Too late...
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x03 - "Point of Light"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Too late...
I imagine the brig of Section 31's ship resembles a lava lamp. All those floating force field bubbles dipping and distorting in applied heat.
Definitely a matter of taste. Still, that being said, it's not as though violence and horror weren't part of TOS, even if restrained by the limits of sixties TV. I just rewatched "The Galileo Seven" the other day and, sure enough, one redshirt gets impaled by a giant spear and another redshirt is apparently beaten to death by a giant caveman, albeit offscreen. And there's a whole lot of heated debate about whether it safe to bury the bodies, about how they're too heavy to be brought back to Enterprise, etc. It's fairly tame by modern standards, and would probably be gorier if filmed today, but it's not as though the Final Frontier was ever a sanitized utopia where death and brutality never happened. And, as noted, the Klingons have never been known for their delicate sensibilities and peaceful dispositions.
To my mind, sf and horror have been joined at the hip since Frankenstein at least, so I kinda expect them to overlap sometimes, as they often did on TOS. And, I admit, I've never really understood why people were so freaked-out by the ending of "Conspiracy." Had no one else seen Scanners?
And, yes, I love The Brain That Would Not Die and own it on DVD.
I agree. The height of horrific imagery for the franchise is unquestionably Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And it's also undisputedly the fan favorite.
The Emissary is not only the best pilot of the series, it's also one of my favorite Star Trek stories in the entire franchise.
Duet is one of the most overrated Star Trek episodes ever, in my opinion. I never saw anything there other than a run-of-the mill Trek story. It's like the small town High School quarterback whose legendary "big game " just gets bigger and bigger as time goes on. "Damn, son, you done threw for 7 TD's in one game with a broken knee and one eyeball hanging out!!" Nah. I know I'm in the minority on that one, and I'm very comfortable with that. Duet is a slog.
And S1 is unbearable. Episodic, dull, poor cinematography, "bottle episodes" galore...showing none of the promise or traits that the series would later come to realize. I stopped watching the show in first run after about 7 episodes. I'll never forgive S1 for that.
I don't see that, especially after Discovery. But I'd say Wrath of Khan lost the title as soon as "Conspiracy" in the first season of TNG.
Nothing we see in Khan is actually that explicit -- the imagination does the work. And that's why it's so effective and memorable.
It's pretty frigging explicit, my man. That's 35 years of desensitized perception talking.
Creatures burrowing their way slowly into people's bodies via the ear (massive close-up)
Horrific burn victims, bloodied and suffering throughout (Preston, sickbay, Khan)
Murdered innocent civilians, sliced open and hung from the ceiling upside down to bleed out, puddles of blood on the floor under them.
People screaming horrifically as they are engulfed in flames during a Phaser hit
A gigantic close-up of a disgusting, bloody creature emerging from someone's ear (say that 3 times fast and tell me that doesn't make you uncomfortable)
Yeah...I think that takes the cake. Especially given the context.
Conspiracy was graphic, but it was cartoony and pretty much played for "we blowed up the bad guy good" value. As a kid, it never made me cringe. It was more of a "WOAH AWESOME" moment (I was in 7th grade, cut me some slack here) whereas TWOK still makes me unsettled now. The context is much more serious and realistic.
I also thought the description of Stamets by May (shorter, blond) was an intentional nod to Kirk. Maybe an indication that May was nontemporal and/or observing future events.
Just like on DS9, this time next year (or the year after that), there will be no more holographic communication and everything will be on viewscreens.
Just like on DS9, this time next year (or the year after that), there will be no more holographic communication and everything will be on viewscreens.
That’s why it’s for kings.
I’m confused by the Spock/Amanda stuff. The idea is that Spock was messed up by Amanda withholding affection, because he’s half-human and needs a mother’s love in a way that Vulcans apparently don’t. This implies that Vulcans are genetically predisposed to be emotionless, unlike humans. Except that isn’t true — Vulcans have to learn to bury their emotions, just like a human presumably would. So being raised in the Vulcan way shouldn’t have affected Spock any differently than a full Vulcan. Or am I reading this wrong?
There's nothing explicit about the burrowing creature. It's just a little slimy thing entering the ear canal and later plopping back out. That it seems so horrifying is a testament to restraint, I think. The idea is way more effective than the graphic gore Discovery has given us.
Trek II is definitely (and quite expectedly) more graphic than Trek's TV incanation from the '60s, but it's still a PG film. Even by the standards of its time it was considered family fare.
Last edited:
I think the difference is that full-Vulcan physiology and mental capabilities make it EASIER for them to have the discipline required to suppress the emotions.
It's all a matter of perspective. A pile of guts always makes me hoot and kind of laugh. It's ridiculous. But a scalpel slowly cutting into someone is an image I can't even watch.
Different things horrify different people. DSC gore is 80's horror flick fun. TWOK was personal, disturbing, and unnerving.
Why not? When they first revamped the Klingons back in '79, we pretended they'd always looked that way until ENTERPRISE finally got around to "explaining" it twenty-five years later. Heck, that was Roddenberry's explanation at the time: "We're just doing what we couldn't afford to do back on the old TV show. Just pretend the Klingons always looked this way."
Not every change in art direction requires an in-universe explanation or means that, ohmigod, it's a whole new continuity. It's a TV show, not actual history. Just chalk it up to artistic license and move on.
That's probably what Roddenberry would have done.
Hopefully the idea is that his parents did just fine, and the core of Spock's problem is actually the Red Angel.
Ridiculing the past now to justify everything
Maybe people will finally concede that the show violates canon at least instead of arguing about it for pages and pages.
I'm not convinced Spock murdered anyone, nor that he is psychopathic. In fact, I'm very far from it.
This seems like a classic storytelling set-up where we are led to believe one thing, but the ultimate explanation shows us what we originally believed was not true.
When used improperly, it becomes a tired TV trope where EVERYONE (even those closet to the character in question) believes that the character could have done the things that are out of character. However, it seems at least the writers of DSC might not follow that often-used trope; they have already shown us that Burnham, Amanda, and Pike were immediately all confident that Spock didn't murder anyone, and there is more going on than what the official account is telling them.
Granted, it is still a classic trope to have the character being misunderstood or actions misinterpreted (and mis-reported) by some people, at least it isn't the one where everyone -- including his friends and family -- think he did wrong, and he is left alone to clear his name.
Having said that, I'm sure Spock is having some issues with the Red Angel visions that will need to be addressed, and the addressing of those issues will drive some of the plotline, but Spock has had issues before as parts of plotlines in TOS. This Side of Paradise and Amok Time are two examples that immediately come to mind. Perhaps the Red Angels are somehow directly influencing his actions.
While I agree it is technically a "new" backstory because it is new information, I don't think the new information necessarily will overwrite any pre-existing canonical information about his backstory. Sure -- it's possible that it will, but I don't think it needs to be overwritten by this particular plot line, nor do I believe it actually will get overwritten.
If it turns out to be the case that nothing is overwritten about his backstory, than it might be more accurate to call it "additional backstory information" rather than new, since the term "new backstory" connotes in some people that the new is replacing the old, rather than just adding to the old.
Last edited:
Someone elsewhere put their finger on what was wrong with the Spock plot line this week - and even to date in the series: It's all exposition. Nothing happens. It's either Burnham talking to one or two other people about things that happened or flashback (as in the first episode). I think the performances elevate it a bit, but it's hard to make a compelling plot line around other people talking about someone who isn't present.
EX-Astris gave this a 1/10, the only 1 in the entire series so far.
They didn’t according to Mack.
Control is a common name in fictional spy agencies
Why are you here? Give it up.Ridiculing the past now to justify everything
Maybe people will finally concede that the show violates canon at least instead of arguing about it for pages and pages.
They didn’t according to Mack.
Control is a common name in fictional spy agencies
Personally, I didn't feel in 1979 that the new look Klingons in TMP violated canon, nor in 1987 when TNG followed TMP's lead. That look was just set-dressing; it didn't affect who the Klingons were and what they meant to the show.
Similarly, I have no problems with changes in set-dressings present by DSC. Whatever the bridge looks like, they still use warp drive to go from place to place (granted -- along with the spore drive, but I'll get to that), they still use transporters, and Starfleet ship design includes a saucer section plus nacelles on pylons. Those are the three primary tenets of Star Trek technology, along with maybe communicators and phasers, arguably. The rest is minor stuff. The characters still act like Star Trek characters would, and nothing presented thus far explicitly contradicts previous canon (no -- the Klingon war and Spock having a foster sister don't explicitly contradict anything).
As for the spore drive, I strongly believe that we will be given a reason why the use of the spore drive will be discontinued and why it isn't used in the future, and why it seems the future rank-and-file in Starfleet don't have knowledge of it.
If the series ends without that explanation, then you might have a better argument for what "people [should] finally concede." Until then, you are fine feeling that the show violates canon, but until you present valid examples of it (and it would need be larger canon violations than what fans have already allowed in other Trek series and films), don't presume that other "people" in general would concede anything.
Last edited:
Canon is whatever the makers say it is. They can keep it, revise it, whatever, the result will still be canon. Their show, their rules.
I'm glad all the right people hate this episode.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
