• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x01 - "The Broken Circle"

Hit it!


  • Total voters
    240
Exactly my thoughts. It was serviceable and entertaining, but it confirmed both the good and the bad I saw in Season 1. On the plus side: this is Star Trek, no doubt about it. The episodic approach is ultimately what the franchise needs to do. Picard was great for me, and it served its purpose in the end to give the TNG cast a final "movie". Now end Discovery and its always too-drawn out arcs already. Stick with shows that do it like SNW - and as we've seen, the episodic format does not preclude ongoing storylines and character development.

Having said that, I still can't get over the fact that they reintroduce all these TOS characters - clearly intended as fanservice - but then don't actually service the fans by keeping them consistent with what we know. Much as I like Jess Bush's performance itself, her Chapel is still the worst offender in this category. Who is this person and why is she the namesake of Majel Barrett's character?Perhaps there's some sort of endgame here, so I'll reserve final judgment, but as of now, I can't see why they wouldn't just create new characters that can then do whatever the eff they want them to do. But I know, the continuity issue is tired and there's no common ground to be found in debates on that.

But I think one can make a good case that the show - now as throughout season 1 - is too jokey, too setpiece-oriented. Kind of the series equivalent of a modern tentpole movie. That was my main thought watching this episode. There was no reason at all for M'Benga to have the superhero juice in his pocket - except that the producers thought "it would be cool" to have these guys have hand-to-hand combat with 25 Klingons. In order to get there, you need to sacrifice characterization and logic. You just hope nobody will notice because "dude, that scene was so dope"... Hmm, not for me. As for the overly lighthearted tone: Carol Kane's character. MORE comic relief in a show that is already 40% comic relief? I'll wait and see where it goes, but I worry. Her performance as such was NOT. GOOD. Don't kid yourselves here with nostalgia for some previous role she played. I didn't know her before, and what I saw here was a person struggling with every single line.

Great post.
 
One random thing:

Starbase 1 orbits Jupiter….I wonder when/why it moved because it most likely wasn’t there when a giant Borg unicomplex showed up 150 years or whatever later.

It’s a cool base…the domes are neat!
Perhaps SB1 got sucked back in time ala Babylon 4. Or else it's also orbiting Athan Prime along with the SF Museum and we just didn't see it.
 
There's no reason this had to be Chapel. It could have been some other nurse that you give these attributes to and establish a relationship with Spock pre-TOS,
But why? Why doesn't Chapel deserve a decent backstory? Why must she live in our memories as the moony-eyed, love-sick, dishrag we assumed she was from brief appearances in TOS?

I mean as long as we're giving other people backstories...
 
One random thing:

Starbase 1 orbits Jupiter….I wonder when/why it moved because it most likely wasn’t there when a giant Borg unicomplex showed up 150 years or whatever later.

It’s a cool base…the domes are neat!
Who says it moved? There is still a 'Jupiter Station' mentioned in all the Berman era 24th century series. Maybe it just was renamed/re-designated at some point in the intervening 100 years. Also, the station orbiting Earth has usually been refered to as "Earth Space Dock" or "ESD". I don't think it's even been referred to as "Starbase 1".
 
But why? Why doesn't Chapel deserve a decent backstory? Why must she live in our memories as the moony-eyed, love-sick, dishrag we assumed she was from brief appearances in TOS?

I mean as long as we're giving other people backstories...
Indeed, that's my big question. "These characters are nothing like what we saw*"

*Saw being brief snippets of caricature that was never the focus of development in TOS. A prequel shouldn't tell me stuff I already know; it gives new perspective on characters I thought I knew.
 
But why? Why doesn't Chapel deserve a decent backstory? Why must she live in our memories as the moony-eyed, love-sick, dishrag we assumed she was from brief appearances in TOS?

I mean as long as we're giving other people backstories...

Two reasons.

1. Because that is how the character was originally portrayed and developed. So what if she was pathetic? A lot of people are- that's life.

2. Using old characters in a prequel restricts what can be done with them. At least, as long as the studio insists this is the actual, no-shit TOS timeline and not some derivative of it. New characters have no such handicaps- they can be developed, killed off, scapegoated, turncoated, whatever you want to do with them for story and dramatic effect, without consequence.

Someone else nailed the point: if you don't want the internal consistency with these characters to start with, why use them at all?
 
Who says it moved? There is still a 'Jupiter Station' mentioned in all the Berman era 24th century series. Maybe it just was renamed/re-designated at some point in the intervening 100 years. Also, the station orbiting Earth has usually been refered to as "Earth Space Dock" or "ESD". I don't think it's even been referred to as "Starbase 1".

Well…they need new sensors/security personnel then because that Borg installation would be hard to miss
 
Two reasons.

1. Because that is how the character was originally portrayed and developed. So what if she was pathetic? A lot of people are- that's life.

2. Using old characters in a prequel restricts what can be done with them. At least, as long as the studio insists this is the actual, no-shit TOS timeline and not some derivative of it. New characters have no such handicaps- they can be developed, killed off, scapegoated, turncoated, whatever you want to do with them for story and dramatic effect, without consequence.

Someone else nailed the point: if you don't want the internal consistency with these characters to start with, why use them at all?
You're missing the most compelling element of prequels though. The idea that a prequel can present a character as different as possible from the one portrayed in the original work and the audience interest is maintained by promising an extremely emotional story arc that transforms the prequel character into the character shown in the original work. This is what literally upheld interest in the 3 Star Wars prequel movies for example.

That being said, while a story showing how Chapel goes from being an extroverted, outgoing, and progressive woman into a broken wallflower pining for Spock would be compelling in my opinion, there's no indication at all that SNW is actually going to tell such a story and far more indications that they're just using the same character name without regards to ever bridging the wildly different characterizations between the prequel and the original work.
 
Indeed, that's my big question. "These characters are nothing like what we saw*"

*Saw being brief snippets of caricature that was never the focus of development in TOS. A prequel shouldn't tell me stuff I already know; it gives new perspective on characters I thought I knew.

Exactly, 100%. I love this portrayal of Chapel and really love the deepening (not cheapening or cynical deconstruction) of the character. I have no problem believing this is the same Chapel either. The characters had lives we didn’t see. Now we get to and that’s good.
 
That being said, while a story showing how Chapel goes from being an extroverted, outgoing, and progressive woman into a broken wallflower pining for Spock would be compelling in my opinion, there's no indication at all that SNW is actually going to tell such a story and far more indications that they're just using the same character name without regards to ever bridging the wildly different characterizations between the prequel and the original work.
I fully expect them to do so and in fact look forward to it.

You're missing the most compelling element of prequels though. The idea that a prequel can present a character as different as possible from the one portrayed in the original work and the audience interest is maintained by promising an extremely emotional story arc that transforms the prequel character into the character shown in the original work.
This is on point. Exactly my thoughts. Don't tell me what I already know; show me how they become that way.

1. Because that is how the character was originally portrayed and developed. So what if she was pathetic? A lot of people are- that's life.
Because there is always more to people than just 'Oh, you're pathetic." That's bullshit, pure and simple. People become different things because of what happens to them, not just in a vacuum. That some are uninterested in Chapel becoming like TOS does not negate the power in that story that can be done.
 
I honestly don't give one whit whether the characterization of any of the folks we see in TOS are consistent with that portrayal. The series is now close to 60 years old; I expect a more modern spin on the characters. I do want the characters to be consistent within the show though, which is why this episode was in part a failure for me. The whole M'Benga/Chapel fight sequence with the Klingons was not only nonsensical, it was in no way rooted in what has been established regarding their characters.
Because in TOS it was stated, they had no fighting skills whatsoever....right?
 
But why? Why doesn't Chapel deserve a decent backstory? Why must she live in our memories as the moony-eyed, love-sick, dishrag we assumed she was from brief appearances in TOS?

I mean as long as we're giving other people backstories...
Because this isn't expanding someone's backstory. This is completely changing someone's characterization with new backstory.

Just like when they say they just wanted to expand on the Gorn concept ... Well completely changing is not expanding.
 
Because in TOS it was stated, they had no fighting skills whatsoever....right?
Yes, I believe both M'Benga and Chapel stated to Kirk "We suck at fighting. Please don't ever put us in a combat situation." I believe that episode was titled "Please, Captain, send someone else."

Because this isn't expanding someone's backstory. This is completely changing someone's characterization with new backstory.
Because people are static beings who never change?

Humanity is fucked then.
 
I don't see this as changing Chapel's characterization so much as instead giving her a characterization to begin with. I have enjoyed watching her TOS scenes with Spock and seeing them in a new light: her simply "pining" for Spock has become something more substantial, wanting to recapture something that she lost.
 
Because this isn't expanding someone's backstory. This is completely changing someone's characterization with new backstory.

Just like when they say they just wanted to expand on the Gorn concept ... Well completely changing is not expanding.
TOS M'Benga, knew Vulcan physiology, was second to McCoy. What else did we no about him? Nothing, because he wasn't a main character. But in SNW he is, so what characterisation changed that you knew before?
 
Because in TOS it was stated, they had no fighting skills whatsoever....right?
It was actually the opposite, I think in "The Apple" they showed all the characters in the away team, even the redshirts, doing hand to hand combat. Admittedly such sequences that didn't involve Kirk were rare since the redshirts usually use phasers.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top