Steak and pizza... with spaghetti as a side.
I can do this meal.
I can do this meal.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 5x06 - "Whistlespeak"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
In more than a couple of episodes of TOS and maybe a handful of TNG episodes, they said there would be follow ups to missions. We never saw the follow ups. Are we to think they didn't happen?
This comment is just unreasonable bias.
Steak and pizza... with spaghetti as a side.
I can do this meal.
You and me both.
A 7 for me is still a good episode. It might have problems or 1 or two major issues. They're often still enjoyable. A 5-6 is avg, not bad some issues may affect enjoyment. A 3 or 4 is below avg. Some major problems. Less than 3 is bad. I don't give zeros, a 1 is bottom of the barrel. I do give 10s, that doesn't mean perfect to me, it can mean enjoyment outweighed a few small issues.
They're tertiary, as evidenced by the fact they're listed as "Co-Stars" in the end credits. In other words, the very bottom of the pile. They have equal billing as "Alien #5" or "Guard." The show has already done more with those characters than it was ever required to.
I put this as a solid 5. It wasn't good. It wasn't bad. It's remarkably mediocre.
It took me two sittings to get through it, I was just kind of bored by it. It's a bit of a failure of Discovery for me in that I just don't particularly care about any of the characters. This is an episode that if you plopped into one of the other Trek shows, it would get a higher rating. This episode as a Voyager episode? 7. I don't have any real specific complaints about the episode, my indifference to it really stems from my overall lack of enthusiasm for the show in general. It's much better now than it was, but the damage was already done. A mild complaint maybe was the pronoun thing. It's not really all that big of a deal, but it felt like the wrong place to do it. It broke my suspension of disbelief somewhat that this is a thing in a primitive society like this, barely holding onto survival but... pronouns are important? I get what your trying to do Discovery, but there's better ways to do it.
As we are getting deeper into this, it IS starting to feel like just an elongated version of "The Chase" although i'm less concerned about that now. That episode was 30 years ago. I'm honestly ok with a retelling of a story for a new audience after that much time, and I think DSC is doing a good job of both retelling the story while honoring the original.
It took me two sittings to get through it, I was just kind of bored by it. It's a bit of a failure of Discovery for me in that I just don't particularly care about any of the characters. This is an episode that if you plopped into one of the other Trek shows, it would get a higher rating. This episode as a Voyager episode? 7. I don't have any real specific complaints about the episode, my indifference to it really stems from my overall lack of enthusiasm for the show in general. It's much better now than it was, but the damage was already done. A mild complaint maybe was the pronoun thing. It's not really all that big of a deal, but it felt like the wrong place to do it. It broke my suspension of disbelief somewhat that this is a thing in a primitive society like this, barely holding onto survival but... pronouns are important? I get what your trying to do Discovery, but there's better ways to do it.
As we are getting deeper into this, it IS starting to feel like just an elongated version of "The Chase" although i'm less concerned about that now. That episode was 30 years ago. I'm honestly ok with a retelling of a story for a new audience after that much time, and I think DSC is doing a good job of both retelling the story while honoring the original.
It's not hard to grasp. I understand the v intention.
It is an error on the writers part, though. If the audience thinks your tertiary characters (Owo, Detmer, Reno) are more compelling than your main characters (Adira, Stamets post-season 3, Book post-season 3) then you're doing something wrong.
Let me know when they actually become compelling.
That's all a matter of opinion. But my point is, if you have a large portion of your fan base interested in those characters, you sound probably throw them a bone at least.
I completely forgot to write down my prediction for after they find... whatever the Progenitors' tech is.
It's going to be destroyed by Burnham because it'll be deemed too dangerous for anyone to have, including the Federation.
And somehow it will not be frowned upon by Starfleet or the Federation, because it was Burnham who decided on that. She won't even get a reprimand for doing it.
It's going to be destroyed by Burnham because it'll be deemed too dangerous for anyone to have, including the Federation.
And somehow it will not be frowned upon by Starfleet or the Federation, because it was Burnham who decided on that. She won't even get a reprimand for doing it.
President Rillak: Captain Burnham, for performing the 'Janeway maneuver', you and your crew are hereby banished from Discovery and the Federation for 1,000 years. We'll order Zora to keep Discovery in place in the middle of space for... reasons.
Captain Burnham: Give me a break, and last I checked Kathryn Janeway was PROMOTED after destroying super powerful tech and 7 years of putting her crew through hell. Not to mention that Dr. Kovich is so obviously evil (TM) that handing him the tech would have destroyed the multiverse!
Kovich: Me? Evil?
I still struggle with how Burnham isn't compelling. I like Detmer and all but this idea of compelling compared to Burnham is weird to me.
But, then, I actually like Burnham which seems to be a controversial opinion in of itself.
Also, I'm definitely not the only one:
https://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-season-5-missing-detmer-owosekun/
Oh boy, Screenrant has something to say. Those people will write an article on anything.
Burnham's not compelling because she has no real depth as a character, so you could replace her with pretty much any other character and get almost the same storyline.
So, the whole traumatized individual who was buried under logic and struggled with emotional regulation because pure logic is not healthy for humans and having to build back towards trust and confidence in herself, while managing her own trauma is not compelling?
Because I swear I watch different shows than almost everyone here nowadays.
Is that a bad thing?
The Denobulan language being made of circles was taken from Enterprise, I didn't know we actually saw the language in that show.
https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1787905237119795227
https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1787905237119795227
Yep. It's the same Denobulan alphabet seen in ENT more than 1,000 years earlier.
Well, it’s Screenrant…
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
