Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x02 - "New Eden"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
No free pass from me. All of the DS9 characters had adventures way beyond their remit.
No problem with Tilly though. Being bridge crew would make less sense because her role isn’t on the bridge.
Besides that not being Al Bundy in the picture, as pointed out, the idea that curmudgeonly or traditionalist or politically incorrect characters aren't allowed on TV anymore is nonsense. Hell, Ed O'Neill's own character from Modern Family, though nicer than Al, would qualify. I have a feeling this is a partial commentary on Roseanne, but Roseanne wasn't fired for the many non-PC things her character said on the show, and indeed, in the continuation of the show, John Goodman's Dan has taken up many of her stances, which was more consistent with the original (80s and 90s) series anyway. Some examples from network TV off the top of my head (there are many more):
Barney and Robin from How I Met Your Mother
Charlie Sheen's character from Two and a Half Men
Dr. Cox from Scrubs
Tim Allen's character from Last Man Standing
Dr. House
Michael Scott or Dwight Schrute from The Office
Jack Doneghy or Dennis from 30 Rock
Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec
Sheldon and Howard from Big Bang Theory (and Sheldon's mom for that matter)
Denny Crane and Alan Shore from Boston Legal
Dre's parents from Black-ish
Well, there are seven signals...so either they need to spend more than one episode dealing with some of them, or there are going to be stand alone episodes linked to the plot, but not tied to investigating a signal.
I actually like that approach. A "signal per week" approach would be too formulaic, probably.
DS9 gets a free pass because it's older and considered "classic" now.
Trek fans typically are very forgiving of the "older" and relentlessly unforgiving of the "newer."
Well, to be fair, most of season 1 probably wasn’t part of the original plan lol.
We do know that the Enterprise was planned as far back as very early 2017, as that is when Eaves was given the task to build it. Before that he had been hearing rumours that it would appear in season 2.
While I don't disagree with your premise in general, by phrasing it this way and making it a competition between the older shows and the new, aren't you basically ceding the idea that focusing on some non-bridge crew characters is a bad thing that needs to be forgiven or overlooked instead of just saying that it's a good thing?
Hell, it’s a great thing! Increases the genetic diversity of the story potential. The “Lower Decks” episodes of TNG and B5 were surprisingly well-received, and they’re now making a Trek animated series based pretty much entirely on that premise. About damn time, IMO. 
Not at all. My statement wasn't meant to be comaparative/competitive . It was just meant to point out a fan behavior tha occurs regularly, regardless of what element is being criticized.
Perhaps the phrasing could have been better, but I didn't want to leave that impression. I actually think one of the things that makes DSC unique in the franchise is the fact that the bridge crew need not be the main players.
What I think is odd is when criticism about DIscovery is reacted to by pointing out that previous Trek had similar flaws. What does that even mean? Just because something was bad about a previous show doesn't mean Discovery gets a free pass to be similarly bad. I've seen this all too often now around here: Someone says they don't like X about Discovery, and then someone else comes along and points out that the previous shows did X as well. And? Something that was bad then is still bad now, is it not? 
What I think is odd is when criticism about DIscovery is reacted to by pointing out that previous Trek had similar flaws. What does that even mean? Just because something was bad about a previous show doesn't mean Discovery gets a free pass to be similarly bad. I've seen this all too often now around here: Someone says they don't like X about Discovery, and then someone else comes along and points out that the previous shows did X as well. And? Something that was bad then is still bad now, is it not?
I think the point is to demonstrate to people that if you can love past Star Treks, which had the same warts and blemishes, you can find time to love this version too!
It's a matter of how vehemently the previous show is defended while Discovery is lambasted.What I think is odd is when criticism about DIscovery is reacted to by pointing out that previous Trek had similar flaws. What does that even mean? Just because something was bad about a previous show doesn't mean Discovery gets a free pass to be similarly bad. I've seen this all too often now around here: Someone says they don't like X about Discovery, and then someone else comes along and points out that the previous shows did X as well. And? Something that was bad then is still bad now, is it not?
As @Vger23 points out if we can love past Trek with all the flaws then there is something in Discovery to be loved as well.
... and something considered being "Bad" is more often than not, a very subjective mindset.
And ones mindset, oftentimes changes with the passing of time.
That's true, of course. I doubt, though, that there's anyone who is not aware of the fact that you can like/love a thing despite its flaws. I'd hazard a guess and say literally everyone knows about this fact. To me more often than not it comes across as a way to downplay, invalidate or delegitimize a point of criticism about the show, when you say a previous show did this as well. I can love a show and be critical about things in that show at the same time.
For example, I don't like how previous Trek shows shied away from ever having to show homosexuality in the future. I still like those shows, though, because I understand and accept why they weren't able to tackle the issue. This doesn't mean I would accept it if Discovery ignores this now.
Or: I don't like how previous shows often weren't very good in telling arc stories spanning multiple episodes/seasons. But I like/love those shows despite those flaws. So I don't see any reason why I wouldn't be able to point out if Discovery handles its arcs poorly.
Sure, after the fact I might be deciding that I like the show as a whole regardless of those flaws. But as I'm watching the episodes I sure as hell will point out things I don't like. And I think everyone should be able to so without being needlessly reminded that previous shows had those flaws as well.
This was a mixed episode for me. All the stuff on the Planet was garbage, but to be fair episodes on pre-warp planets are almost always garbage, in literally every Star Trek series. Some are more tolerable then others, but generally speaking the "Federation crew has to deal with a planet of humans/human like society with ancient technology" premise has always been one of my most hated episode styles in Star Trek. A few of them work (like A Piece of the Action or Thine Own Self), but without a very special twist on the formula they're usually pretty crap in my opinion.
To offset this, literally everything not set on the planet was great. The mystery of the signal, Tilly's ghost, the Discovery fixing the planet's problem by "doing doughnuts" around it, etc. I also loved that Pike and the crew in general never considered abandoning the planet to its fate, because unlike Star Trek TNG and VOY, DSC realizes that the Prime Directive isn't supposed to stop Starfleet ships from saving civilizations, even from natural disasters. As much as I love TNG, Picard was a gigantic asshole when it came to this type of thing, and Janeway was worse. They would allow avoidable genocide because the smallest possibility of pre-warp cultures seeing an alien thing would totally be worse then mass extinction, plus post TOS trek had a really fucked up "natural selection/survival of the fittest" mentality when it came to the prime directive
So, while the stuff on the planet was mediocre, the stuff around it was so good that I still had to give the episode a 7, although when I inevitably rewatch this episode in the future I'll probably skip the planet bound bits.
To offset this, literally everything not set on the planet was great. The mystery of the signal, Tilly's ghost, the Discovery fixing the planet's problem by "doing doughnuts" around it, etc. I also loved that Pike and the crew in general never considered abandoning the planet to its fate, because unlike Star Trek TNG and VOY, DSC realizes that the Prime Directive isn't supposed to stop Starfleet ships from saving civilizations, even from natural disasters. As much as I love TNG, Picard was a gigantic asshole when it came to this type of thing, and Janeway was worse. They would allow avoidable genocide because the smallest possibility of pre-warp cultures seeing an alien thing would totally be worse then mass extinction, plus post TOS trek had a really fucked up "natural selection/survival of the fittest" mentality when it came to the prime directive
So, while the stuff on the planet was mediocre, the stuff around it was so good that I still had to give the episode a 7, although when I inevitably rewatch this episode in the future I'll probably skip the planet bound bits.
I agree, lets put conference rooms down to Picard's style of leadership, although TOS had a few meeting room scenes in the Season 1, I prefered those instead of the later 'meeting in the turbolift' with the famous 3.No! No conference room scenes!
You think that was a Jamaican accent?
Last edited:
I agree, but at least in this case if it were God, this God doesn't need a spaceship.
Last edited:
I liked the episode. Pike's line about "Advanced aliens are indistinguishable from God" gives us the science out to any religious things they want to do in the season. And I liked Pike's decision to be honest at the end.
What I think is odd is when criticism about DIscovery is reacted to by pointing out that previous Trek had similar flaws. What does that even mean? Just because something was bad about a previous show doesn't mean Discovery gets a free pass to be similarly bad. I've seen this all too often now around here: Someone says they don't like X about Discovery, and then someone else comes along and points out that the previous shows did X as well. And? Something that was bad then is still bad now, is it not?
I think it's less about giving DISCO (or the reboot movies) a free pass than about applying a double standard to the new stuff, particularly in the context of somebody insisting adamantly that some particular thing "proves" that DISCO is not canon, not "real" STAR TREK, an insult to all true fans and Roddenberry's sacred memory, total trash, etc., even though the earlier shows got away with the same thing.
I don't think anyone is saying that DISCO can't be criticized just because "Spock's Brain" exists. It more that you can't say "DISCO isn't real STAR TREK!!!" for doing something that the other shows also did.
So how does one explain Q?
Precisely show. It isn't being used as a deflection of criticism towards DSC; it's pointing out when DSC is criticized for something that prior Trek is being given a pass on. The most recent example to my mind is the negative comment that DSC didn't comment on Connelley's death but other Trek's did the same, sometimes with a laugh track out, and that's unremarkable.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
