Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x01 - "That Hope Is You, Part 1"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It seems to me destroying all time travel equipment gave the Fed no recourse to go back in time and find out what caused the Burn to begin with, or warn their past selves and change the timeline.
TOS started out as the Kirk show. As Spock became popular he got more focus. Even when he was the focus Kirk played a big part (Amok Time. Journey To Babel...) We've had episodes that gave Saru and Tilly a lot do and development much in the way Spock was.
Picard rapidly became the lead in TNG, even though the original plan was for Riker to be more of an equal character.
DS9 was more of an ensemble, but Sisko was clearly the lead, the Bajoran messiah and savior of the Federation.
Voyager was the Janeway show
Riffing on what Jadeb said, the problem with the violence isn't really that Michael and Book go on a killing spree. It's that the direction implied that it was no big thing that they went on a killing spree.
I don't want to have Star Trek ultra-sanitized and violence free. But I expect adult stories which show that even winning has a price. I mean, as an example, on Deep Space Nine the writers humanized the friggin Jem'Haddar - who were bred to be nothing other than disposable cannon fodder. We were supposed to feel there was something tragic about the conflict, because that's what war is. Good people die who don't have to on both sides.
This episode treated violence like something out of a video game. Book snaps the neck of an Andorian who is already prone on the floor, and stoned Michael just giggles. The two heavies of the episode get eaten by a giant worm, which is meant to be played for laughs. The rando mooks just get vaporized within less than a second of beaming in. Vaporized bloodlessly I would add, which is part of the problem - the lack of any blood/gore makes the scene seem "unreal" in a way that (as an example) Elnor's body count in Picard did not.
I think the episode could easily kept the same script and just had the firefight shot in such a way to show that these are real people, who are having real suffering as a result of Book and Michael's actions. This would make the viewer uncomfortable, but IMHO this is a good thing, as it helps set up for why the Federation is needed - because without some sort of central government, perfectly decent sentient beings will be killing each other over relatively trivial matters. Instead of "we need the Federation to stop these bandits" it becomes "we need the Federation so we don't all just live as bandits." I think the latter is still way more conservative than I would like, but it's at least a more adult, less black/white take.
I don't want to have Star Trek ultra-sanitized and violence free. But I expect adult stories which show that even winning has a price. I mean, as an example, on Deep Space Nine the writers humanized the friggin Jem'Haddar - who were bred to be nothing other than disposable cannon fodder. We were supposed to feel there was something tragic about the conflict, because that's what war is. Good people die who don't have to on both sides.
This episode treated violence like something out of a video game. Book snaps the neck of an Andorian who is already prone on the floor, and stoned Michael just giggles. The two heavies of the episode get eaten by a giant worm, which is meant to be played for laughs. The rando mooks just get vaporized within less than a second of beaming in. Vaporized bloodlessly I would add, which is part of the problem - the lack of any blood/gore makes the scene seem "unreal" in a way that (as an example) Elnor's body count in Picard did not.
I think the episode could easily kept the same script and just had the firefight shot in such a way to show that these are real people, who are having real suffering as a result of Book and Michael's actions. This would make the viewer uncomfortable, but IMHO this is a good thing, as it helps set up for why the Federation is needed - because without some sort of central government, perfectly decent sentient beings will be killing each other over relatively trivial matters. Instead of "we need the Federation to stop these bandits" it becomes "we need the Federation so we don't all just live as bandits." I think the latter is still way more conservative than I would like, but it's at least a more adult, less black/white take.
Last edited:
Even if that was the case how does impact my view? I still care and felt for them. I think it works fine inside the context in the story presented and, as you note, it isn't black and white as we learn more about the world.
Dude, do you even Star Trek? Glow and gone phaser hits ring a bell?
I thought he just rendered him unconscious. At least it looked that way on my second viewing.
"Yeah, but it's 2020!" is the new "But this is the '90s!" for something that explains nothing.
Of course I remember that. But the way the scenes were shot - slow-paced and deliberate - meant that we were meant to focus on the impact of each individual casualty.
People were vaporized and bloodlessly in 1966. If this is a new thing in Trek then someone has changed the timeline or something. 
When Seven vaporized Bajayzel in PIC the camera lingered on her reaction to what she had just done so modern Trek does do "kill and study the reaction of the person who did it."
When Seven vaporized Bajayzel in PIC the camera lingered on her reaction to what she had just done so modern Trek does do "kill and study the reaction of the person who did it."
I didn't. So either the director failed or I did,
Triangulate on his location. He knows too much!People were vaporized and bloodlessly in 1966. If this is a new thing in Trek then someone has changed the timeline or something.
Obviously it must be different. Not every death has meaning. Star Trek taught us that as well.People were vaporized and bloodlessly in 1966. If this is a new thing in Trek then someone has changed the timeline or something.
I didn't. So either the director failed or I did,
Well, the problem is that in TOS they went back to the well with randos dying on away missions so frequently that "red shirt" became one of the earliest named tropes. It became a comedic thing, rather than something impactful.
I would say though in general whenever Kirk & co had to kill someone, it was taken as something of great weightiness in TOS. It was not done lightly, and it was often treated in a semi-tragic fashion.
Which is why they should name it "ST Michael Burnham"
Still, they focus too much on her without being able to support this focus with a good writing.
That's more a result of reruns and repeated viewings
Dude, do you even Star Trek? "Meaningful" only happened when the plot required it. Another TOS trope is the cast laughing about something in the final shot, even though horrible things happen the previous "hour"
I'm going to guess he's not a mechanic, just an administrator.
Not everyone's an engineer. I can operate a video camera, but if you ask me to fix it or design one, you're out of luck.
She still the main character. The writing good or bad has nothing to do with that.
What make yo think he hasn't?
One on one.. maybe, but knocking out almost the whole crew of a Klingon ship bridge?
Ha-ha-ha...
Oh, wait...you're serious?
ok, then please refer to me other ST series with scenes where a well trained woman beats Klingon soldiers in their own ship's bridge, without using phasers or other weapons.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
