Shades of Grey from TNG Season 2 - glorified clip show.
But yeah I always thought Voyager had as many bad episodes as it had good ones
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x01 - "That Hope Is You, Part 1"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
But yeah I always thought Voyager had as many bad episodes as it had good ones
My general thoughts while reading the criticisms here:
The nature and style of criticisms and "plot holes" that are being found and applied to this latest episode (and Discovery in general) are the same types of criticism that could be applied to most star Trek TV and movies for the past 50 +years.
I get the fact that Discovery can be picked apart like this; it isn't hard (almost any TV show can be picked apart if you try). But I do find it very disingenuous when people act as if it's the only Star Trek than can be picked apart. Pick all you want if that's your thing. But if you are bothered by the things you are picking apart, then why have you been Star Trek fans for so long?
It's like you haven't ever watched Star Trek before. And if you haven't, and you came to Discovery hoping for a realistic, non-pick-apartable piece of TV fiction, then I'm sorry but the Star Trek franchise isn't it. I can't count the times my wife had to (rightfully) remind me "it's just a TV show; go with it" when I scoffed at silly plot problems on TNG.
Although most of that scoffing was relatively sarcastic - but nonetheless real - like if I were riffing TNG for MST3K.
Star Trek in general -- and Discovery specifically -- may not be 100% self-consistent, but it is self-consistent enough for me to look past the picky stuff and enjoy the story each episode presents (although some stories like "Sub Rosa" have been far less enjoyable, but not because of plot holes or lack self-consistency, but just because the story being told, or how it was told, was awful).
/rant
The nature and style of criticisms and "plot holes" that are being found and applied to this latest episode (and Discovery in general) are the same types of criticism that could be applied to most star Trek TV and movies for the past 50 +years.
I get the fact that Discovery can be picked apart like this; it isn't hard (almost any TV show can be picked apart if you try). But I do find it very disingenuous when people act as if it's the only Star Trek than can be picked apart. Pick all you want if that's your thing. But if you are bothered by the things you are picking apart, then why have you been Star Trek fans for so long?
It's like you haven't ever watched Star Trek before. And if you haven't, and you came to Discovery hoping for a realistic, non-pick-apartable piece of TV fiction, then I'm sorry but the Star Trek franchise isn't it. I can't count the times my wife had to (rightfully) remind me "it's just a TV show; go with it" when I scoffed at silly plot problems on TNG.
Although most of that scoffing was relatively sarcastic - but nonetheless real - like if I were riffing TNG for MST3K.
Star Trek in general -- and Discovery specifically -- may not be 100% self-consistent, but it is self-consistent enough for me to look past the picky stuff and enjoy the story each episode presents (although some stories like "Sub Rosa" have been far less enjoyable, but not because of plot holes or lack self-consistency, but just because the story being told, or how it was told, was awful).
/rant
Last edited:
I don't think the Federation or anyone in it would've intentionally had anything to do with The Burn either. It was either an accident or the handiwork of one of the 31st Century enemies of the Federation who doesn't need dilithium and would benefit from the Federation's destabilization.
Burnham and Book's rampage through Orion Syndicate security is along the same lines as Picard and Data's dune buggy ride in Nemesis. Trek falls into these gimmicks with the move to actionize the franchise. While this worked for DS9 since that show was set during a full fledged war, it doesn't work so much with other series that are outright set in peacetime.
It makes me wonder if Enterprise shouldn't have just began with a full fledged Romulan war period. Might have been better received then, although showcasing a war wouldn't have been easy on a tv budget (although DS9 managed to do it). Also enemies you can't see per Balance of Terror won't help storytelling.
It makes me wonder if Enterprise shouldn't have just began with a full fledged Romulan war period. Might have been better received then, although showcasing a war wouldn't have been easy on a tv budget (although DS9 managed to do it). Also enemies you can't see per Balance of Terror won't help storytelling.
I'm pretty sure a fair amount of time passes between Burnham's arrival and when she finds Discovery. In the first trailer there is what appears to be a montage with Burnham in what we know is Book's ship, with her clothes and hair changing repeatedly. So I'm thinking we're probably going to have at least a jump of a few months where Burnham and Book are traveling around searching for Discovery.
I agree, but the question is how much time passes between Discovery's arrival and the time they reunite with Burnham.
As I mentioned in my post, they (the characters and the writers) specifically pointed out to us that Burnham and Discovery may not arrive in the future at the same time. That is, maybe Discovery arrives a year or so after Burnham
But even if that happens, Burnham might reunite with Discovery only a relatively short time after that.
You know how the Klingon Empire was split up into 24 parts during the first season? It looks like the Federation could be equally split up, if not more, in the third season. What goes around comes around.
DSC also picks up roughly 100 years after ENT from both perspectives. 100 years after Archer's time (leading up to the founding of the Federation) and now 100 years after Daniels' time (and the Temporal War). So now it's a sequel on two levels.
When I re-watched ENT during the first month of Quarantine, I noticed they mentioned there were deep divisions in the Empire. So a split-up sounded like it was inevitable. And after the Augment Virus, they were probably too embarrassed to even look at the Federation for 100 years on top of whatever else they were dealing with.
DSC also picks up roughly 100 years after ENT from both perspectives. 100 years after Archer's time (leading up to the founding of the Federation) and now 100 years after Daniels' time (and the Temporal War). So now it's a sequel on two levels.
When I re-watched ENT during the first month of Quarantine, I noticed they mentioned there were deep divisions in the Empire. So a split-up sounded like it was inevitable. And after the Augment Virus, they were probably too embarrassed to even look at the Federation for 100 years on top of whatever else they were dealing with.
I enjoyed the first episode, seemed to share a lot of bleak, but then hopefulness at the end.
It will be interesting to find out the story behind 'The Burn' and what actually happened, was it a natural phenomena, was it done by someone intentionally with the intent of breaking the Federation apart for them to seize control of the galaxy. Let see how it goes.
Re: the Federation falling as a whole, I think its inevitable that something would break it apart, all great Unions/Empire eventually collapse on themselves whether for good or bad reasons, its what rises from the ashes that is interesting and will we see eventually a new Federation once more?
It will be interesting to find out the story behind 'The Burn' and what actually happened, was it a natural phenomena, was it done by someone intentionally with the intent of breaking the Federation apart for them to seize control of the galaxy. Let see how it goes.
Re: the Federation falling as a whole, I think its inevitable that something would break it apart, all great Unions/Empire eventually collapse on themselves whether for good or bad reasons, its what rises from the ashes that is interesting and will we see eventually a new Federation once more?
At this point I'm thinking The Burn was some kind of attack, I just can't see all of the dilthium spontaneously exploding without someone manipulating things in some way. I have a feeling whoever it was is probably still around and will end up being the Big Bad for the end of the season.
It takes one year for them to meet up.
Though you might be right I don't think they said in the interview if that gap was when Discovery appeared, or it just took that long for them to run into each other.
IMHO it was much more justified than that. Sure, the body count is appalling, but at least they where running for their lives, I really can’t find a reason to go down with the dune buggy and do all that mess, prime directive be damned, in Nemesis in the first place.
all great unions so far. Is it wrong to be such a dreamer to hope for a society so perfect to last forever?
You know, you can think something was well done and still pick it apart. Many fans have been picking apart Trek for as long as it has existed, Discovery is no prized pig in this regard.
Just the latest to suffer the unhappy fate.
What exactly is wrong with sharing what we think are shortcomings of any given product? Are we only supposed to wave pom-poms?
Dissecting is more than commenting on shortcomings.
I have went over the positives, mostly in the performances by Martin-Green and Ajala along with the pacing. The negatives were that The Burn just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I wasn't saying you hadn't or were dissecting it. It was observation of fan behavior not calling out any one specifically.
It’s been a single episode.
I suspect you are right, and, not to be cynical, I’m guessing Burnham. If not her time-traveling shenanigans, she or her mom ties into it somehow.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
