Not for me. I actually liked the Burnham plot (excepting that the lesson supposedly leaned from the Kobayashi Maru simulation is not actually at issue in this episode), and find it totally within character for her to force her way into going on the reckless solo mission. I just have problems with 1) no 1st officer (or active first officer if there isn't one) standing up to say "hey, you are the captain, you can't go." regardless of if she overrides that person, and 2) not acknowledging if there even is a first officer when this is the exact kind of scene and challenge that would call for an XO, especially given the 'search for an XO' plotline in season 3. If it had been done well, i wouldn't have had an issue with it at all.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 4x01 - "Kobayashi Maru"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Again, I respect your opinion but I feel that is out of step with Trek.
The flipside of this - and IMHO the most disappointing - is that it means Discovery has consistently been a plot-driven show rather than a character-driven one. Again, this has long been an issue with most Trek series (aside from DS9) - but with Discovery's high level of serialization I was really hoping that we would get to see long-term consequences for the actions of characters. Instead, the characters have sudden shifts in not only their roles, but their basic personalities as is dictated by the big story needs of the season.
I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean "out of step with what Trek is today" or "out of step with what Trek has been"? Also, I don't understand how my wanting something that is both logical (having the XO present and actively performing their duty) and consistent with past portrayals would be out of step. Unless you mean that current Trek (mostly Discovery but Picard some too) doesn't always aim for logic and consistency, then I would have to agree with you.
Kurtzman has said that Discovery is modern Trek's "bullet of a show" and I have to agree with that too. Discovery doesn't often have the time to stop and contemplate stuff; it always has to be moving. And I think that approach doesn't just affect the speed of the episodes but also the attention the writers pay to the details within the universe.
Yeah, I agree. Though I think the issues with plot-driven Trek really started with Voyager. TNG (like TOS before it), due to its episodic nature, was very plot driven, but I think that it had more consistency of character than some of the later shows. I don't feel like TNG character choices were driven by the plot to the extent of violating established character traits or proclivities.
Both. Captain always does the dangerous stuff, no excuses made from other officers.
I don't agree. I can think of many situations where the XO spoke up to oppose their captain's actions especially when it would unnecessarily risk the captain's life. Often they were overruled, but that is literally part of the XO's job description, and makes for dramatic scenes both for the characters and the audience. I think Captains making dangerous decisions and their XOs objecting are part of both earlier and current Trek (but was strangely dropped from this episode and awkwardly given to the Federation President of all people).
Fair enough. I guess I just don't miss it.
It does keep the idea of what constitutes a "hit" in the age of streaming program in a bit of perspective, though. Yes, something that can be a success on broadcast television has far broader and greater audience appeal than stuff like STD or Picard or STLD are required to generate in order to earn their keep. The current generation of Trek TV shows are niche entertainment to a degree that no one could have foreseen twenty years ago.
Last edited:
And I still have to wonder if DSC gets more eyeballs per week than ENT did. Since it's a worldwide audience that's more likely than not but the discrepancy can't be too large.
Finally seen it here in the UK, I did enjoy it. Especially the first contact bit at the start.
If I have a complaint it is that I wish we could have more of that kind of story and less of high stakes, end of the galaxy kind of stuff, which I assume is what the gravity wells are about.
Hopefully I will see episode 2 tonight.
If I have a complaint it is that I wish we could have more of that kind of story and less of high stakes, end of the galaxy kind of stuff, which I assume is what the gravity wells are about.
Hopefully I will see episode 2 tonight.
I dunno, but the TV market is so much more fragmented today than in the early 2000s that if DIS is pulling ENT-level ratings and they're steady, that number is probably considered much more successful today than it was in 2005.
Another problem I see is that we see a game of musical chairs being played with the characters switching places, not just positions, but roles. Ensign Tal is now Ensign Tilly-the awkward, lovable inexperienced Starfleet officer, Burnham is now Saru, the inexperienced Captain undergoing growing pains and maturing, Tilly is the overconfident science officer, the role Burnham had previously. This new Cardassian Federation President is like the Admiral from Season 1, a distrustful high ranked Federation overseer that comes into conflict with the captain. These are like cookie-cutter characterizations. Must every science officer be over-confident? And every Ensign awkward? When we first encounter Tilly, she's overtalkative, awkward, nervous-her character should remain consistent even in a new position. Same with Adira.
Last edited:
I don't see how DS9 could not be considered character driven. It was the only Trek series which came right out and exposed the main inner conflicts of the lead right in the pilot - the tensions Ben Sisko had between his Starfleet career, his role as a single father, and his unwanted job as The Emissary. These were indeed carried through the entire series. In addition Ira and the other writers have said most stories were broken through starting with what would be "a good story for the characters" rather than coming up with a plot idea first and then working the characters in.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the characters didn't change over time as the writers figured them out. Rom's early iteration has nothing to do with what his personality eventually settled upon. They added Julian being an augment as sort of a random idea to make him more interesting. They gave Garak an interest in Ziyal to try and establish he was not gay. But other changes were intended from the start - like making Bashir and Kira very abrasive at the beginning in order to allow them an arc over time into being more agreeable.
By that logic, Nog must have become Bashir when he joined Starfleet -- the awkward, naive junior officer with a lot to learn; etc.
This assertion is so reductive as to lose the actual context and content of these characters and their growth.
Which admiral are you talking about? Admiral Cornwell? You mean, the one who was absolutely right to distrust the evil fascist from the Mirror Universe? Seriously, reducing Cornwell and the President to "authority figure who has conflict with captain" is so generic as to be a meaningless assertion.
Finally got time to watch episode 1. Enjoyed it but it's clear Discovery has no First Officer, and why would it need one, Michael can, and usually will, do everything. I guess the only thing that stopped her beaming over with Adira and Tilly was the fact that she'd need to rescue them later.
It's nice to see the bridge crew getting a bit of banter between them, I really do hope we get to see more of them this season. Hopefully Saru will be back soon, I genuinely liked him as captain (before the producers threw him under to bus) because he made for a very different command presence.
Also I still can't shake the thought that if a ship and crew from the 12th Century showed up today I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just be folded into the Royal Navy like they'd always lived in the 21st Century.
It's nice to see the bridge crew getting a bit of banter between them, I really do hope we get to see more of them this season. Hopefully Saru will be back soon, I genuinely liked him as captain (before the producers threw him under to bus) because he made for a very different command presence.
Also I still can't shake the thought that if a ship and crew from the 12th Century showed up today I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just be folded into the Royal Navy like they'd always lived in the 21st Century.
basically they’re already ignoring the canon they established themselves.
Yup! There was no error on Michael’s part there. She wasn’t antagonistic, or flip, and the Alshain weren’t acting in good faith, and presuming/ascribing the worst intention to the Federation’s actions, actively ignoring what Michael said repeatedly.
They came in hostile and intent on refusing to listen, and Michael responded accordingly. They’re not ignoring or forgetting canon, there is nothing resembling a gotcha here, just a continual mischaracterization of what happened in the opening scene to fit a preconceived narrative.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
