Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x02 - "New Eden"

[Michael]

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.

I agree with this completely. I hate this “It's not real Star Trek!” bullshit that often comes up. It's the other side of that coin I was talking about, I feel. The side that is saying “I don't like this so it's not the real Star Trek” is just as wrong as the side that's practically saying “It's unfair to criticise things about Discovery that the other shows did as well”.

Just look at @fireproof78's post above: He's saying “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.”

To my mind it's a valid criticism to say someone feels Discovery should have dealt more seriously with Connelley's death. I don't get why you have to bring the other shows' failings into this (other than to try and invalidate that point of criticism). I don't think anyone said “They should have dealt more seriously with Connelley's death, just as previous Trek did. So this is not real Trek.” Did anyone say this?

 

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, it's as much about the hyperbolic nature of some criticisms as the double standard.

It's difference between "SPOCK'S BRAIN sucks!" and "SPOCK'S BRAIN sucks . . . therefore the entire third season of TOS is an abomination that needs to be stripped from the canon for all time!"

It's less about deflecting criticism than about trying to keep things in perspective, at least from where I'm sitting.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

To my mind it's a valid criticism to say someone feels Discovery should have dealt more seriously with Connelley's death. I don't get why you have to bring the other shows' failings into this (other than to try and invalidate that point of criticism). I don't think anyone said “They should have dealt more seriously with Connelley's death, just as previous Trek did. So this is not real Trek.” Did anyone say this?

No, but if people can be fans of TOS despite the fact that TOS often has glossed over the deaths of the crew, then those same people shouldn't use the glossing over of the death of Connelley to be a reason that DSC is not good.

Granted, whether TOS did the same or not isn't relevant when critiquing DSC in a vacuum -- i.e., looking at DSC as its own thing -- but it is relevant when the people doing the critiquing are already fans of TOS.

 

[Michael]

Granted, whether TOS did the same or not isn't relevant when critiquing DSC in a vacuum -- i.e., looking at DSC as it's own thing -- but it is relevant when the people doing the critiquing are already fans of TOS.

In principle, I might agree. But that's certainly not how this comes across to me in the discussions around here. Just looking through this thread alone we got exchanges like this:

I have only one sentence about this episode. Too much Tehno bubble.

If someone thought THIS episode had too much technobabble, they'd better set fire to their Voyager and Next Gen DVD's right now.

What kind of a response is this even? Someone says they think this episode had too much technobabble. Completely valid thing to critique from my point of view. They don't compare it to the other Trek shows and we don't learn how they think about technobabble in earlier Trek. So why would anyone else bring them into this? Other than to basically say “your point of criticism is invalid”, of course.

Sorry, but this doesn't really further good discussion and sometimes makes for a rather unpleasant atmosphere around here, I feel. It's right up there with “Then just quit watching the show” in terms of trying to drown any kind of criticism people are voicing.

 

[matthunter]

You think that was a Jamaican accent?

Guyanese, from what I've been able to glean from Twitter - the actress is Guyanese-Canadian, is that correct? So Caribbean but definitely not Jamaican.

She's also fricking gorgeous with her hair down: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6119295/mediaviewer/rm3343197696

 

[cooleddie74]

Yeah, I'm still a little iffy about whether Pike was right or not. What if the New Eden residents weren't on a distant planet, but were living underground on Earth in some previously undiscovered bunker or system of caves that their ancestors had fled to in order to escape World War 3? Does the Prime Directive still apply then?

Probably not since they'd still be living on or underneath the surface of Earth and thus never left their homeworld to establish a culture on a different planet. I imagine any native culture growing up on a Federation world - even if that specific community itself doesn't have access to or know how to build a warp engine - would be considered Federation citizens and thus not subject to the restrictions of the Prime Directive.

 

[Vger23]

In principle, I might agree. But that's certainly not how this comes across to me in the discussions around here. Just looking through this thread alone we got exchanges like this:



What kind of a response is this even? Someone says they think this episode had too much technobabble. Completely valid thing to critique from my point of view. They don't compare it to the other Trek shows and we don't learn how they think about technobabble in earlier Trek. So why would anyone else bring them into this? Other than to basically say “your point of criticism is invalid”, of course.

Sorry, but this doesn't really further good discussion and sometimes makes for a rather unpleasant atmosphere around here, I feel. It's right up there with “Then just quit watching the show” in terms of trying to drown any kind of criticism people are voicing.

Respectfully, I think this is an overreaction. Things of this nature get said over and over again, almost on an hourly basis, on this board. I don't appreciate being singled out.



Further, if you were to point out every comment that was made that doesn't "further good discussion" you'd be sleep deprived and have carpal tunnel syndrome from all the typing.

My point is that TNG and VOY have 10X the amount of technobabble that DSC has. That's a perfectly valid retort to a comment about technobabble in DSC, because it's accurate and relevant. "If I had said 'piss off, you don't know anything about technobabble, so go away,'" I'd agree that I'd be in the wrong there. That's not what I did. Not even close. There's plenty of room for discussion if people would like to engage in and debate the point, which I totally welcome.

Honestly, it's as much about the hyperbolic nature of some criticisms as the double standard.

It's difference between "SPOCK'S BRAIN sucks!" and "SPOCK'S BRAIN sucks . . . therefore the entire third season of TOS is an abomination that needs to be stripped from the canon for all time!"

It's less about deflecting criticism than about trying to keep things in perspective, at least from where I'm sitting.

Precisely, it's about perspective...not trying to silence anyone's opinion or concerns. It's pointing out the relative nature of the matter being discussed in the context of the larger franchise, which I think is a perfectly valid point from which to debate and have discussion.

Not even sure why it wouldn't be....

 

[Michael]

Respectfully, I think this is an overreaction. Things of this nature get said over and over again, almost on an hourly basis, on this board. I don't appreciate being singled out.



Further, if you were to point out every comment that was made that doesn't "further good discussion" you'd be sleep deprived and have carpal tunnel syndrome from all the typing.

My point is that TNG and VOY have 10X the amount of technobabble that DSC has. That's a perfectly valid retort to a comment about technobabble in DSC, because it's accurate and relevant. "If I had said 'piss off, you don't know anything about technobabble, so go away,'" I'd agree that I'd be in the wrong there. That's not what I did. Not even close. There's plenty of room for discussion if people would like to engage in and debate the point, which I totally welcome.



Precisely, it's about perspective...not trying to silence anyone's opinion or concerns. It's pointing out the relative nature of the matter being discussed in the context of the larger franchise, which I think is a perfectly valid point from which to debate and have discussion.

Not even sure why it wouldn't be....

Huh, how have I “singled you out” when I was quoting a similar thing said by @fireproof78 just a couple of posts earlier? This is not about you specifically, but a pattern I've been observing for quite some time now in this forum. And ironically you are reacting to my criticism of it with exactly the thing I'm talking about in the first place: I say I don't think this reaction furthers a very healthy discussion and you are practically reacting with “but others are doing it as well!” as if this somehow makes my criticism invalid.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Out of 6 live action Star Trek shows so far, at least 4 of them used technobabble routinely or on a weekly basis. It is in the show's DNA. To point that out when someone doesn't like too much technobabble in his Star Trek is a valid point that can be made. I don't see a problem here.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even ENT resorted to technobabble on occasion, as whenever Trip needed to try something crazy or dangerous with the warp engines and he had to contact the bridge to explain what he was about to do. ENT had less technobabble than TNG, DS9 or VOY to be sure but even the 22nd century prequel series set before the Federation even existed had its share of "What did he say again?" moments where you just scratched your head and assumed that it meant something cool and important.

At this point if you're not used to it you haven't been watching Star Trek.

 

[Vger23]

Huh, how have I “singled you out” when I was quoting a similar thing said by @fireproof78 just a couple of posts earlier? This is not about you specifically, but a pattern I've been observing for quite some time now in this forum. And ironically you are reacting to my criticism of it with exactly the thing I'm talking about in the first place: I say I don't think this reaction furthers a very healthy discussion and you are practically reacting with “but others are doing it as well!” as if this somehow makes my criticism invalid.

So, I'll be more clear. Apologies.

1. I didn't like being "highlighted" (strike "singled out"...I didn't realize we were being so literal) for doing something that is neither against forum rules nor, at its core, intended to do what you are blaming me for, particularly given that it almost literally happens once an hour on this board throughout its longstanding history. I think my response to your criticism was a perfectly reasonable position to take, especially if you're going to publicly highlight and criticize a post I've made.

And yes, consistency actually DOES matter.

2. Your criticism isn't invalid. It's just misguided, since you've completely misinterpreted what my point and purpose are. I'm sorry if the approach taken by myself or others like @fireproof78 frustrates you. But that doesn't make it inappropriate or wrong. It just means you're frustrated by it. I get frustrated by people out here all the time. Such is life.

I hope that helps clarify my frustrations and disagreements with the comments you've been making.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You think that was a Jamaican accent?

Does he think May was speaking with a Jamaican accent???

 

[Mr Awe]

It looks like we might not be getting a new signal in the next one, from the preview it looks like Burnham will be dealing with Spock and we'll see what's going on with the Klingons.
My guess right now as to the rest of the season is that we'll get a few more episodes of them investigating signals, and then about about halfway through we'll get the reveal as to who/what the real threat is, and then the story will shift to focus on that. The one thing I'm most curious about now is how this all ties into the Klingons and Saru's sister.

I'm hoping that they minimize the usage of Klingons this season to be honest. So, hopefully it does not tie into the Klingons at all!

On the other hand, I'd love to get a series of far flung adventures while they build up a collection of clues!

Loving the season so far!

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm hoping that they minimize the usage of Klingons this season to be honest. So, hopefully it does not tie into the Klingons at all!

We know Tyler boards the Discovery, in a Starfleet Uniform no less, at some point because of the trailers.

And

Spoiler

Perhaps L'Rell as well because of a video Mary posted, but she could have just been visiting the Discovery set between filming or something

 

[Kane_Steel]

You think that was a Jamaican accent?

It could have been Jamaican, West Indian or Guyanese. I hear these accents fairly often in the 6ix.

It was more my amusement that she was a more awkward and random Tilly 2.0, of another race, that I was drawing attention to. Thank goodness the character is dead, Tilly getting a sidekick would have been disastrous. Her shtick is already being laid on way too thick.

 

[Tuskin38]

Here's May's actress

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6119295/

 

[Gepard]

And ironically you are reacting to my criticism of it with exactly the thing I'm talking about in the first place: I say I don't think this reaction furthers a very healthy discussion and you are practically reacting with “but others are doing it as well!” as if this somehow makes my criticism invalid.

A lot of bad fannish behavior – and I include myself in this – basically boils down to "but moooommmmmmmmm!" It's the curse of the nerd.

 

[DEWLine]

A profile of her work from 2015. She's done a fair bit of experimental live theatre in various places. Also, noting that it's got to be an interesting bit of tonal whiplash for an actor, going from working on The Handmaid's Tale to any Trek series.

 

[Hythlodeus]

working on The Handmaid's Tale to any Trek series.

I KNEW I knew her from something

 

[Greg Cox]

To belabor the point, I think it's a valid response to criticism if the gist of the criticism is that "the old shows would never do this!'" or "Roddenberry must be turning over in his grave!" or whatever. If the nature of the complaint is that DISCO is somehow crossing a line that Trek has never crossed before, or is comparing DISCO negatively to what's been done before . . . well, it's perhaps worth looking back at what was actually done before, as opposed to some nostalgic idealized memory of the past seen through rose-colored glasses.

(And, yes, it does sometimes seem to me that some critics compare the new shows not to the actual old shows and movies, but to an idealized version that never actually existed.)

If we're going to compare the new stuff to the old stuff, we're inevitably going to end up talking about what the old stuff did and didn't do back in the day, warts and all.