What would you change about this series?

[skip bittman]

Wouldn't have let Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman into the room, would've taken a year off to come up a new setup after dropping Fuller. Either go full Fuller or don't.

Too many cooks made for a confusing broth.

 

[Campe]

I've never much enjoyed Star Trek as a war show.

And here, while war has been a backdrop, how much of the show has actually involved the pew pew? The focus, at least at the moment, appears to be about the spore drive.

 

[Refuge]

This is what I don't get about this criticism: what was episode 4 about if not this? No, we didn't beam down the Captain, science officer and two redshirts to Madeupicus IV to find the new life, but find it we did, and the whole episode was about interacting with it and understanding it, and not approaching it as a threat because of its first reaction to us. Classic Star Trek.

Do you mean Ripper as the sought out life form? Wasn't he more captured than discovered? Exploited? I really don't see that as being what the Prime Directive will be about. Understanding this alien life form has taken the form of using it. It's not happy. Michael may indeed step up and she did try to share what she observed but still managed in the process to enable her superiors to subjugate another life form. To me that is a violation. The only justification would be if Ripper is seen as an animal, to be milked. It's penned up amongst predominately hostile starfleet personnel. Starfleet can do better.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Do you mean Ripper as the sought out life form? Wasn't he more captured than discovered? Exploited? I really don't see that as being what the Prime Directive will be about. Understanding this alien life form has taken the form of using it. It's not happy. Michael may indeed step up and she did try to share what she observed but still managed in the process to enable her superiors to subjugate another life form. To me that is a violation. The only justification would be if Ripper is seen as an animal, to be milked. It's penned up amongst predominately hostile starfleet personnel. Starfleet can do better.

I don't think Burnham really had much choice, she had to chose between respecting the rights of a potentially sentient life form and the lives of the dilithium miners and their families. Not to mention if the refinery had been lost, the Federation would have lost 40% of their dilithium and probably the war. There wasn't really any choice for her and Burnham clearly hated having to subject the creature to invasive procedures once she realised it felt pain from the jumps. These type of ethical dilemmas are when Star Trek is at it's best. It looks like the continued use of the tardigrade is going to be explored in next week's episode if the promos are anything to go by.

 

[Mechanoid1]

The problem is that earlier Trek was more enjoyable than STD.

Nobody likes a STD.

 

[Prax]

*an STD

Ripper is an animal that telepathically communicates with spores as he devours them.

 

[Refuge]

I don't think Burnham really had much choice, she had to chose between respecting the rights of a potentially sentient life form and the lives of the dilithium miners and their families. Not to mention if the refinery had been lost, the Federation would have lost 40% of their dilithium and probably the war. There wasn't really any choice for her and Burnham clearly hated having to subject the creature to invasive procedures once she realised it felt pain from the jumps. These type of ethical dilemmas are when Star Trek is at it's best. It looks like the continued use of the tardigrade is going to be explored in next week's episode if the promos are anything to go by.

There is always a choice. The needs of the many, yeah? How often is that argument used to justify not doing something else? What would Discovery had done if it hadn't chosen that particular course of action and just proceeded as a normal Starfleet vessel? I don't know but it feels grubby and unpleasant seeing .. torture.

Now it is clearly observed, much will depend on what Michael chooses to do next crisis.

 

[Tesophius]

They'll get softer nipple clams.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

There is always a choice. The needs of the many, yeah? How often is that argument used to justify not doing something else? What would Discovery had done if it hadn't chosen that particular course of action and just proceeded as a normal Starfleet vessel? I don't know but it feels grubby and unpleasant seeing .. torture.

Now it is clearly observed, much will depend on what Michael chooses to do next crisis.

Yeah there was a choice, and the choice was to either use the tardigrade or condemn the miners to death and further Federation lives once the Klingons gained the military advantage. It was cleafrly stated that all starfleet vessels including discovery were at least 80 hours away from the colony by conventional warp, and the colony would not last that long. Michael was putting the needs of the many ahead of the few or in this case one, the one being the tardigrade. Sacrificing innocent lives to preserve one's values and to retain the moral high ground is actually pretty morally questionable if not outright wrong. Sometimes, the ethical choice is not the right choice. By your own argument, In the episode nothing human, The Doctor should have allowed B'elanna to die so that Crell Moset's research could not be used. This isn't the first time that Starfleet officers have been have been faced with ethical dilemmas and had to take an option that they didn't agree with.

 

[hayesc0]

I think the first thing they could do is make it a star trek show.

 

[Longinus]

Yeah there was a choice, and the choice was to either use the tardigrade or condemn the miners to death and further Federation lives once the Klingons gained the military advantage. It was cleafrly stated that all starfleet vessels including discovery were at least 80 hours away from the colony by conventional warp, and the colony would not last that long. Michael was putting the needs of the many ahead of the few or in this case one, the one being the tardigrade. Sacrificing innocent lives to preserve one's values and to retain the moral high ground is actually pretty morally questionable if not outright wrong. Sometimes, the ethical choice is not the right choice. By your own argument, In the episode nothing human, The Doctor should have allowed B'elanna to die so that Crell Moset's research could not be used. This isn't the first time that Starfleet officers have been have been faced with ethical dilemmas and had to take an option that they didn't agree with.

It is not even about the actions of these characters, it is about what sort of story the writers want to write. Personally I would prefer them not to write stories where torture is justified. I mean some writer had to come up with the idea of magic mushroom engine which works by torturing an animal, and then set up a ticking bomb scenario so that they had to use it. This is pretty damn contrived moral dilemma.

 

[Tesophius]

I think the first thing they could do is make it a star trek show.

That sounds like a decent idea!

 

[hayesc0]

That sounds like a decent idea!

Yeah because we we got right now is some strange star wars imitation lol.

 

[Tesophius]

That's your opinion, and that's fine. You still have your DVDs of earlier Trek. You can always watch those. Or you can watch any number of other TV shows. Or go to a movie. Or read a book. Or go outside. It ain't perfect but I'm having an okay time with Discovery myself. But, the "Let's change everything because I don't like it" routine? I think its silly. Because frankly, if you got a dozen people in the room to discuss what Star Trek is? You'd have two dozen different answers. Using that logic, what makes your (or anyone's) opinion any better than anyone else's?

At the end of the day, if you're not enjoying yourself, you don't HAVE to watch the show. You're making that choice on your own.

I never said let's change everything. I liked the visual effects and a few smaller scenes. I'm watching it because it's supposed to be the first Trek series in over ten years and yet it's frustrating that the story is poorly written, which was my main fear considering that the entire season follows one main arc. It's very disappointing that instead of making episodic exploration/phenomenon episodes they went ahead with this semi-trek that's trying to be Breaking Bad meets GoT. I've enjoyed both of those shows and might even learn to enjoy STD, as just one of the many similar shows, but so far it's not grabbing me as StarTrek in anything but name. You're entitled to disagree.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

It is not even about the actions of these characters, it is about what sort of story the writers want to write. Personally I would prefer them not to write stories where torture is justified. I mean some writer had to come up with the idea of magic mushroom engine which works by torturing an animal, and then set up a ticking bomb scenario so that they had to use it. This is pretty damn contrived moral dilemma.

But how is that different than example I used, in which research that was gained via unethical medical means could be used to save a life? Should Janeway have allowed B'elanna to die? Star Trek has been writing contrived stories where unethical actions are justified since it's inception.

Seriously, this show can't win. If it tries to explore ethical issues it's contrived and if it didn't it would be considered a mindless action series.

 

[Tesophius]

Yeah because we we got right now is some strange star wars imitation lol.

I would characterize it as a GoT drama meets Breaking Bad characters, set in the Trekverse, kind of. It's still watchable, but the void of need for trek is yet to be filled.

 

[hayesc0]

I would characterize it as a GoT drama meets Breaking Bad characters, set in the Trekverse, kind of. It's still watchable, but the void of need for trek is yet to be filled.

The way i described it is current day humans living in the star trek universe lol.

 

[Longinus]

But how is that different than example I used, in which research that was gained via unethical medical means could be used to save a life? Should Janeway have allowed B'elanna to die? Star Trek has been writing contrived stories where unethical actions are justified since it's inception.

I really don't remember the episode you're referring to, so I really cannot answer.

Seriously, this show can't win. If it tries to explore ethical issues it's contrived and if it didn't it would be considered a mindless action series.

No. Exploring ethical issues is absolutely amazing, this just is a bad way to do it. This is basically a lazy trolley problem.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I really don't remember the episode you're referring to, so I really cannot answer.

No. Exploring ethical issues is absolutely amazing, this just is a bad way to do it. This is basically a lazy trolley problem.

So was the episode of TNG where Worf was rendered quadriplegic because a bucket fell on his head and wants to kill himself. We're seriously supposed to believe that in a time when Starships can fly at ludicrous speeds, characters can enter alternate universes and return from them and medical science is basically magic, that Doctor Crusher couldn't fix a spinal injury? Or that in the enlightened 24th century Riker, wouldn't respect Worf's choice to end his life?

Is the situation with the spore drive contrived? Perhaps, but Discovery isn't doing anything more or less contrived than other Star Trek series have done.

 

[Longinus]

So was the episode of TNG where Worf was rendered quadriplegic because a bucket fell on his head and wants to kill himself. We're seriously supposed to believe that in a time when Starships can fly at ludicrous speeds, characters can enter alternate universes and return from them and medical science is basically magic, that Doctor Crusher couldn't fix a spinal injury? Or that in the enlightened 24th century Riker, wouldn't respect Worf's choice to end his life?

I agree that it was implausible that it was so hard to fix, but the resulting quandary was very good, and it was explored from many angles. And it certainly was not a trolley problem. 'Is it OK to hurt/kill one person to save greater number of people?' is not very interesting moral problem and it has been done to death.