What would you change about this series?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by The Overlord, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. Refuge

    Refuge Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    They did think there was a difference. They held Crell as being a criminal, not themselves. Their not feeling or wanting to use the medical knowledge is not the same as if they actually felt they had murdered people. These are two different motivations..
     
  2. Agony_Boothb

    Agony_Boothb Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Location:
    previously Mickmike
    It's made abundantly clear in the episode that the crew don't really see the distinction.

    To quote Torres: 'If i let that pig operate on me, i'll be benefitting from other people's suffering'. Torres would rather die than live with the knowledge that she benefitted from the deaths of thousands of bajorans

    To quote Ensign Tabor (whose Grandfather was murdered by Crell Moset): 'Crell Moset killed thousands of people in his hospitals. As long as we're willing to benefit from his research, we're no better than he is.'

    Crell Moset tries justify using his research to the Doctor by saying that because he is a hologram and not Crell moset himself, that they aren't really being helped by a murderer. Despite this the Doctor still says it's wrong to use his research
    Chakotay and Tuvok also argue against using Moset's methods because it would be benefitting from the murder of innocent people and go against their conscience. When asked by Paris as to who would know that they used the research of a mass murderer Tuvok says 'We would know' That implies to me that they'd feel pretty terrible about using his research

    By the way what are you thoughts on Janeway torturing a crewman? Are they same as your feelings towards Burnham being forced to torture Ripper? Did Janeway act with integrity during Equinox?
     
  3. Refuge

    Refuge Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    No matter how you phrase it Crell is the one who experimented and killed those Bajorans. Murder by proxy? No. If B'Ellana and Tabor felt benefiting after the fact, after the crime, was wrong, then benefiting is the only 'crime' that they can claim. However they killed no one. That is not their crime.

    Janeway didn't get a chance to torture anyone.
     
    Longinus likes this.
  4. Agony_Boothb

    Agony_Boothb Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Location:
    previously Mickmike
    I've never suggested that what they did was tantamount to murder but it was still unethical for them to use research obtained by murder. But my original question was what was the right choice, allow B'elanna to die or save her using the research?

    LOL strapping someone to a chair and threatening to unleash an antimatter monster on them sounds like torture to me. Janeway could have chosen to get the information another way, right? As you said there is always a choice, so why did Janeway choose this course of action? I'm sure there were plenty of other methods she could have tried. Janeway was only stopped because Chakotay stopped her and threatened mutiny. Like Chakotay said if he hadn't have been there Janeway would have killed lessing. If Burnham had a choice and made the wrong one, sure looks to me like Janeway did the same thing.
     
  5. Refuge

    Refuge Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Is it unethical for the miners to be spared because torture was used to save them? That would be unreasonable. I do recognise the difference in that with B'Ellana she did have prior knowledge to how her treatment had been found. It is that of which Michael can now be judged by. All of the participating Discovery crew. The next time they exploit Ripper.

    I actually believe Janeway was bluffing but I'm more inclined to compare Lorca and Ransom. Michael is now complicit, what she does from now on will be judged. Interesting though isn't it? Discovery has recycled this with NO real background or investment in the characters. You bring up Chakotay from the scene with Janeway and the Equinox crewman. It is because Starfleet in the future has codes of ethics that the ideals have a chance. Janeway - we will never know for sure how far she would have played it out, (that is the way it was written) but the Marquis, Chakotay was there. Even Tuvok spoke up later. Can you tell me if you feel there is enough decency and variations in these characters on Discovery? Michael is the only one so far and she's a failure. A mutineer. Who is the Chakotay or Tuvok or even the calmed down Janeway on Discovery? They're all a mean, miserable lot. That is the way they are written, they're not exactly nice.. :shrug:
     
  6. Agony_Boothb

    Agony_Boothb Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Location:
    previously Mickmike
    Personally I think Burnham made the right choice, they needed to save those miners and the refinery. If they were using Ripper to go exploring, i would agree that would be totally wrong and need to be stopped. My point initially was that Starfleet officers sometimes have to do things they don't agree with or that go against their beliefs, for the many and the greater good. I feel that the use of Ripper to get to the colony was one of those instances. The viewer may hate it but it's the reality of the situation.

    Regardless of whether Janeway was bluffing or not she chose to put a Starfleet crewman in a situation that could have killed him. In that moment Janeway lost the moral high ground, and should have done better. Burnham couldn't have made a better choice given the situation (80 hours away from the refinery at maximum warp) but Janeway could, she chose not to. Janeway acted in a way that was unbecoming of a starfleet captain, but she seems to get a free pass. I'm not trying to bash Janeway, I just really disliked her actions in Equinox and felt it was not in her character to do what she did. I like Janeway, but I'm willing to admit when she did things wrong.

    It shouldn't matter if Burnham is a mutineer. Tom Paris caused an accident which killed people and then lied about it and was really unlikeable at the start of the series. Paris got a chance at redemption, so should Burnham. If you could give Paris the benefit of the doubt then surely the same could be said of Burnham? I hated Paris at the start but he ended up becoming one of my favourite characters on Voyager.

    There's nothing wrong with disliking Burnham or finding the crew unlikeable, that is totally your choice and I respect that.
    My whole point with all of this is that I feel it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to criticise one character for actions that are deemed unethical when other star trek characters have done similar and some cases worse things and have those actions defended.
     
  7. Refuge

    Refuge Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Be curious to know what each of us would do in the various scenarios. I don't contend to be ethically torn in many examples, I can often see a path, and at times know it is a lesser of two evils. Of course theory and practice are not always the same thing.

    With Burnham and Georgiou, my issue on a personal level is that Michael didn't disable the Captain enough. She made the decision to mutiny and she gave it a half-arsed effort. What kind of useless pinch was that?

    Yet I disapprove of throwing Ripper under the bus.

    B'Ellana did nothing wrong. Unfortunately medical knowledge (some) has come at a cost in history. Plastic surgeons honed their skills in times of war. I shudder to think how some finds have been found. So, again, personally I would have been okay with being saved.

    Janeway, I liked her scaring the crap out of that guy. He supported Ransom torturing sentient beings and let's not forget Seven having her brain operated on. That being said it was also okay by me that Chakotay stepped up.

    When it comes to what I expect from my science fictional characters though? I like to see them do better. :)
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Mooderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    Aloha Quadrant
    I always have to smile when I see people describe what's essentially one episode as “an era”. :lol:
     
    Vger23, cultcross and Agony_Boothb like this.
  9. Longinus

    Longinus Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Yeah. This is why I can easily forgive not lining up with the Cage, I'm more worried about not lining up with the rest of TOS.
     
  10. Tesophius

    Tesophius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Location:
    NEW YORK CITY
    But what an episode that was! Sci Fi at it's best.
     
  11. GilmourD

    GilmourD Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    OK, considering that it was a duller version of Kirk's ship, that's a much longer time. Feel better?

    Georgiou said that her ship was old in the 2249 flashback. The Enterprise was only 4 years old at that point. Not only did it look more advanced than TNG up to Nemesis but it didn't look like the ship had aged at all.
     
  12. Prax

    Prax Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Location:
    Prax
    They reached those heights in other ways.
     
  13. Tesophius

    Tesophius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Location:
    NEW YORK CITY
    I don't believe that just because STD is only four episodes in that we should cut it some extra slack. Episode 3 on ENT was already an interesting encounter "Fight or flight"
     
  14. Agony_Boothb

    Agony_Boothb Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Location:
    previously Mickmike
    Both series had a few classics, voyager more so than enterprise, but nothing that compares to In the Pale Moonlight.
     
  15. Mirror_Barclay

    Mirror_Barclay Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    There are two ways to look at this - what they've decided to do, and how they've decided to do it.

    I would not have chosen the same approach, but it's valid, and could be made to work much better. A few thoughts on that:

    1. Write the mutiny so it makes sense, and doesn't destroy sympathy for Burnham.

    2. Fix the perspective/focus.

    The show is focused on Burnham much more so than TOS focused on Kirk. This prevents us from seeing the different relationships among the crew and really getting to know them the way I'd expect us to by the time we're a third of the way through the first season.

    At the same time, they aren't even properly sticking to a fixed point of view, since we're seeing the Klingons.

    I think we'd be better off with a more ensemble style of show. Even TOS had three main characters, not one. But if seeing through Burnham's eyes is essential to the concept, then actually stick to that.

    3. Remove the prologue, to help improve the pacing.

    4. Klingons shouldn't speak so slowly. And, since they understand what they're saying, so should we.
     
    Jadeb likes this.
  16. Agony_Boothb

    Agony_Boothb Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Location:
    previously Mickmike
    Everyone is going to have different standards. I don't think that any of the post TOS series had interesting episodes from the get go, Deep Space Nine is my favourite trek series, but it's first and second seasons are very slow and boring for the most part
     
    Vger23 likes this.
  17. Navarro

    Navarro Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    I wouldn't have reimagined the Klingons as racist Americans lead by Trump. That's immature and in atrocious taste. Instead, I would have reimagined them as cultured warriors with beliefs and behavioral characterists comparable to the Norse (Vikings). I would have also modeled them after Kor and Chang. These were men who very much hinted at intellectualism and were cultured, even quoting Shakespear. You can be savage warriors and still very much be civilized. I regret that these new Klingons still appear to lack the depth of the TOS Klingons, so far anyway.

    I would also have not named the main character "Michael Burnham." The given name "Michael" is too obvious a nod to the SJW scene, which makes it over-the-top and cheesy. They practically might as well have named her "Guy Dudeman." As far as "Burnham," I just don't like it. The surnane, and the name overall, is just boring. It's no Kirk, Picard or Sisko.

    I would also make the show much more concerned with diplomacy and exploration, where presently it's not at all concerned with these things.

    The "Spore Drive" is ridiculous to me, and their explanation for it was ridiculous - biology on the quantum level - but my knowledge of physics could be making that an uncommon opinion. Also, utilizing the brain of the Ripper instead of just employing a "super computer" as mentioned also seems ridiculous.

    I would have written the crew as consistently disciplined, indoctrinated and mature military men and women. Presently, many of them behave like emotional teenagers with no business even looking in the direction of a starship.

    I would also not avoid practical solutions to problems just to force a scene that I think might look cool. For example, the spacesuit flyby. Sensors are inadequate and shuttles won't work? Alright, but you've got probes. Give the audience a reason why eyeballing that rock via space suit flyby was necessary. Have the probe jammed or shot down, or something.

    Create Marine/MACO/Security main characters who can handle the away missions while the bridge officers handle bridge operations and the commanders handle command operations remotely. I could argue this particular point at great detail, but I digress.

    The coffin ship seems plain ridiculous to me, I would scrap that concept.

    I also wouldn't have the Klingons constantly speaking Klingon. It detracts from the visualization of the scenes, and from observing the actors, because the audience isn't watching the acting or observing the scene fully - they're reading text on the bottom of the screen.

    Finally, I would have cast myself as the commander of the Discovery, as I can't think of a better skipper.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  18. Kor

    Kor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    My mansion on Qo'noS
    This.

    Flashy consumer-level "smart" gadgets are not akin to functional, no-frills military tech.

    Kor
     
    Vger23 and Prax like this.
  19. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    Well, maybe not? You're making me second-guess myself now. I think it's possible they did, but that it was done well-enough to the point that we didn't really notice; it became part of the culture and we understood it. But that leads me to another point. Generally, if something is done well, it becomes invisible and you just see it for what it is and you don't even have to think about it. But the fact that these Klingons have people complaining about them all the time means that the changes are making people notice them more for all the wrong reasons.
     
  20. Kor

    Kor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    My mansion on Qo'noS
    I would say that previously, the longest Klingon-language scenes were those in TSFS and TUC. Even then, the characters would often just say a few lines in Klingon and then start speaking English mid-conversation, a phenomenon known in linguistics as "code switching."

    Kor
     
    Mad Jack Wolfe likes this.