Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread

[XCV330]

So next episode is titled "Through the Valley of Shadows".

I tried searching for it to see where that phrase comes from. All I am getting is a bible reference about "walking through the valley of the shadow of death". Is this something that happens before meeting the Obol dude?

It shows up, not as famously, in Baha'i scripture as well, in the "The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys" :

Love’s a stranger to earth and heaven too;
In him are lunacies seventy-and-two.
He hath bound a myriad victims in his fetters, wounded a myriad wise men with his arrow. Know that every redness in the world is from his anger, and every paleness in men’s cheeks is from his poison. He yieldeth no remedy but death, he walketh not save in the valley of the shadow; yet sweeter than honey is his venom on the lover’s lips, and fairer his destruction in the seeker’s eyes than a hundred thousand lives.
-Baha'u'llah
(italics placed by me)

 

[SJGardner]

He's actually a sweetheart. But I agree that DISCO needs more of him being a focus character. I like Michael just fine, but I would rather have more Paul being Paul even if it means sacrificing some of Michael's screen time.

It seems like the more the show focuces on Michael, the more other characters retreat into the background. I'm not saying I don't like the focus on her, especially her scenes with Spock, but the rest of the main cast, especially Stamets and Tilly have more or less been reduced to gimmicks lately, almost as if they've been bluntly compressed into their most basic defining characteristics whenever they're not saying anything tech-related.

 

[XCV330]

It seems like the more the show focuces on Michael, the more other characters retreat into the background. I'm not saying I don't like the focus on her, especially her scenes with Spock, but the rest of the main cast, especially Stamets and Tilly have more or less been reduced to gimmicks lately, almost as if they've been bluntly compressed into their most basic defining characteristics whenever they're not saying anything tech-related.

Thank you.

You hit the nail on the head. And that's a problem. For all her past and her accomplishments. Michael Burnham somehow manages to resist being interesting the way ship hulls are designed to shrug off rust and barnacles. She's a good character but she doesn't (to me, subjectively) make me wonder more about her. I'm not even entirely sure why. SMG does a fine job acting. She handles the physical roles like fighting and space scenes as good as anyone ever has (except Michelle Yeoh because we're talking about Michelle Yeoh) She's got some major gravitas. And she's come alive more in character with her interactions with Spock, but there's just this feeling. I dont know. Maybe if there was a little less of her she's be more mysterious. I know more about Michael Burnham in 16 episodes than I did Kirk or Spock up through movie 6. I hate to use Doctor Who analogies but she is very much the Clara Oswald problem: overly important, overused and so constantly "on" you never get much opportunity to just enjoy the character.

I think one reason people errant declare her to be wooden or unnatural because she bores them. She's not at all wooden. And her human-raise-by-Vulcan characterization is very natural, if that can be used in this guise. It probably doesn't help that she's in every scene but often not integral to it, and therefore is constantly upstaged by characters (Lorca, Pike, Saru, both Georgiou's) that often are more compelling and interesting.

The sermonizing hasn't helped though that MAY be dying down. It seems like they intend her to be our window into the era of Discover but that role is handled at least as well by Tilly, when they don't overdo her, and Tyler, when they competently use him, and now Culber as well (Discovery has made great casting choices but I think Cruz is going to be one of those remarkable choices they really lucked out on, especially)

I do feel like SMG and, oddly, her character is picked on unfairly, and I am not alone in that. People step up to defend Burnham at the drop of a hat on this forum, myself included, as if their sister were being bullied. I like Burnham, but after a long period of time to think about it, she's not the lead, if the show ever had one. It's not what her role should be for. I think they'll sort out what to do with a problem like Michael by season 3.

 

[Nerys Myk]

She definitely the lead.

 

[Alan Roi]

Thank you.

You hit the nail on the head. And that's a problem. For all her past and her accomplishments. Michael Burnham somehow manages to resist being interesting the way ship hulls are designed to shrug off rust and barnacles. She's a good character but she doesn't (to me, subjectively) make me wonder more about her. I'm not even entirely sure why. SMG does a fine job acting. She handles the physical roles like fighting and space scenes as good as anyone ever has (except Michelle Yeoh because we're talking about Michelle Yeoh) She's got some major gravitas. And she's come alive more in character with her interactions with Spock, but there's just this feeling. I dont know. Maybe if there was a little less of her she's be more mysterious. I know more about Michael Burnham in 16 episodes than I did Kirk or Spock up through movie 6. I hate to use Doctor Who analogies but she is very much the Clara Oswald problem: overly important, overused and so constantly "on" you never get much opportunity to just enjoy the character.

I think one reason people errant declare her to be wooden or unnatural because she bores them. She's not at all wooden. And her human-raise-by-Vulcan characterization is very natural, if that can be used in this guise. It probably doesn't help that she's in every scene but often not integral to it, and therefore is constantly upstaged by characters (Lorca, Pike, Saru, both Georgiou's) that often are more compelling and interesting.

The sermonizing hasn't helped though that MAY be dying down. It seems like they intend her to be our window into the era of Discover but that role is handled at least as well by Tilly, when they don't overdo her, and Tyler, when they competently use him, and now Culber as well (Discovery has made great casting choices but I think Cruz is going to be one of those remarkable choices they really lucked out on, especially)

I do feel like SMG and, oddly, her character is picked on unfairly, and I am not alone in that. People step up to defend Burnham at the drop of a hat on this forum, myself included, as if their sister were being bullied. I like Burnham, but after a long period of time to think about it, she's not the lead, if the show ever had one. It's not what her role should be for. I think they'll sort out what to do with a problem like Michael by season 3.

Honestly, I don't think its the job of a lead character to be mysterious. And I think a lot of us watching have been through or know people who have been through bad situations in life and have been forced to struggle through. So she's part realistic figure/part hope figure. I would argue against being a Clara figure, as Clara is pure wish fulfillment fantasy. Clara didn't have to overcome anything on her way to being gifted with immortal Godhood. I really don't see Burnham ending up as Star Trek's Impossible Girl, despite people who want to put her in that box. She's the lead. And yes, having a lead like her is a first for Trek, but would hardly be considered a new kind of lead to any writer over the past couple thousand years or more of fiction.

 

[XCV330]

I really don't see Burnham ending up as Star Trek's Impossible Girl, despite people who want to put her in that box.

She's one jump into her mom's Impossible Suit to making that come true.

 

[Alan Roi]

She's one jump into her mom's Impossible Suit to making that come true.

Yeah, except that suit is gone, and as we've seen that suit produces basically the anti-impossible girl effect. Its legacy has been pretty much one of dismal failure and alienation and misery. Whose wish fulfillment is that?

And based on the nature of how we've seen time crystal's used, it's not surprising that it's been a failure for Ma Burnham. It established that the bounceback location of the suit is 950 years in a future where Control has wiped out intelligent life. IMO, that bounceback place in time and space is never going to change, no matter what she does, because its her starting point. Personally, she struck me as having been driven a little insane at this point.

IMO, this method of time travel is super effed up. Its classic Star Trek cautionary tale to a tee. In fact, its so messed up, I've even move it over to Space 1999 grim-faced Martin Landau level nasty.

 

[Turtletrekker]

She's one jump into her mom's Impossible Suit to making that come true.

You just made me snarf my beverage.

 

[Galaxy]

So was the suit actually built in the pre TOS area by the Federation?

That would seem be a bit problematic not only the time travelling aspect, but also the fact that can seemingly travel 10s of thousands of light years.

Then again it could be that a player from the future was involved, Spock did raise the possibility of a third entity.

 

[Alan Roi]

So was the suit actually built in the pre TOS area by the Federation?

That would seem be a bit problematic not only the time travelling aspect, but also the fact that can seemingly travel 10s of thousands of light years.

Then again it could be that a player from the future was involved, Spock did raise the possibility of a third entity.

Based on the fact that she used Control's catchphrase that Georgiou picked up on, its likely that there is some closer connection between her and it.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Yeahh...
Personal experience in my younger years has shown that many of the more 'religious-minded' folks, are far more kinky than they would have you believe.

Ain't that the truth. I can so relate to that. And the worst offenders are the pious but married ones.

I prefer this version
Yea though I walk through the Valley of the shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil...because I am the meanest motherfucker in the Valley.'

I like the version that you just presented.



And here's a fun Tig Notaro interview

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nerys Myk]

So was the suit actually built in the pre TOS area by the Federation?

That would seem be a bit problematic not only the time travelling aspect, but also the fact that can seemingly travel 10s of thousands of light years.

Then again it could be that a player from the future was involved, Spock did raise the possibility of a third entity.

Federation technology is what ever the latest episode says it is. (Just watch TOS)

 

[Alan Roi]

Federation technology is what ever the latest episode says it is. (Just watch TOS)

Or even any Trek Series, really.

 

[Tuskin38]

If Leland has a first name, the actor doesn't know

https://twitter.com/alanvansprang/status/1112161853910732803

 

[Lord Garth]

Any word on when the Animated Short Treks will come out?

 

[Cyrus]

Any word on when the Animated Short Treks will come out?

Supposed to be right after Discovery season 2 finishes.

Even though CBS AA is not a broadcast network, being a descendant of CBS it wants to have new content and hold on to its subscribers during broadcast network season (September/October to May). Knowing that Discovery season 2 couldn't start until January 2019 they asked for 4 Short Treks so they could start their Trek content in October 2018. And knowing Discovery season 2 ends around middle of April they asked for 2 more Short Treks. I expect one to air in late April and the other in May.

 

[Lord Garth]

Supposed to be right after Discovery season 2 finishes.

Even though CBS AA is not a broadcast network, being a descendant of CBS it wants to have new content and hold on to its subscribers during broadcast network season (September/October to May). Knowing that Discovery season 2 couldn't start until January 2019 they asked for 4 Short Treks so they could start their Trek content in October 2018. And knowing Discovery season 2 ends around middle of April they asked for 2 more Short Treks. I expect one to air in late April and the other in May.

Thanks! If that turns out to be the case, then I don't have to delay The Golden Gormaganders. Or at least not by much. First we have to go through the recommendations for categories, then the nominations for the categories themselves split into three different threads. Four threads total and, if I space them out by two weeks each, it'll take two months to get all the nominations for the different categories, before I write the awards ceremony.

So I should wait to start a thread about recommending different categories until two weeks before the second short is released. For the Hell of it, let's say the second short comes out the end of May. I start the recommendations thread the middle of May, then the three nomination threads, and that'll bring us to Mid-July. So I should aim to have the 2nd Golden Gormaganders out during August.

 

[Galaxy]

If Leland has a first name, the actor doesn't know

https://twitter.com/alanvansprang/status/1112161853910732803

Borgward, but his friends just call him Borg.

 

[Cyrus]

Borgward, but his friends just call him Borg.

I would have guessed Bjorn.

 

[BillJ]

Was there some kind of short after season one featuring Leland and Georgiou? I seem to remember it being mentioned but been unable to find it on All-Access.