The Shatverse sucks.
So is Yeoh.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x13 - "What's Past Is Prologue"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
So is Yeoh.
She won’t be in it that much longer.
We shall see.
It's disingenuous (more accurately, myopic and ignorant) to think Trump is the sole possible source of that speech.
It's also disingenuous (and against forum rules) to ignore my previous text explaining that the whole mirror universe (as well as the stupid slogan on all those red hats) is derived from the Nazis.
Funnily enough, I was watching an episode of Voyager on BBC America the other day (Rise) and they beamed Neelix and Tuvok and others aboard while they were taking fire from another ship after raising shields.
So either it's a matter of dropping the shields for an instant to do the transport while taking the risk of absorbing an unshielded hit, finding some technobabble trick of opening a microscopic window in the shield to beam through if you have line of sight, finding some weakness or frequency shift in the shields to beam through like O'Brien did to get aboard the Phoenix in TNG The Wounded, or using the ion storm for sensor cover so you can briefly drop shields, which would make the most sense in this episode's case.
Or, and this is my craziest theory of all, Star Trek has been totally inconsistent with its depiction of technology throughout all the shows and films and they're ultimately only there to serve the immediate needs of the plot.
I really loved this episode. As soon as it was over I watched it again. I felt that MU Lorca had the best exit possible. He rescued his people, captured a city ship and overthrew an emperor. All season he had used the Discovery crew to his own advantage, however his downfall was that he no longer had the crew of the Discovery behind him. He is nothing without them.
Perhaps section 31 knew about MU Lorca and put him in charge of Discovery to help win the war at any costs. For a time their plan was working until Lorca found a way back home
Last edited:
Agreed.
I'm not an idiot. As for the bolded part of the quote? If a mod wants to call me down for conduct in violation of forum rules, that's their prerogative, but as far as I can tell you are not a mod.
I never said that. I did say that, given current events, it's obviously the primary motivation.
Perhaps section 31 knew about MU Lorca and put him in charge of Discovery to help win the war at any costs.
In the novels, they do know about the MU, though not at this point in history. The novel Disavowed shows that the MU knows about them, too (with poetic consequences for Section 31).
I'm surprised no one has ever made a YouTube Video with TV Picard getting into a debate with Movie Picard.
Nope.
Yes the quality dipped exactly when you say, and yes there was plenty of filler. But no, it never left it's brains behind. In fact Enterprise improved on Voyager in this regard with episodes like Dear Doctor and Cogeniter. My point however is that even when past Treks were bad, you could find episodes within a season that tried to deal with Trek like issues and not one season out of the entire back catalogue dispensed with the positive future and moral quandaries.
Actually Enterprise showed steady improvement during it's third and fourth seasons, and even season three contained some of the kinds of episodes I am talking about .
Better tell that to someone who claimed it has "destroyed" Star Trek then.
I simply said it's Trek in name only. Making the case that it has destroyed the franchise is to say there is no scope for recovery. I have said the opposite.First of all, don't lump me in with "others". That is intellectually offensive as my opinions are my own.
Secondly, I have been a fan since the early eighties. I was there when TNG debuted, and while there were certainly criticisms of it, the ones I am making of this show did not apply, nor was I making them of TNG when it debuted. You talk about rose tinted glasses, but you don't mind not only revising history but putting words into my mouth as if to pretend I was doing them same in 1987 as now. "People complained back then too" is not the be all and end all of an argument and doesn't render criticism mute.
Your argument is that the point of a show carrying a franchise name is not to reflect the franchise? If the first season isn't representative of the show then the show is deceiving its audience.
Trek has done wars before but still found time for intelligence, philosophical debate and moral quandaries. As for values they hold dear - what values? There has been almost no discussion about them aside from a few lines from Stamets. You only know what values the Federation holds dear because you know them from other shows. A new viewer doesn't because they have been brushed aside and given little more than occasional, casual lip service.
So now your argument against my post with what you think may happen in the show??
If that is what it is then good. But that risks alienating viewers who tune into the franchise for the first time and think the show is Game of Thrones lite in space with darkness, cheesy plot twists and the like.
Also, let's face it, banging on about the War is bollocks anyway. We've hardly seen any of the war. We saw more war on DS9 and still that show retained it's intelligence and positivity. The botched Klingons were brushed aside after episode 9 in favour of this panto villain four episode mirror universe jaunt, that is essentially four episodes wasted of the supposed war arc. The war has always felt more like a background afterthought in the show for me. Plus, where was the promise that the Klingons and their culture would be much more developed than previous series? They've been the exact opposite and brushing them aside in favour of panto antics from Isaacs and Yeoh as space Nazis has taken away valuable time from fulfilling the much talked up promise from the writers about the Klingons.
Well, with respect, yes you are making them to be critical of me, hence your comment "you and others" above. To be blunt, I don't need your perspective, I am intelligent enough to have my own views and to be honest your post reads like a line of excuse making rather than an analysis of where the show has shortcomings. If you are able to overlook it's shortcomings and they aren't deal breakers then I am genuinely pleased for you that the show is delivering enough to keep you happy.
I have stuck through Trek for nearly forty years. I suffered through all seven years of Voyager. But I am at a stage now where I am more discerning on what I invest my money in and this show is not delivering enough for me, especially given you have to subscribe to get it, unlike previous series. I will give it to early season two and if I see no signs of improvement I am out. I am not a "hater" and never have been. But I do know when something is frustrating me and the reasons why that frustration exists. It's not because I am simply not adjusting, which is the thrust of your argument (and a bit unintentionally patronising).
Last edited:
Not nessessarily, at least in the past. On Babylon 5, for instance, most of the opening-credits cast was only contracted for a specific number of episodes in the season. That might’ve been a special case, somehow, and it was a long time ago. The more recent example I can think of is the behind-the-scenes podcasts for BSG where they’d often mention trying to find a place to work in every character for at least a scene, since they were paying them for the episode anyway.
Who’s to say they didn’t build thirty or forty, and there were only twelve left by the time of TOS?
Because roid rage movie Picard would rip off his sleeves and beat TV Picard up with the breakable stock of his phaser rifle inside of the first sentence of TV Picard's rousing egalitarian speech.
It's amusing how Picard became more action-oriented as he got older, while Kirk becomes more philosophical.
This show continues to be a roller coaster in the worst possible way.
Of course! Only a denizen of the Mirror Universe or a frozen relic of the Eugenics Wars could ever be that ruthless! Why would anyone in Star Fleet ever need to be militarily competent when all you need to do is understand your enemy and sympathize with him in order to win a war? Oh please.....
I'm disappointed by the fact that they had initially set up Lorca as an interesting "get things done by any means necessary" type of military leader that becomes necessary during times of war. A sort of Star Fleet version of General Patton. Instead they cheapened that complexity and contrast by having him be simply be an undercover Space Nazi. I suppose in retrospect getting Issacs as captain was too good to be true. He's probably too high profile an actor to be pegged long term to a series like this as a regular character.
Lorca, Burnham and Giorgiou's characters all came across as inconsistent with their build up so far to some greater or lesser extent. Lorca seemed to go from cunning and calculating man of 1000 schemes to a raving lunatic going on about his Destiny and fixated on getting Burnham to join him for some inexplicable reason. The Lorca we've seen up until now wouldn't have any illusions about her willingness or ability to compromise her star fleet principles. He'd simply kill her or let her go. Empress Georgiou simply by being in her position would never get sentimental about a fake (to her) Burnham. For that matter why was Burnham so willing to snuggle up to the Empress at the end? Why would she be so adamant about not 'betraying' her again? By all rights this Georgiou, as Empress, probably has far more blood and atrocities on her hands than even Mirror Lorca yet Burnham sems all concerned about her up to the point that she saves her at the end of the episode...it makes no sense to me at all.
I'm not a big fan of the modern trope of tiny women besting men in combat who are multiples of their size. I'm willing to suspend disbelief at times depending on the story but I don't see how it's misogynistic to say that, in general terms, women are not as suited for hard combat as men - nor are they, in general, able to best men on a one to one basis. Of course there will always be some exceptions but these are not really all that common.
Actually what really bugs me about the episode is not so much the women combatants thing so much as that the depiction of the entire range of combat borders on the ridiculous. Standing out in the open with no cover or concealment? Throwing 'flash' grenades to stun instead of an actual explosive or other fatal weapon? Being completely unable to get off a shot anywhere close to the target? Being able to disarm several guards without injury to yourself or your partner? Reverting to medieval weapons like a mace, sword or knives in a world where a small handgun sized weapon can completely disintegrate a person? The list goes on and on.... The idea that the terrans could conquer anybody with such crap combat skill is simply absurd
Of course! Only a denizen of the Mirror Universe or a frozen relic of the Eugenics Wars could ever be that ruthless! Why would anyone in Star Fleet ever need to be militarily competent when all you need to do is understand your enemy and sympathize with him in order to win a war? Oh please.....
I'm disappointed by the fact that they had initially set up Lorca as an interesting "get things done by any means necessary" type of military leader that becomes necessary during times of war. A sort of Star Fleet version of General Patton. Instead they cheapened that complexity and contrast by having him be simply be an undercover Space Nazi. I suppose in retrospect getting Issacs as captain was too good to be true. He's probably too high profile an actor to be pegged long term to a series like this as a regular character.
Lorca, Burnham and Giorgiou's characters all came across as inconsistent with their build up so far to some greater or lesser extent. Lorca seemed to go from cunning and calculating man of 1000 schemes to a raving lunatic going on about his Destiny and fixated on getting Burnham to join him for some inexplicable reason. The Lorca we've seen up until now wouldn't have any illusions about her willingness or ability to compromise her star fleet principles. He'd simply kill her or let her go. Empress Georgiou simply by being in her position would never get sentimental about a fake (to her) Burnham. For that matter why was Burnham so willing to snuggle up to the Empress at the end? Why would she be so adamant about not 'betraying' her again? By all rights this Georgiou, as Empress, probably has far more blood and atrocities on her hands than even Mirror Lorca yet Burnham sems all concerned about her up to the point that she saves her at the end of the episode...it makes no sense to me at all.
I'm not a big fan of the modern trope of tiny women besting men in combat who are multiples of their size. I'm willing to suspend disbelief at times depending on the story but I don't see how it's misogynistic to say that, in general terms, women are not as suited for hard combat as men - nor are they, in general, able to best men on a one to one basis. Of course there will always be some exceptions but these are not really all that common.
Actually what really bugs me about the episode is not so much the women combatants thing so much as that the depiction of the entire range of combat borders on the ridiculous. Standing out in the open with no cover or concealment? Throwing 'flash' grenades to stun instead of an actual explosive or other fatal weapon? Being completely unable to get off a shot anywhere close to the target? Being able to disarm several guards without injury to yourself or your partner? Reverting to medieval weapons like a mace, sword or knives in a world where a small handgun sized weapon can completely disintegrate a person? The list goes on and on.... The idea that the terrans could conquer anybody with such crap combat skill is simply absurd
Last edited:
Still digesting it
I can see where some of that saved up effects budget went and I was impressed with the more typically trek starship shots
If I can make a suggestion, this show really needs an action director
Other than Michelle’s own fighting scenes (because she is an HK action Director herself and knows how to fight) the fight scenes looked like a skinny jeans wearing hipsters idea of how physical combat would play out. Maybe hire a retired SEAL or Marine.
Don’t know why the portrail of The Emperess bothers me as some how sympathetic/heroic when in the last episode she is a cold blooded mass genocide murderer who made Michael eat a person but it kinda does.
Some very excellent Star Treky stuff on the discovery and I’m good with Captain Saru and number one Stamets. Easily my fav moments.
Green continues to have all the charisma of a block of wood. Rosario Dawson would have been so much better.
Interesting that here there seems to be a new wave of angry thought nazis lashing out at any dissenting opinions other than Discovery is a tour de force and the second coming.
Lotsa hate from the tolerant Left. Who’da thought the (grand)children of the free speech movement would be so hateful and intolerant. Oh well.
It’s ok not to like it. It’s ok to like it. It’s ok to drift back and forth. I find the debate interesting and support all trains of thought on the subject. It is a polarizing show for better or worse.
I really however find the thought police tiresome. Especially when most are keyboard toughguys/gals who cram donuts and Mountain Dew down like tictaks and have more rolls than a bakery.
If your that worked up get out and jog or lift some weights, great therapy for anger and stress.
I can see where some of that saved up effects budget went and I was impressed with the more typically trek starship shots
If I can make a suggestion, this show really needs an action director
Other than Michelle’s own fighting scenes (because she is an HK action Director herself and knows how to fight) the fight scenes looked like a skinny jeans wearing hipsters idea of how physical combat would play out. Maybe hire a retired SEAL or Marine.
Don’t know why the portrail of The Emperess bothers me as some how sympathetic/heroic when in the last episode she is a cold blooded mass genocide murderer who made Michael eat a person but it kinda does.
Some very excellent Star Treky stuff on the discovery and I’m good with Captain Saru and number one Stamets. Easily my fav moments.
Green continues to have all the charisma of a block of wood. Rosario Dawson would have been so much better.
Interesting that here there seems to be a new wave of angry thought nazis lashing out at any dissenting opinions other than Discovery is a tour de force and the second coming.
Lotsa hate from the tolerant Left. Who’da thought the (grand)children of the free speech movement would be so hateful and intolerant. Oh well.
It’s ok not to like it. It’s ok to like it. It’s ok to drift back and forth. I find the debate interesting and support all trains of thought on the subject. It is a polarizing show for better or worse.
I really however find the thought police tiresome. Especially when most are keyboard toughguys/gals who cram donuts and Mountain Dew down like tictaks and have more rolls than a bakery.
If your that worked up get out and jog or lift some weights, great therapy for anger and stress.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
