They knew that L'Rell's whole motivatin behind the war was the unification of the Klingon houses.
They did? How did they know such a thing? Last time anyone talked to her (Cornwell, in the previous episode), she basically said the war wouldn't end until one side or the other was exterminated. This episode (when Georgiou was pointlessly beating her up) she seemed equally unrepentant.
Well they kinda took over a half developed show with Fuller's exit...........I am hoping with THEM mapping everything from the start it will have a better flow. Gotta be a pain to take over what someone else had put into motion.
I really don't see why some people are willing to offload so much blame onto Fuller. He's just one person, and he didn't develop this show all by himself. Kurtzman was there from day one, and Berg and Harberts are past collaborators with Fuller who were in on the overall game plan.
As for the episode-by-episode writing quality... based on the credits over the course of the season, and the track records of the people involved, I'd say some of the worst aspects of the show fall at the feet of Akiva Goldsman and Ted Sullivan.
...again - loved the episode - I'm nit picking as in my mind (inferred by the show but not seen on screen) these events did happen just not shown.
That's awfully generous of you! If the story works better in your head canon than it actually does on screen, how is it "nit picking" to point that out?...
The threat I'm talking about is L'Rell. She's a nobody. A rebel. From the POV of the great houses, she might just blow it up if they don't agree to reunification. For now, at least, they have to take her threat seriously.
They do? Why? She's holding a touchpad and telling an unlikely tale that just happens to serve her own self-interest.
Really, the Klingons have no reason to believe either the detonator or the (unseen) bomb are real, and no means of confirmation. The sensible thing to do would be to kill L'rell and go on with their plans (such as they are).
On the other hand, if for some reason they
do know the bomb and the detonator are real, then it stands to reason they also know the latter is keyed to L'rell's DNA and can't be used otherwise... in which case, the sensible thing to do would be to kill L'rell and go on with their plans (such as they are).
(Seriously, how frickin' stupid is the whole idea of a detonator that can only be used by one person and
isn't a deadman switch? It's like wearing a sign on your back saying "kill me now.")
Lol, maybe, but look at the Klingons in TOS era. They are basically toothless. They don't inspire fear like they did in DSC and Kirk barely takes them seriously.
Interestingly, I disagree with you completely about this. The Klingons in DSC strike me as disorganized, backwards, and childish. The ones in TOS seemed like a serious political competitor for the Federation, and a genuine threat to any world they encountered.
It is, and always has been, the Prime Universe. The creators are on record about this. [Regarding the revamped Enterprise,] It's just a visual reboot to appeal to modern audiences.
You know, nothing personal against you because you must be the thousandth person to say this, but I'm getting really tired of hearing that last bit.
Who exactly are these "modern audiences," and what do you imagine their tastes to be, exactly? Why should we assume those tastes to be fickle and narrow-minded, chasing whatever design and FX styles are new and trendy? Why do they lack any awareness of or appreciation for design lineages and visual continuity? (Or do they? After all, how can the same "modern audiences" like 40-year-old
Star Wars aesthetics, yet disdain 50-year-old
Star Trek aesthetics?)
Basically it all seems like a giant example of projection, to justify change-for-change's-sake while deflecting any blame onto somebody else's supposed tastes.
(And let's set aside that the word "modern" is consistently being misused in these discussions anyway, since in design lingo it refers to a very specific visual style associated with the first half of the 20th century.)
Honestly, what exactly is
different about this week's reimagined
Enterprise that's more "modern," anyway? It's remarkably close to the original (certainly compared to any of DSC's Klingon ships). The main differences are two decks shaved out of the neck, making it more flat and low-slung rather than tall and stately; slightly more angular nacelle struts; some tapering and additional greebles at the ends of the nacelles; and (mostly) an awful lot of IMHO sloppily done hull texturing and aztecing, accompanied by DSC's characteristically garish lighting. In a sense it's like the inverse of the ST09 version of the ship, which took
far more liberties with the design (IMHO mostly to its detriment, making it look awkwardly unbalanced), but had much more traditional and elegant hull surfaces and lighting. So how do you define "modern" aesthetics out of those two disparate examples, pray tell?
If you're going to set a series 10 years before TOS, and you're already going out of your way to say Burnham was raised by the same parents as Spock's... you can't just avoid showing a Constitution Class ship. ... And, if you're going to have Spock have a familial connection to Burnham, and you're going to show a Constitution Class Starship, why not have it be the Enterprise?
If someone hasn't seen Star Trek before, it's just another ship to them and Spock is Burnham's brother. That's all it has to be, as far as they're concerned.
On the first part: well, of course! I don't think many of us disagree.
On the second part: I can't help wondering, how big exactly do you imagine the intersection to be of the sets "people who haven't seen Star Trek before" and "people who are watching Discovery"?
I have to check the dialogue but I think Amanda told Kirk they only haven't spoken as father and son for 18 years.
From "JTB", Amanda to Kirk: "You don't understand the Vulcan way, Captain. It's logical. It's a better way than ours. But it's not easy. It has kept Spock and Sarek from speaking as father and son for eighteen years."
And to Spock:
AMANDA: And you haven't come to see us in four years, either.
SPOCK: The situation between my father and myself has not changed.
...the [18 years] number is completely arbitrary and essentially meant to be synonymous with "a really long time." Heck, for anyone knows DCF looked at her clock and saw it was ten after eight and wrote the numbers down. And as I already said up-thread, it can easily be fixed by literally taking out half the word. 18 becomes eight and no one but a select few even notices.
Actually it's not arbitrary; in fact it's pretty important. The 18 year span was always intended to be, and has long since been confirmed as, the time since Spock left Vulcan and joined Starfleet, abandoning Sarek's aspirations for him. There's no way to change that number without completely rewriting Spock's personal history, and undermining the dramatic impact of "Journey to Babel."
I like that they are just leaving it simple to be germane to the story ... But to echo romulan spy, George-yo was pretty clothed for that moment.
The thing is, the whole dalliance with the two Orions wasn't "germane to the story" in any way at all. Even the information Georgiou extracted from them (and why exactly did she think dancing alien slaves would know where the ancient volcanic temple was?) was information that Tyler got more easily anyway. The scene did serve as a contrivance to leave Tilly alone for a few minutes, which led to her discovering the drone was actually a bomb, but that could have been achieved in any number of other more plausible ways.
I have been looking for people mentioning a major revelation made in this episode about Burnham. ... She witnessed the brutal slaying of her family by her Klingon raiders. She was psychologically damaged by this event, having PTSD. This pivotal event is brought up in the episode and is offered as one of the reasons she has conflicted feelings for Tyler/Voq. Yet, no one mentions it. Is this because how it was handled by the writers?
Dunno, it just seems to me like a minor elaboration of information we already knew about her from the beginning of the season. (And for anyone who's read David Mack's tie-in novel
Desperate Hours, even the minor elaboration wasn't new.)
Perhaps more importantly, SMG's delivery of the story felt emotionally flat. I know she's been directed all season to act like someone raised on Vulcan, but still... it just didn't evoke any feelings for me. I have to say, the more I see other actors try to do Vulcan stoicism, the more I admire Leonard Nimoy's incredible talent. He was able to take the dryest, most "logical" lines of dialogue and invest them with layers of suppressed emotional nuance that worked wonders.
...a non-blurry look at those baby blue "Cage"ish uniforms:
Ooh, I
do see them now! They look somewhat different — much more trim-fitting than the ones seen in "The Cage"... but they're definitely a different style from the standard shiny DSC uniforms. Interesting!
