• 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: Discovery 4x01 - "Kobayashi Maru"

Rate the episode...


  • Total voters
    174
It would be relevant if Burnham did not believe in the no-win scenario like Kirk. Before she left the 23rd century for the 32nd century, she was still his contemporary, even though they never met.

We don't know that they've never met. Given the way Discovery works I'm willing to bet no fewer than five of my shiniest euros that Burnham has probably met Kirk at some point and will turn out to be a key influence in his life.
 
Was this the first mention of EPS conduits in the show? Stamets mentions they were overloaded or something after they extended the shield around the station.

maybe have mention of the Star Trek Online's Kirk Class

It's called Constitution Class in the show. Kirk Class was just something Cryptic used to not confuse it with the other half a dozen Connies in the game already.
 
It's called Constitution Class in the show. Kirk Class was just something Cryptic used to not confuse it with the other half a dozen Connies in the game already.

As I recall the Discovery crew refer to the first example of this class that we see intact as "a new Constitution" because that's the name emblazoned on the hull and they have no other context. The show itself hasn't confirmed if it's a new Constitution-class or if it has another class name. Honestly I'm not a fan of this idea that Starfleet is recycling ship class names like Constitution and Intrepid in the 32nd century because it just makes things needlessly complicated and there's plenty of other names to choose from.
 
At least one Kirk went from Cadet to Captain in the space of a single movie!

As for the tribble, we saw in the TAS episode that the big pink ones were more like colony creatures, being already filled with fully formed fuzzballs. If the DSC tribble (which I'm guessing was a re-use of a CG tribble model they had from a Short Trek) is in fact a crew member, what does that mean for the species if it's edible on one hand and a fully sentient being on the other?

Mark
If this tribble is a crewman, and not an ambassador, civilian, government drone, or someone’s wandering meal or pet- why no uniform analogue?
 
Cheap???? Looks pretty expensive to me.
Cheap isn't always referring to money.

Then stop watching it. Why put yourself through the torture?
Indeed. It's ridiculous to keep on watching something that causes consternation.
^ These have become the standard / generic comments Discover apologists make anytime someone criticizes the show. It gets said every single time.

Some of us care about the ST franchise, so we follow it, we like to see where it's going, and thus comment on it, even when we think it's not good.

While watching Discover does cause some cringe, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of torture or consternation.

You're just going to have to get over the fact that not everybody who follows ST likes Discovery, but will still checkout the show from time to time and criticize it if it's still terrible (which it is).
 
It was seen (barely) on a computer screen in season 1. Eaglemoss also calls it a Constitution Class, and they get the class names from CBS.

Season 1? Hmm, are we talking at cross purposes?

Are we talking about this...
uss_enterprise_discovery_.jpg

...Which I'm quite happy to label a Constitution-class ship since it's a visual reinterpretation of an established class?

Or this...
dsc-305-constitution.jpg

...Which I absolutely think shouldn't be a Constitution-class because it's an entirely separate type of ship, and precisely because it leads to this sort of confusion?

Imagine where we'd be if TNG had decided to call the Galaxy-class "Constitution-class" too, just because it's a century later... :shrug:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Season 1? Hmm, are we talking at cross purposes?
Sorry I meant Season 3. I don't know why I wrote Season 1.

Also don't embed images from wiki sites, they don't work.

...Which I absolutely think shouldn't be a Constitution-class because it's an entirely separate type of ship, and precisely because it leads to this sort of confusion?
That's why you add descriptors when talking about it, like 'The 31st century Constitution'

Several ships in Star Trek have shared names with other ships existing with in 100 years of each other (some even as short as 10 years apart),
2 USS Defiant
2 USS Prometheus
2 USS Ahwahnee
3 USS Antares (and an Antares with no Prefix)
2 USS Bellerophon
etc

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_starships

I don't understand why Class names can't be reused when they're several centuries apart?

Maybe Starfleet went through a nostalgia phase shortly before The Burn.

Imagine where we'd be if TNG had decided to call the Galaxy-class "Constitution-class" too, just because it's a century later...

Except the Connie was still in service then, and barely over 100 years old.
 
Last edited:
These have become the standard / generic comments Discover apologists make anytime someone criticizes the show. It gets said every single time.
It's not because of the criticism, I have no problem with criticism (except when it makes no sense), it's because you clearly don't like the show at all.

Criticism is fine. It's when you watch something even though you clearly hate it that is mind boggling.

I could understand if you were doing reviews for money, it was part of your job to watch it (like Bernd over at EAS), but using up your own free time? I don't get it.

I love the CW DC shows, but stopped watching Batwoman this season, because it has just started to bore me. The first time one of the CW shows has done that.
 
Last edited:
Cheap isn't always referring to money.

^ These have become the standard / generic comments Discover apologists make anytime someone criticizes the show. It gets said every single time.

Some of us care about the ST franchise, so we follow it, we like to see where it's going, and thus comment on it, even when we think it's not good.

While watching Discover does cause some cringe, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of torture or consternation.

You're just going to have to get over the fact that not everybody who follows ST likes Discovery, but will still checkout the show from time to time and criticize it if it's still terrible (which it is).
It's interesting to me as someone who's been watching Star Trek first run since TOS season 3 in 1969 that every time a new interpretation a Star Trek comes along, a small group of Star Trek fandom always pops up claiming it's:

"Not true Star Trek"

And claim anyone who enjoys it can't be a real Star Trek fan, and when challenged always respond with:

" it's because we're the ones who really care about the Star Trek franchise..."
^^^
And that attitude is an utter load of bullshit. I know that personally because that's exactly the way I felt in 1987 after watching the T NG pilot episode "Encounter At Farpoint". It wasn't what I expected and it was nothing like TOS which is the version of Star Trek I like best and still to this they enjoy the most.

That's sad because it was the only version of Star Trek available back in 1987, I still kept watching in the hope that I would find something to enjoy oh, and I finally got enjoyment out of it in the third season. That's sad I know there are fans that enjoyed it from day one I'm still feel it's the one true representative version of the Star Trek franchise. I of course do not agree with that, and I've actually found that I find it harder and harder to re-watch many episodes of TNG as the years have gone on. I also finally found one version of Star Trek I could not watch past the first season and that was Star Trek Voyager, but again, I realize that that show has many fans who enjoy it.

So yes thankfully after 55 or so years, there are many flavors of Star Trek that a wide variety of people enjoy. There's no one true version of Star Trek.

And I hate to tell you younger fans this (or the older fans) who have bought into Gene Roddenberry's inflated and somewhat false image of himself that he promoted after TOS regarding his "vision"... but Gene's vision regarding Star Trek ( which was exemplified by his own Star Trek memorabilia company, Lincoln Enterprises, as well as many of his other projects post TOS, like the feature film he did entitled: Pretty Maids All in a Row) was:

$$$

and.

And access to the (.)(.) of pretty young actresses on a casting couch.

If the me too movement had been around in 1969, Gene Roddenberry would have never finished his run on the original Star Trek.

So yeah fans need to get off their high horse about the protection of "Gene's vision for Star Trek".

Star Trek was designed primarily as an entertainment property, and on occasion various writers and producers have used it to do occasional stories with social commentary. But contrary to what some fans believe, that's never been the prime driving force behind The Star Trek franchise and that goes all the way back to 1964 when Gene Roddenberry first envisioned it.

There's nothing sacred about it. It's a form of entertainment and it's meant to be enjoyed and to make the producers of it money. Over 55 years there have been many forms of it made. If there is a form of it you don't enjoy I would suggest can you stop watching that particular version of it much like I did with Star Trek Voyager, and let those who enjoy a version of it which you don't, enjoy it in peace.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations or IDIC
^^^
Of course the interesting thing about the story behind of why Gene Roddenberry created that phrase was because he wanted Leonard Nimoy to wear a piece of jewelry Emmett a scene so that afterwards Gene could sell that design of jewelry to fans using the marketing phrase "as seen on Star Trek". On the set when the scene was filmed, Leonard Nimoy refused to wear the jewelry piece unless there was a story reason behind it because he just didn't want to be part of a marketing Ploy by Gene Roddenberry - so IDIC was born.:guffaw:
 
Anyone of any age, gender identification or series preference who claims they "care" about Star Trek more than others is setting themselves up for a very hard fall. :vulcan:

Whenever I encounter one of those, I always think of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
^ These have become the standard / generic comments Discover apologists make anytime someone criticizes the show. It gets said every single time.
And the comments get said every single time. So, it's not going to stop because while I care about Star Trek, I care about people more. So, if people are going to bitch about a show every single time my remark is going to be perhaps it is better for your mental health to not watch something that you do not enjoy. See, I'm a weird guy-I watch things for entertainment. I don't go to look at a franchise if it doesn't entertain me. I didn't watch TNG, and didn't continue on with VOY when it failed to engage me. So, as weird as it sounds, I kind of sort of value your time and would hope that you watch things that doesn't make you cringe and that you watch Star Trek that you like. I know it's weird.

It's not the criticism that gets to me; it's the repeated statements of things haven't change and expecting Discovery to change. It's the lack of awareness that this version of Trek is not for you.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top