to take advantage of opportunities to improve it (and hey, it's already beyond obvious that this show hasn't played out exactly as originally conceived). When you have a breakout character, especially when it's due to the talent and charisma of a particular actor, like with Lorca/Isaacs (not unlike, say, Spock/Nimoy was in TOS S1, to the frustration of Shatner) — and that's something you should definitely notice as you're shooting the show — you can and should shift some additional emphasis to that character. The original plan isn't necessarily carved in stone.

As a total aside, I'm really shocked - even though he had nothing to offer the plot this week - that Shazad Latif didn't even make a brief cameo. I was always under the impression the way the acting contracts worked was if you were a main character they had to find some way to shoehorn you into the story in every week.

Nah. My understanding is that being a featured cast member just means you get paid for every episode, not that you have to appear on screen. (But if people with pertinent Hollywood contract experience can weigh in with more details, I'm willing to stand corrected.)

My problem with Lorca's end was I know he isn't that stupid. I mean the utter lack of foresight from that guy, the guy who outsmarted and out played so many smart players.

You can say that again. Particularly in light of this...

Lorca's weakness was his fondness for Burnham. That's really the crux of the episode.

It strikes me that one (additional) big flaw of this episode is that it was written as if Lorca knew what the audience knew. Realistically, he had no way of knowing that Burnham had caught on to his MU origins. If he really wanted to keep her loyalties, he could and should have continued to play out the con, and insisted he was the PU version. Instead he gave the game away for no reason, and set himself up for betrayal and defeat.

I *loved* Saru's speech, and I'm excited at the prospect of the USS Discovery under Captain Saru's command.

It wasn't a bad speech, all things considered, and it worked to motivate the crew. On the other hand, that's not really Saru's style, so it seemed somewhat out of character, and — especially with the "no-win scenario" bit — it seemed just a little too explicitly evocative of a Jim Kirk speech. Except if Kirk had given it, he would've had a plan of his own to avoid that outcome, rather than tossing the problem back to his crew to come up with one.

 

[SolarisOne]

What part of Lorca's speech made him a Trump clone? Was it the part where he said he was the best Lorca "believe me", and then asked everyone to look at his big hands?

The fact he didn't say those particular things just means he was a more intelligent version of the current U.S. President. You know damn well they wouldn't have made him say the specific things he did say if Trump wasn't around. Don't be disingenuous.

 

[thribs]

So the Klingons are winning but yet all 12 Connies are fine?

I gave it a 10/10 actually. I almost jumped on the "this is too much like star wars" bandwagon during the fighting scenes but during the scene where we're seeing them flying through the m-network into the unknown made it feel like star trek again. I was glad they saved Georgiou. Glad to see Landry again too.

I thought Stargate.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Goddamn it. Perhaps I should have italicized "Discovery" in my statement. It was not my intention to imply that Star Trek isn't preachy, but that Discovery's preachy-ness has ZERO nuance, versus what came before. The writers of this show are being lazy about it, and that irks me.

Also, come to think of it, maybe I'm being too hard on them for making Lorca like Trump, because I fucking hate him.

Sorry, I just don't associate Trek with nuance. It's a rare beast. Discovery's nuance level is on par with the rest of the franchise.
I don't see him being very Trump like either. Other than a using a take on Trump's catchphrase, they have little in common. Lorca is actually competent.

 

[STR]

Goddamn it. Perhaps I should have italicized "Discovery" in my statement. It was not my intention to imply that Star Trek isn't preachy, but that Discovery's preachy-ness has ZERO nuance, versus what came before. The writers of this show are being lazy about it, and that irks me. That was a misstep in communication on my part.

I dunno, I recall a couple of Enterprise episodes which were not only hamfisted but preached utterly immoral lessons too. Like the time Phlox convinced Archer to withhold a cure for a genetic disease that was killing an entire civilization because there was another sentient species on the same planet that Phlox liked better (pretty much). Like...that ep gets more FUBAR the more you think about it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Sorry, I just don't associate Trek with nuance. It's a rare beast. Discovery's nuance level is on par with the rest of the franchise.
I don't see him being very Trump like either. Other than a using a take on Trump's catchphrase, they have little in common. Lorca is actually competent.

And can read.

 

[thribs]

Should have just made Lorca Emperor and they escape. That would have been more interesting.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Should have just made Lorca Emperor and they escape. That would have been more interesting.

Too predictable, IMO.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'm actually curious to know what happens since there's such a huge power vacuum. And I don't even like the MU.

 

[thribs]

Too predictable, IMO.

Hasn’t stopped the show so far.
I actually think killing him was more predictable, considering the status of the actor.

 

[Amaris]

It wasn't a bad speech, all things considered, and it worked to motivate the crew. On the other hand, that's not really Saru's style, so it seemed somewhat out of character, and — especially with the "no-win scenario" bit — it seemed just a little too explicitly evocative of a Jim Kirk speech. Except if Kirk had given it, he would've had a plan of his own to avoid that outcome, rather than tossing the problem back to his crew to come up with one.

Engaging in a scenario where death is the greatest, or likely, outcome can cause some who would never engage in that kind of speaking to find their inner leader. Saru has always been level headed, methodical, and a true adherent to Starfleet's ideals. This speech was one of earnestness and probably a little bit of desperation, too. I think it worked well for him, and made me more interested in seeing Saru as the full on Captain next season.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hasn’t stopped the show so far.
I actually think killing him was more predictable, considering the status of the actor.

They've killed off other actors of similar "status". I think Shat's the only one who's death stuck.

 

[thribs]

They've killed off other actors of similar "status". I think Shat's the only one who's death stuck.

Not in the ShatnerVerse.
Jason Isaacs is quite a successful movie actor. I don’t think Shatner was ever that.