The age of the antihero

[Crazy Eddie]

I watch DSC and I would characterize the battle against the cloaked ship anything but easy.

The ship wasn't cloaked during the battle. And considering how it ended, it seems clear that neither of the cloak-equipped vessels actually survived the battle in anything like a serviceable condition. Understandably, this would leave the rest of the Klingons fairly unimpressed, and probably said something like "What good is an invisibility screen if you have to turn it off before you can even fire?"

Once again the needs of the "cool" set piece outweighing the needs of good storytelling and narrative logic.

Even if that were true -- and I don't think it is -- rule of cool works pretty well in most cases and this appears to be one of them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My opinion on comparisons is consistent. I don't give a shit about them to be honest.

"Don't confuse me with facts, I'm trying to win an argument here!"

 

[Refuge]

Once again the needs of the "cool" set piece outweighing the needs of good storytelling and narrative logic.

I got to thinking yesterday, somewhere after the one hundred repeat of suggesting that scuttling the ship would guarantee the enemy of not benefiting one iota of Starfleet resources, that this Starfleet in Discovery land, probably would booby trap the Shenzhou. Like they did the dead Klingon. That would be their mentality. That would make some kind of military sense. However where would Voq and L'Rell cosy up? What about the dilithium bla bla bla they needed?? Can we be sure the magic telescope was not collected after the evacuation? Maybe Voq had his Tyler transformation in the Shenzhou sick bay!??! Gosh no wonder this set piece is still intact.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What the hell are you talking about? Was I quoting/responding to Crazy Eddie there?

You're saying that what happened at the Binary Stars is an example of bed writing, despite the fact that what happened at the Binary Stars is the same thing that happened in several of Star Trek's most memorable and beloved episodes. So if failing to scuttle the Shenzhou is "bad writing" what does that say about their failure to scuttle the Exeter, the Constellation, the Reliant, the Enterprise in "The Final Frontier" and again in "Generations," the Stargazer, the Enterprise in "Chosen Realm" or any of the wrecked ships at Wolf 359? Were ALL of those episodes examples of bad writing?

Well, okay, "Chosen Realm" definitely was, but what about the others?

 

[zar]

Frankly I don’t remember me defending (or even reading) that analogy. But if I remember correctly it was you who defended O_Kav’s post that 1,000ft F-T-L starships are as common in the Star Trek Universe as cars are common in the real world. But now Starfleet has the same capability and resources to search charted space as the makeshift CSA navy had to search the seabed?! I guess it looked like a valid analogy back then, but now that it suddenly doesn't suit your arguments...

What are you talking about, man? You're the only one who gave up the analogy when it didn't suit your arguments. You can't just say "no you" and pretend a point's been made. I didn't do that. You did. You don't want to draw comparisons to real history? Fine by me. We can limit it to the fictional, but you don't want to do that either. Because that analogy also fails. Starfleet has never been depicted as you suggest.

Ah yes, the old argument: "So what if DSC has bad writing? So did '60s and '90s Star Trek!"

No, that isn't my argument. The point is that according to your argument this is bad writing despite being consistent with not only reality but the rest of Trek, therefore they must all be badly written from the ground up. Unless of course the rule is that it's only bad when DSC does it.

 

[Refuge]

Ah yes, the old argument: "So what if DSC has bad writing? So did '60s and '90s Star Trek!"

I feel sorry for new viewers the ones 'Discovery' was apparently trying to win over with paid TV and a with modern approach. Did anyone tell them they needed to do homework to make sense out the Science fiction they are watching? That Discovery is not stand alone? That it still won't make sense but other examples that they haven't seen that also may not make sense will somehow magic away plot holes.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I'm guessing we have a different sense of military and Starfleet 'smarts'.

In general, Starfleet doesn't have a great deal in the way of 'military smarts' and never has. They're better at talking and thinking their way out of conflict than at fighting their way out of it. When it comes to combat, they often find themselves at a disadvantage despite their respectable firepower. They're really good at coming up with clever little ploys to pull their asses out of the fire at the last minute once under the gun, but not so good at strategizing ahead of time and foreseeing the circumstances—including the potential consequences of their own (in)actions—that led them into that position in the first place.

If you were expecting DSC to portray Starfleet as super-comeptent military badasses who never miss a trick (and never walk right into an obvious one) then you were always in for a disappointment...because that's not who Starfleet are or ever have been.

-MMoM

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I feel sorry for new viewers the ones 'Discovery' was apparently trying to win over with paid TV and a with modern approach. Did anyone tell them they needed to do homework to make sense out the Science fiction they are watching? That Discovery is not stand alone? That it still won't make sense but other examples that they haven't seen that also may not make sense will somehow magic away plot holes.

Hate to break this to you, but everyone I know who has watched Discovery so far has been highly impressed with it, whether they've seen other series or not. Seems like the people who are trying the hardest to find fault with it are the people who have convinced themselves, against all logic, that they are smarter than both the writers of the show and literally everyone else who doesn't hate it.

Butthurt fans are butthurt.

 

[Megapolis]

ENT: "The Catwalk":

ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I answer to Starfleet Command, and I'm under orders to use any means necessary to keep my ship from falling into enemy hands.
[. . .]
ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I'll destroy Enterprise.​

Standard orders?

 

[O_Kav]

I feel sorry for new viewers the ones 'Discovery' was apparently trying to win over with paid TV and a with modern approach. Did anyone tell them they needed to do homework to make sense out the Science fiction they are watching? That Discovery is not stand alone? That it still won't make sense but other examples that they haven't seen that also may not make sense will somehow magic away plot holes.

Now I am confused. Didn't you start the thread longing for the days of the "age of heroes", lamenting how today we have this "age of antiheroes" and that Discovery was part of it ? Now Discovery is bad because it follows Old School Sci Fi principles ? You people need to decide how exactly you want to hate DISCO, because the reasons for it keep changing...

 

[Refuge]

Now I am confused. Didn't you start the thread longing for the days of the "age of heroes", lamenting how today we have this "age of antiheroes" and that Discovery was part of it ? Now Discovery is bad because it follows Old School Sci Fi principles ? You people need to decide how exactly you want to hate DISCO, because the reasons for it keep changing...

Your comprehension is a little confused.

 

[Refuge]

Do have a question or so since I've been asked several, usually the same one Why frame someone as a hater because they see obvious flaws? It's like if you call someone a hater then you can project on them anything other than what they are talking about. Is it a way to shutdown criticism? Or do you think that Discovery has been written perfectly?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your comprehension is a little confused.

That's because your communication is more than a little confusing.

Make up your mind. Do you hate it because it's different or do you hate it because it's more of the same?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

ENT: "The Catwalk":

ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I answer to Starfleet Command, and I'm under orders to use any means necessary to keep my ship from falling into enemy hands.
[. . .]
ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I'll destroy Enterprise.​

Standard orders?

That was entirely a bluff, was it not?

 

[Refuge]

ENT: "The Catwalk":

ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I answer to Starfleet Command, and I'm under orders to use any means necessary to keep my ship from falling into enemy hands.
[. . .]
ARCHER [on viewscreen]: . . . I'll destroy Enterprise.​

Standard orders?

So is this an example of old Trek, (pre-Discovery) where a ship could be destroyed to prevent the enemy from exploiting a ship? I was under the impression from all the examples of comparisons given that it didn't happen! I wonder if Archer would've have tried escaping and leaving his crew to die without him?

 

[Refuge]

That's because your communication is more than a little confusing.

Make up your mind. Do you hate it because it's different or do you hate it because it's more of the same?

If I choose the word 'hate' I will choose it. I am seeing an embarrassing mess of a plot. The Shenzhou floating about was silly. It was an obvious way to keep the 'set' in play. I don't especially care if it has been done before, if I post on the TOS or TNG board and something comes up relevant to their shows I might point their plot holes out. That is my approach as you may have yours.

Regards the topic. You bet I see antiheroes.

 

[Refuge]

If you were expecting DSC to portray Starfleet as super-comeptent military badasses who never miss a trick (and never walk right into an obvious one) then you were always in for a disappointment...because that's not who Starfleet are or ever have been.

-MMoM

I was expecting to watch a scene and not think - oh shit really? Lol. That was my reaction with the telescope. It was like you are kidding me, this relic has made its way to Michael, who was supposed to be imprisoned, but her new address thankfully was undated How DUMB was that? Can you imagine the eye rolls seeing L'Rell and Voq on the Shenzhou? I was expecting them to find a table laid out for them with tea and scones.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do have a question or so since I've been asked several, usually the same one Why frame someone as a hater because they see obvious flaws?

Because the "flaws" you keep pointing out seemed perfectly logical the first 20 times they happened but suddenly we're supposed to believe it's a huge problem now. More importantly, your reasons for pointing out that flaw keep changing, as if you haven't really decided what the reason for pointing it out really is and you keep thrashing around trying to find one that works.

It's like if you call someone a hater then you can project on them anything other than what they are talking about...

It's like if you have already decided to hate something, you will invariably come up with a reason to do so even if that reason doesn't make sense.

Or do you think that Discovery has been written perfectly?

Discovery has its plotholes like anything else, and there are things we wish they did better or made more clear. Shenzhou not being scuttled due to the crew's not actually having a reason to do so in the first place simply isn't one of them.

It's like having a student asking you for feedback on his essay and whether or not he developed his ideas properly and the first thing you point out is that the second sentence of his first paragraph ends in a preposition.

 

[Refuge]

Because the "flaws" you keep pointing out seemed perfectly logical the first 20 times they happened but suddenly we're supposed to believe it's a huge problem now. More importantly, your reasons for pointing out that flaw keep changing, as if you haven't really decided what the reason for pointing it out really is and you keep thrashing around trying to find one that works.


It's like if you have already decided to hate something, you will invariably come up with a reason to do so even if that reason doesn't make sense.


Discovery has its plotholes like anything else, and there are things we wish they did better or made more clear. Shenzhou not being scuttled due to the crew's not actually having a reason to do so in the first place simply isn't one of them.

It's like having a student asking you for feedback on his essay and whether or not he developed his ideas properly and the first thing you point out is that the second sentence of his first paragraph ends in a preposition.

Don't want to offend anyone but I see more than one instance of bad writing, so my reasons are going to incorporate more than one reaction. They all work for me, so analysing why I or anyone else in this thread who doesn't see Discovery as you do, is futile We have our own filters.

I see you are locked into calling a critique a 'hate' thing so I shall leave it at that. You don't think scuttling the Shenzhou was a plot hole, others do. It's a difference of interpretation and you might have to accept that differences exist. BTW I went into Discovery with a lot of love, lol. However I see glaring fault, not everywhere but in a lot of places.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

So is this an example of old Trek, (pre-Discovery) where a ship could be destroyed to prevent the enemy from exploiting a ship? I was under the impression from all the examples of comparisons given that it didn't happen! I wonder if Archer would've have tried escaping and leaving his crew to die without him?

Again, it was only a bluff to get the occupiers to leave the ship. He never had any intention of actually doing it. He told them the rest of the crew were already dead, too...which they weren't. Deception. Trickery. Clever ploy.

I was expecting to watch a scene and not think - oh shit really? Lol. That was my reaction with the telescope. It was like you are kidding me, this relic has made its way to Michael, who was supposed to be imprisoned, but her new address thankfully was undated How DUMB was that?

She was transferred to Discovery in the previous episode, a move for which Lorca had already gotten Starfleet's approval beforehand. So yes, her address was updated, and it was not a coincidence that she received the package at that particular time and place. I don't know why you think it's so dumb, or why you ever thought someone went back and got the telescope off the Shenzhou after she was abandoned—which would be dumb, but didn't happen. Did you ever consider that maybe you just misunderstood what was shown the first time around? (It could happen to anyone, myself included.) Perhaps you should go back and re-watch to see if all your initial impressions still hold up? Your critiques would be more credible if they were at least accurate to what was actually presented to begin with, and beyond that weren't apparently based on expectations contrary to what was portrayed in the overwhelming bulk of previous Trek, which this show has from its inception been intended to fit in with and complement, despite deliberately putting a bit of a different spin on certain things in terms of its point of view.

-MMoM