Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x10 - "A Quality of Mercy"

[cooleddie74]

Well, to be fair all Starfleet Admirals except the C.-in-C. are just called "Admiral" whether their rank is Rear Admiral or Fleet Admiral. Sometimes you hear someone of TOS Scotty's or TNG Data's rank called "Lieutenant Commander" when appropriate but usually it's just "Commander."

 

[GNDN18]

I agree with others here that Fleet Captain is a posting or an assignment, not a promotion to a higher rank.

If Pike was CoS to a Portmaster, Commodore, or Admiral (thanks Serveaux), it would make sense that he was conducting a training ship inspection. It’s the sort of thing chair bound paper pushers flying goddamned computer consoles do.

 

[Photoman15]

Okay, I'm coming late to the party here, but I just saw it tonight and I can't resist weighing in. FWIW!...

I liked the effort overall. It was interesting to see an attempt to revisit such a familiar and classic story, and in many ways they did it well. Anson Mount was great, as usual. However, IMHO the episode suffered from three things:

First, the continuity just doesn't work. In TOS Pike had handed off command of the ENT and been promoted before his accident, as evidenced in "Menagerie" by Kirk's surprise on learning of the accident. If Kirk had inherited the ship from him as a result of it, he obviously would have known. This might be handwaved away as a minor glitch except that the entire plot literally hinges on Pike still being in command because of that change.

You are misunderstanding the chain of events here. In this timeline, Pike never accepted his bump up and the accident never happened, so when James Kirk was up for a command, the Enterprise wasn't available. He got the Farragut. This timeline is what would have happened if Pike didn't become a Fleet Captain and he did alter his future.

 

[Ovation]

I’ve just watched Balance of Terror, A Quality of Mercy, and both parts of The Menagerie, in that order. It’s storytelling. Six months. Nine months. Four months. Twelve months. The minutiae doesn’t matter. It all hangs together and is entertaining. An unhealthy obsession with perfection is unnecessary.

 

[lawman]

You are misunderstanding the chain of events here. In this timeline, Pike never accepted his bump up and the accident never happened, so when James Kirk was up for a command, the Enterprise wasn't available. He got the Farragut. This timeline is what would have happened if Pike didn't become a Fleet Captain and he did alter his future.

That's a plausible supposition. It's also not the supposition the episode (through Spock) explicitly recommends to us. After all, if it were so, as I noted earlier, then why couldn't Pike accept the promotion and still prevent the accident? By what logic are the two connected? The episode wants us to infer that avoiding the accident = keeping the Enterprise, but that makes no sense, as leaving the Enterprise had to come first.

I’ve just watched Balance of Terror, A Quality of Mercy, and both parts of The Menagerie, in that order. It’s storytelling. Six months. Nine months. Four months. Twelve months. The minutiae doesn’t matter. It all hangs together and is entertaining. An unhealthy obsession with perfection is unnecessary.

The minutiae absolutely matters, when the entire plot literally hinges on these details and the sequence of events they imply.

Did you forget the part where I said I mostly liked the episode? Having that diminished by the fact that the internal logic doesn't all "hang together" is disappointing.

 

[Photoman15]

I think you're being much too hard on the episode (and the series) overall... but yeah, I agree that the theme of this one was a hard pill to swallow.

Basically, the writers (different ones, to be fair) backed themselves into a corner by letting Pike glimpse his future (in DSC)... and now that he's the star of a full-fledged prequel series, they kinda have to deal with the implications of that while still, somehow, rationalizing having things turn out the same. It's awkward at best.


I think you're missing the point. The clear logic of the episode (indeed, Spock literally says so) is that Pike is still captain because he didn't suffer the accident.

But that's not how things went, ever. He was no longer captain when he had the accident, because he'd been promoted.

Sure, it's conceivable that in addition to sending out warning letters, Pike's time-changing strategy included turning down the promotion for some reason. But if that were so, then the plot of this episode stands out as (at best) misleadingly irrelevant. If the goal is to have Kirk in command, protect Spock, and avert a war, then all Pike would have to do is accept the promotion, not the accident.

Mine is not a supposition, but the actual prime timeline. Spock "surmises" but in error. He knows that (in this timeline) Pike never left Enterprise, explosion hurt no one. But he doesn't know WHEN Pike left Enterprise. Pike is also told (by Pike) that EVERY timeline where Pike subverts the future, Spock dies, but he needs to not die. He has BIg stuff to do.

 

[Ovation]

The minutiae absolutely matters, when the entire plot literally hinges on these details and the sequence of events they imply.

Nope. The entertainment value depends on far more than the minutiae. Cinematography, performance, direction, set design, story (far more important than plot), score…these are but some of the elements that contribute to the enjoyment of entertainment—and many are more important than plot. Getting hung up on minutiae that matters little to the broad strokes of the story is tiresome and an invitation to disappointment (particularly when it comes to insisting that things made half a century apart by hundreds of people in the aggregate line up with zero inconsistencies).

I’m a professional historian. If I insisted that all historical drama films be consistent with actual history (as some of my colleagues do), it would be impossible for me to enjoy any feature film based on historical events. But I enjoy many such films. Why? I don’t sweat the minutiae. If it’s grossly out of sync with historical events, then sure. But if some minor things happen a little bit out of order, or even incorrectly, I’ll probably notice but not care if it doesn’t violate the broad strokes of the events in question AND the other elements noted above are well done. I judge the whole, not each separate individual part. It’s entertainment, not rocket science.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Nope. The entertainment value depends on far more than the minutiae. Cinematography, performance, direction, set design, story (far more important than plot), score…these are but some of the elements that contribute to the enjoyment of entertainment—and many are more important than plot. Getting hung up on minutiae that matters little to the broad strokes of the story is tiresome and an invitation to disappointment (particularly when it comes to insisting that things made half a century apart by hundreds of people in the aggregate line up with zero inconsistencies).

I’m a professional historian. If I insisted that all historical drama films be consistent with actual history (as some of my colleagues do), it would be impossible for me to enjoy any feature film based on historical events. But I enjoy many such films. Why? I don’t sweat the minutiae. If it’s grossly out of sync with historical events, then sure. But if some minor things happen a little bit out of order, or even incorrectly, I’ll probably notice but not care if it doesn’t violate the broad strokes of the events in question AND the other elements noted above are well done. I judge the whole, not each separate individual part. It’s entertainment, not rocket science.

All of this.

 

[fireproof78]

I’m a professional historian. If I insisted that all historical drama films be consistent with actual history (as some of my colleagues do), it would be impossible for me to enjoy any feature film based on historical events. But I enjoy many such films. Why? I don’t sweat the minutiae. If it’s grossly out of sync with historical events, then sure. But if some minor things happen a little bit out of order, or even incorrectly, I’ll probably notice but not care if it doesn’t violate the broad strokes of the events in question AND the other elements noted above are well done. I judge the whole, not each separate individual part. It’s entertainment, not rocket science.

Exactly. Taking Star Trek as a drama, rather than history that must be adhered too makes it much more enjoyable.

 

[blssdwlf]

That's a plausible supposition. It's also not the supposition the episode (through Spock) explicitly recommends to us. After all, if it were so, as I noted earlier, then why couldn't Pike accept the promotion and still prevent the accident? By what logic are the two connected? The episode wants us to infer that avoiding the accident = keeping the Enterprise, but that makes no sense, as leaving the Enterprise had to come first.

The accident and promotion aren't connected but only Pike and Spock's fate. What we saw in "Quality of Mercy" is just the one Alternate Future Pike is in. Alternate Future Pike apparently was shown different combinations of the future where he tries different things to avoid his fate but Spock dies anyway. What will be interesting is what Pike does back in his current time since he does not know what the "correct path" is other than he is supposed to get badly injured saving cadets in the accident.

ALT FUTURE PIKE: But the monks showed me something simple. Every time we change the path, he dies.​

The minutiae absolutely matters, when the entire plot literally hinges on these details and the sequence of events they imply.

Akiva Goldsman has already said SNW is doing their own take on TOS where some thing are changed so don't expect things to match up with TOS. But, overall timeline still works between QoM and BoT+Menagerie... YMMV.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Exactly. Taking Star Trek as a drama, rather than history that must be adhered too makes it much more enjoyable.

Do people have a choice in how they take it though? Or is how we process stories hardwired?

 

[Mudd]

Akiva Goldsman has already said SNW is doing their own take on TOS where some thing are changed so don't expect things to match up with TOS.

It's about time - although I must say I'm surprised to find myself enjoying it so much with Goldsman in charge.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I have to say that I was not impressed with the makeup, especially of the Romulan commander.

They did not look like the Galaxy Quest aliens. If anything those were designed to be evocative of Romulan’s/Vulcans.
They looked like Romulans.
The make up was fine.


what irritates you, is the actor’s mannerisms and facial expressions, which are arguably similar to Enrico Colantoni’s.

 

[blssdwlf]

what irritates you, is the actor’s mannerisms and facial expressions, which are arguably similar to Enrico Colantoni’s.

By Grabthar's Hammer I cannot unsee that. No wonder he looked so familiar from certain angles

It's about time - although I must say I'm surprised to find myself enjoying it so much with Goldsman in charge.

Agreed. FYI, I re-read Goldsman's interview and he more specifically says he/they "will deviate/re-write canon if they believe it will get them a good story" which I interpret as they are doing their own take on TOS. YMMV.

https://www.metacritic.com/news/sta...2-finale-guest-star-canon-strange-new-worlds/

"Fans have really loved the consistency of canon over the course of the Star Trek franchise. I know that can be both a boon for story ideas and character development, and can also be kind of an anchor for storytellers in your position. So, how do you approach it now, especially given that you're bringing in some characters from Kirk's Enterprise and some that have allusions to characters such as Khan?

We love canon. We try very hard to adhere to it, and yet we probably won't destroy a really good story over it. We'll try to body English around it, but fundamentally the spirit of canon is, to us, more important than the letter of the law.

I know that sounds vaguely like an excuse. And in fairness, we really do try very hard to stick to it, but now and then we deviate. And we do it because we thought about it and we believe that we're better off attempting to rewrite canon, which I know sounds sacrilegious, but canon was an accident. When they made "The Cage," they weren't like, "And then we'll cut it into two parts and make it 'The Menagerie' and Star Trek backstory is born!" That was not the purpose. It's a lot of people like us and people who will come after us who will hopefully do their best to stick with what we did and then don't be slaves to it if it gets in their way. "​

 

[Noname Given]

Agreed. FYI, I re-read Goldsman's interview and he more specifically says he/they "will deviate/re-write canon if they believe it will get them a good story" which I interpret as they are doing their own take on TOS. YMMV.

https://www.metacritic.com/news/sta...2-finale-guest-star-canon-strange-new-worlds/

"Fans have really loved the consistency of canon over the course of the Star Trek franchise. I know that can be both a boon for story ideas and character development, and can also be kind of an anchor for storytellers in your position. So, how do you approach it now, especially given that you're bringing in some characters from Kirk's Enterprise and some that have allusions to characters such as Khan?

We love canon. We try very hard to adhere to it, and yet we probably won't destroy a really good story over it. We'll try to body English around it, but fundamentally the spirit of canon is, to us, more important than the letter of the law.

I know that sounds vaguely like an excuse. And in fairness, we really do try very hard to stick to it, but now and then we deviate. And we do it because we thought about it and we believe that we're better off attempting to rewrite canon, which I know sounds sacrilegious, but canon was an accident. When they made "The Cage," they weren't like, "And then we'll cut it into two parts and make it 'The Menagerie' and Star Trek backstory is born!" That was not the purpose. It's a lot of people like us and people who will come after us who will hopefully do their best to stick with what we did and then don't be slaves to it if it gets in their way. "​

So, in simpler terms Akiva Goldsman is running his writer's room like every other Producer who's handled Star Trek (including Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon)...Got it.

 

[blssdwlf]

So, in simpler terms Akiva Goldsman is running his writer's room like every other Producer who's handled Star Trek (including Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon)...Got it.

Were there other Producers or writers more open about not following "canon"?

 

[BillJ]

So what I’ve said all along, they are going to do what they want to do, and Prime is simply marketing for fans who can’t let go of the past.

 

[BillJ]

The episode should’ve been a more intimate story, Kirk, Ortegas weird turn as Stiles and the Romulan Preator and fleet were really unnecessary. It should’ve been about Pike either running from or losing to the Bird of Prey and having to deal with the idea that he may not have been the right person for the job.

The episode was unnecessarily cluttered.

 

[Mudd]

No, it wasn't.

 

[BillJ]

No, it wasn't.

Meh. Agree to disagree.