Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x01 - "That Hope Is You, Part 1"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I don't think that status would be challenged if we accompanied the rest of the crew a bit without her.
It would be dramatic if that's what I had said. It's not. I don't feel like a victim, I wasn't even referring to my criticism. Debate is fine, but these posts trying to devalidate the posters (you're just trying to find something you hate, we know who is a fan and who isn't, the first 25 pages were not worth reading and so on are not debating the opinions, they are trying to say the opinions are invalid.
It's partiularly strange as, as others have pointed out, the FM haters have not shown up. But appaently gatekeeping gotta gatekeep.
This.
And I'm sorry if I came across the same way when I replied to you @Bad Thoughts, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I do agree there were several instancs when they were curiously vague just to keep us in the dark a little longer.
PS Sorry for wonky keyboard.
No. What needs to happen is they have to show the flag immediately before the game, I mean episode, starts. And they have to play The Star-Spangled Banner.I hope every episode ends with a 5 min scene of the unveiling of a Federation flag.
Just for spite.
I think having a flag ceremony would work very well.I hope every episode ends with a 5 min scene of the unveiling of a Federation flag.
Just for spite.
For fun.
If you read what I wrote, you’d see that it was balanced. I indicated that we know who the detractors are, and there’s no surprise that they were going to find minor elements to focus on to justify their continued dislike of the show. This isn’t INVALIDATING any opinion. It’s simply true.
I also pointed out that the ever-present fans of the show would do the same, and creatively rationalize away the issues that have been pointed out.
I’m sorry if this disturbed and offended you and made you feel as though the intent was to be “unwelcoming.” Since I don’t run the board, I really don’t think I have the ability or power to be welcoming or otherwise. It was intended as an ironic observation about how predictable everyone’s responses are after 3 years. Welcome to the internet.
No, I don't mind discussing my opinion. I don't like that somewhat would insist there are hard answers to the matter. That 's the beauty of the conditional tense, to throw out an opinion or a preference without insisting it is a hard truth. I do think that some question of the episode are really mysteries that will be unravelled. However, I think there were a few things that could have been said now, even if the information changes down the road, or that could help show the situation fpr our character in the short term.
Last edited:
Briefly on this: I haven't watched it yet, but I saw that she was doing a video about Star Trek fans attacking her on her social media accounts or something?
Obviously that's not a cool thing to do, but when you go on for 3 years about something that you hate you're running the risk of getting some of that back from people who have been enjoying it.
That's kind of how freedom of speech works. You don't just get to say what you want and no one can say anything back to you. That's not how it works. And you're on a public platform saying this too.
Also, when you're intentionally being so obtuse about things...
Anyway, yeah, Time cops...
...or the Temporal Integrity Agents or whatever they want to call them. You would think they would have to be a must this season. It would be so cool to see a Discovery take on it.
That whole scene pushed the episode from a 7 to an 8 for me.
Oh I just remembered one thing that annoyed me:
The scene when Burnham has a scratch and Booker starts talking to the plant or whatever happened, in my dub Michael asks something like: "are you praying?" and he goes "Kinda.".
That scene almost was too much for me. Why in Roddenberrys name is there so much "esotherical" stuff going on in new trek? I know that this probably happens in every series at one point or another....I get it. But now it feels like every second lifeform is member of a religeous cult or has a special connection to nature and what not. So many people in the universe are runnung around in robes, living in monasterys and have magical powers. Its like the universe was created by my mid fiftys esotherical neighbour. And she can feel the truth, talks to her plants and a stone on her shelf protects her from bad energy.
I wish the producers would tone down such stuff a little bit.
The scene when Burnham has a scratch and Booker starts talking to the plant or whatever happened, in my dub Michael asks something like: "are you praying?" and he goes "Kinda.".
That scene almost was too much for me. Why in Roddenberrys name is there so much "esotherical" stuff going on in new trek? I know that this probably happens in every series at one point or another....I get it. But now it feels like every second lifeform is member of a religeous cult or has a special connection to nature and what not. So many people in the universe are runnung around in robes, living in monasterys and have magical powers. Its like the universe was created by my mid fiftys esotherical neighbour. And she can feel the truth, talks to her plants and a stone on her shelf protects her from bad energy.
I wish the producers would tone down such stuff a little bit.
I enjoyed it and am curious where Trek's future is going. Even without the Federation, all those aliens seemed to be working together pretty well.
That's on purpose to avoid violent alien invasions
A nice change
Maybe
I assume the Federation is still out there, I think they're a fair distance away from the core Federation space, which is why they only picked up two Federation ships, that you can imagine are science vessels or exploring the region. They just pulled way back to the core worlds because of the burn, since they'd no longer have the armada to cover that amount of space or protect it.
It makes sense with the story they're trying to tell, about how our planet feels like it is going the same way, countries fracturing etc without compromising the ideals of the Federation or Trek.
It makes sense with the story they're trying to tell, about how our planet feels like it is going the same way, countries fracturing etc without compromising the ideals of the Federation or Trek.
I think I'll leave at least for a while. It will undoubtedly be costrued as ramatic, but I just can't with condenscenion atm.
She is presenting herself as a professional cultural critic, so her standards for criticism ought to be higher. I would characterize all the Fandom Menace videos as iconoclasm: trying to smear or tear down cultural artifacts (entertainment franchises, in this case) that offend their sensibilities. One of her criticisms for this episode was that because only Michael Burnham appeared in the episode from among the entire regular cast, Discovery was failing in its promise to be diverse. It's really over the top stuff.
And by "diverse", they probably mean "white people".
or whatever the federation national anthem (which we heard in the DS9 baseball episode) so it’s not pro-American centric.
What would be a good example? Again, I always struggle with wanting a lot of information (that's my biggest thing in reading stories) but it becomes an exposition dump. I mean, I do like exposition but I know that Discovery will get destroyed for it.
I’m not so sure. 1300 years into the future, there’s bound to be technological advancements or advancements in this study of physics, botany, biology, etc that may appear like magic or supernatural.
Not a DS9 FAN I take it?
Particularly if it’s exposition that isn’t necessary to the direct advancement of the plot. An exposition dump on how the Zakdorns and Grizzellas are allied now against the Gorn and Horta, just to make fans squee about fake space politics, isn’t a good idea at this point in the story.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
