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

[Syd Shanshala]

I just realized Tyler wasn’t in this episode AT ALL. Not even 1 shot or mention of him

 

[Captain Killy]

Ent-D had that rich Corinthian leather..it doesn't get more real than that. If I have to spend 5 years on a ship, give me a Galaxy class recliner.

Nothing like the Hyatt in Spaaaace...

 

[Vger23]

I have been lurking since the first episode of STD, resisting the urge to join and comment, but I feel now, as we near the end of S1, is an appropriate time to do so. Please excuse the great extent of this observation, but I have a lot to say.

I literally go back as far as you can go with ST: I go back to “day I” and its debut in September 1966. Not surprisingly, I was quite disappointed with it. I was, and in many ways still am, a sci-fi “snob;” I want my sci-fi to be intelligently written and to explore intellectual themes. In my mind, once Hollywood gets its hands on an idea, it was as good as finished. It wasn’t until later in season 1, with “Devil in the Dark,” that I became a fan. Here was, for me, “real” sci-fi;” a story based on the possibility of life based on silicon and not carbon. Even so, I was in my first year of college, ST aired on Friday nights, and, as it was the last half of the 1960s. there were many other more important things to do that took priority over staying home to watch ST. But, I was one of those people who wrote letters asking that ST not be cancelled after season 2.

It wasn’t until ST entered syndication in the early 1970 when I was newly married and began watching ST at dinner with my wife (it was on a 6 PM every night) that I became a devoted fan, a “Treker.” When ST:TMP was released in late 1979, I was overjoyed. Seeing it was like meeting old friends that I had not seen for years. And, I must admit that, when Scotty took Kirk up to see the Enterprise in the shuttle, and circled the ship (as the music for what would become ST:TNG played), I cried. It is still one of my favorite ST movies (perhaps ranking after only “The Voyage Home), because for me, it was “real” sci-fi.

There is no more magic work in the English language than “starship.”

I loved TNG. It is, without a doubt, my favorite iteration of ST. I loved it from the very first second of “Encounter at Farpoint.” To me, it took everything good about TOS and amplified it. It was de rigueur, when my kids were little, to gather around the TV on Saturday night and watch TNG. On Sunday, we could watch the same episode again on a different channel. My “favorite” ST character is, without doubt, Picard. When Tasha Yar says to him in “Skin of Evil” that he had “the heart of an explorer and the soul of a poet,” well for me, that encapsulates what I felt not only about him, but about ST in general. There is another line from an early NG novel (I don’t remember which one) where Picard says, “once you have fired your phasers, you have failed in your mission” that also summarizes, for me, the meaning of ST. Yes, I know, there was plenty of violence and warfare in TOS, TNG, and the first movies, but it was always something to be resorted to only when all else had failed. I loved everything about TNG: yes, includes Wesley.

DS9 had perhaps the best ensemble cast of any version of ST. But, I gave up on watching it after a few seasons: too much violence, too much fighting. Serious themes, yes, great characters, absolutely, but I felt that it had lost its way.

I was thrilled when Voyager came out. Here was a chance for “real sci-fi.” Having to find your way home from another quadrant, dealing with all the problems it would represent physically, emotionally, and “mechanically” was an idea that had real potential. I was thrilled with the idea of a female captain (I am a straight male), thought of it as another restatement of core ST values. Unfortunately, finding your way home quickly came to mean “fighting your way home,” and the show quickly deteriorated. If DS9 had the best cast, Voyager probably had the worst. About the time 7 of 9 came aboard, I quit. Yes, she was stunning to look at, but if Janeway represented a core value, 7, for me, represented a repudiation of those values (yes, I know about the mini-skirts in TOS, but that was the 1960s, Voyager was the 1990s).

Enterprise, to me, was brought down by too many internal, structural problems inherent in a show taking place well before TOS I didn’t make it through the whole series (though it plays much better on re-watching it now). I felt the franchise had become stale, that they were repeating the same stories from TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager, again and again: that perhaps ST was a franchise simply out of ideas.

The reboot movies have been good at best, poor at worst. The best part has been the cast: all great. The stories have been, again, more of the same. How many times can you make the same movie?

The point being: I hold ST to a very high standard. Much higher say, than Star Wars. I love SW (yes, even the prequels): I saw The Last Jedi 3X in the first two weeks that it was out. But, for me. SW is about great characters and a great ongoing plot. But, it is not really sci-fi, not about ideas, not about science, not about ideas, not about vision. The story could be told anywhere and in any era (hey, but I love it anyway).

ST, for me, has always been about intelligent, thought-provoking, mentally stimulating sci-fi (yes, I know, each version has had more than its share of inane episodes). It is, at its heart, about exploration, about “new life and new civilizations,” it is about starships, alien civilizations different than our own (even if it’s the Klingons: one of the best things about TNG was how it explored and developed Klingon culture), about “outer space,” about vision, about future technology and science and its ramifications, about an optimistic view of our future.

Yes, I come to it as an unrequited progressive who believes in a gender, racial, ethnic, and sexual neutral society: call me a SJW if you like. I’m proud of that fact. I don’t have to mention what I think of our current president. I think much of the criticism of Burnham, of Tilly, of “Mary Sues,” is just a cover for misogynistic thinking.

So that brings me to STD. Honestly, I am greatly conflicted. It is great to have ST back, no matter what form it takes. I am totally “in” with the idea of having a woman as the main character, totally “in” with the idea of having a gay couple on the show. The characters are interesting, the arc of the plot fascinating, the settings absorbing, the need for a new take on an old story evident. ST, as it has come across in the last TV versions and the movies, had become repetitive. Something new was needed. So, no matter what my opinion of it, I will keep watching.

But, for me, it is not reaching the high standard I personally set for ST. It is missing, thus far, the core values of ST. Yes, times have changed, and it is easy to disparage those values, easy to poke fun at as “old-timers” who came of age with Roddenberry Trek. But, I, personally, pride myself in being open to change: that is the definition of being a progressive. But, even with the recognition of the importance of change, that things must change and evolve, there are things I don’t like about the show. There is too much plot and not enough character development, a common problem on TV today and honestly why I don’t watch much TV. Too much violence. The season long arc of the show sends plots off in multiple directions with not enough time spent on individual plot threads or characters. It often seems as if the show is going in multiple directions at the same time and is “out of control.” There is not enough exploration of thought-provoking themes. I know that it is, is some ways, “early days,” and that now that they are back from the MU things may change. I know we have heard occasional references to the values of the Federation. But not nearly enough. And, I was most disappointed with the end of the most recent episode (an episode that for all it gratuitous violence, kept me riveted): back to the Klingon war? Really? Again? Too much mimicry of Game of Thrones (admittedly, I gave up on GOT when it diverged from the books which I thought were excellent). Yes, I know this is 2018 and not 1968, 1987, or 1992. But there was always that tangible “something” that separated ST from other sci-fi shows, that made it special and different, that made it unique, that satisfied my “higher standard.” What that was, was its core values of exploration, intelligence, vision, and a view of the future where we overcame many of the problems we face today. Without those values, we don’t really have ST: we have something different. Something that may be of value in and of itself but is not ST. Something that may be interesting and exciting but is not ST. Being on a starship is not enough to call it ST. Having warp drive, the Federation, transporters, tricorders, communicators, etc., is not enough to call it ST. I didn’t expect a reboot of TNG (I can enjoy parts of the Orville for that). Times have changed. But even with changing times, core values can still be kept. I desperately hope that S2 is better. I know that there is a contradiction here: on one hand I said that ST had gotten old and stale and on the other, I am grousing about its latest, different iteration. This is something I will continue to gnaw at. In the meanwhile, I will keep watching, keep thinking about it, keep appreciating STD for what it is no matter what, but hoping for so much more.

Great post.

I think for me, I've been able to accept DSC because I consider it to be a "testing ground" and a developmental inflection point for the establishment of those very "Trek" values that make the franchise interesting and unique.

In DSC, we've been invited on that journey, rather than being handed all the "good" right out of the gate. It's like Data or Spock's journey toward understanding themselves or humanity better, but with a whole group of people this time. We start in one place, we take a long journey, we end in a better place. I like that better than just living in the better place all the time.

I think DSC will continue to show us how the vision of Starfleet we see by the time Kirk commands the Enterprise came to be. That's an exciting prospect...one that ENT promised to perhaps deliver on, but didn't really come through in many spots.

If they keep making bold choices and telling exciting stories...it's a journey worth taking from my perspective. With that hope in mind...I've enjoyed the hell out of DSC thus far.

 

[XCV330]

The ent-D bridge was shit. What it needed was some tuck and roll and some shag carpet.

NX-01 remains my favorite bridge with identifiable components and safety railing. It's fairly cramped too, as it should be. If you don't wear your deodorant on an NX, everyone's going to hate you.

 

[Vger23]

Hi. TLDR

Ill be frank with ya. I hate the TLDR tag. 99% of the time if someone types TLDR, I'd go back and read and find it only took like 40 seconds to read. Sometimes a minute.

But ill be honest I was about to drop TLDR here and you best me to it.

You guys have me at a disadvantage with this TLDR stuff...

 

[eschaton]

Wait. You're complaining that the ship sets look "fake and stagey"...on Star Trek?

Did you even read what I said? I admitted this was always a problem on Trek, with only DS9 really getting a sense of space/depth from their soundstage sets. It's just a big contrast to Game of Thrones - which this series is often compared to - because very little on that show looks like it's filmed in a studio (even when it is).

I think the problem is worse on Discovery though in some ways because the showrunners are putting plots together in such a way as to reuse the standing sets over and over again - which makes the show seem fake and "stagey."

1. On several episodes they didn't even leave the Discovery.
2. They have found reasons to reuse standing sets from the prologue (return to Ship of Dead, using Glenn as twin of Discovery, Mirror Shenzhou, Stamets experiencing the network as the Discovery, etc.
3. We've only gone planetside four times this season (with two of the planets essentially empty of any humanoid life/other characters).

This results in the scope of the series seeming very "confined." At least for me, it also makes it hard to suspend disbelief - especially when the same small crew of characters keeps coming back (like next week, when we'll see Sarek and Cornwell - some of the only PU guest characters not known to be dead - once again.

 

[Gilora]

Just lying to the rest of the crew after she's taken 'em out.

Fair point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

NX-01 remains my favorite bridge with identifiable components and safety railing. It's fairly cramped too, as it should be. If you don't wear your deodorant on an NX, everyone's going to hate you.

Especially T'Pol.

 

[Photoman15]

LOL. Airiam is a glorified background extra. Sulu and Uhura had more character moments in their first few Trek episodes than Airiam, Detmer, Reese and Owosekun combined. Mostly everything in this episode, including the villain, revolved around the 'great' Michael Burnham.

It's very unlikely they are planning to go back to the traditional ensemble Trek dynamic now.

I'm pretty sure in TOS most everything revolved around Kirk being the great Captain Kirk.
I'm pretty sure in TNG most everything revolved around Picard being the great Captain Picard.
I'm pretty sure in VOY most everything revolved around Janeway being the great Captain Janeway
I'm pretty sure in ENT most everything revolved around Archer being the great Captain Archer.

Get the idea? The main character in Discovery is Burnham.

 

[Romulan_spy]

It just reeked of lazy storytelling IMHO. They should have just said they were deep in Federation space but could only detect Klingon comm traffic.

I actually think it would have been a more effective cliffhanger if the episode had ended on "we are not getting any response, not even from automated beacons" and cut out the line about being 9 months too late and the whole war map scene. Then the audience would be left with a genuine mystery as to why Discovery is unable to communicate with Starfleet.

 

[Romulan_spy]

The ent-D bridge was shit. What it needed was some tuck and roll and some shag carpet.

The D bridge was too big but other than that, the design was quite good IMO.

 

[XCV330]

I think the problem is worse on Discovery though in some ways because the showrunners are putting plots together in such a way as to reuse the standing sets over and over again - which makes the show seem fake and "stagey.".

I think one thing that the earlier shows had, was reuse from other shows to help out with that and control costs. TNG had access to the corridors, bridge, etc sets from the movies that were being made concurrently, and some of those sets, like the bridge, went all the way back to work on Phase II. You can still see reuse all the way into ENT, There's one fairly obvious reuse of End-D's battle bridge screen used as an alien console. Sometimes it worked better than others but it did give them more options. The only equivalent would be if Discovery production team had access to sets from the Abrams' movies sets and props, but it's a moot point, and it would not have looked right.

 

[XCV330]

The D bridge was too big but other than that, the design was quite good IMO.

It fit the look of the ship, had great camera angles. I will admit, I always wanted to see that wooden arch flip up during red-alerts like some kind of roll-bar.

 

[matthunter]

The E-D did have shag carpet, but it was all requisitioned for Riker's quarters.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

The D bridge was too big but other than that, the design was quite good IMO.

Total sarcasm.

I loved the D. Yes I know how that sounds and I ain't even mad about it.

I loved the D!

 

[eltel99uk]

The D bridge was too big but other than that, the design was quite good IMO.

Yeah I think that's why they turned the lights down and added two extra consoles in the big-screen outing of the Enterprise-D. It then seemed smaller and more more atmospheric.

 

[MvRojo]

Since there's nothing in Trek lore anywhere that REFUTES the idea that a minor war with the Klingons (which is really what this has been when you compare with, for example, the Dominion War) resulted in a months-long occupation of certain territories that, by time of TOS are now Federation territories again...I think I'll wait and see what happened.

After all, we had the Cardassian War sprung on us out of absolutely nowhere in episodes like "Ensign Ro" and "The Wounded" (which was mid S4 of TNG) with absolutely no backstory or context other than it was a prolonged conflict that caused many deaths.

If TNG could spring this concept on us in the middle of its 4th year without any prior indication, mention or discussion whatsoever, it's very easy for me to accept that a brief (less than 1 year at this point) conflict took place between the Federation and Klingon Empire that resulted in some loss (and subsequent re-taking) of UFP planets and territories.

And the Cardassian War being mentioned that way was even more jarring since that was the first time we'd heard or seen that particular species. And we already know that there was years of conflict and problems stemming from the "disastrous" first contact with the Klingons.

We aren't really sure yet how the Klingons control that 20% of Federation space. It could simply be that they've cut off supply lines and/or access to those planets because they're just patrolling those areas. That's different from actively conquering planets and occupying them.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Everyone complaining about Lorca losing the fight, did he not defeat Georgiou and have her knocked out? Only to eventually lose because he was distracted by trying to bring Burnham to the dark side?

I only watched the episode once but that’s how I remembered it.

That's how I remember it too. Once he got her penned in the Commissioner's Trophy, he did pretty much finally knock her out. His attention was fully focused on Burnham when Georgiou impaled him through the back with her sword. I personally thought the fight scenes were some of the best choreographed in all of Trek. No doubt Yeoh had a hand in how it all came together. I honestly felt Lorca did an arguably good job holding his own against Georgiou.

As for his not being as effective against Burnham, in AfterTrek Isaacs said that he specifically didn't want to hurt her, hence the order to his people that she was not to be touched. He was holding back and doing standard grappling techniques to try to neutralize her attacks - he wasn't trying to actually mess her up - he was trying to get her to join him.

So these so-called allegations that this scene was some secret leftist plot to universally emasculate all white men, IMO, simply do not hold water. And those here who know me know I don't say such things idly.

 

[Romulan_spy]

ST, for me, has always been about intelligent, thought-provoking, mentally stimulating sci-fi (yes, I know, each version has had more than its share of inane episodes). It is, at its heart, about exploration, about “new life and new civilizations,” it is about starships, alien civilizations different than our own (even if it’s the Klingons: one of the best things about TNG was how it explored and developed Klingon culture), about “outer space,” about vision, about future technology and science and its ramifications, about an optimistic view of our future.

AMEN!!! That is MY Trek!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I just realized Tyler wasn’t in this episode AT ALL. Not even 1 shot or mention of him

He was going to be in it, but at the last minute his scenes were all re'Voq'ed.