Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x13 - "What's Past Is Prologue"

[eschaton]

Well let me put it this way: There is pseudoscience I am ok with and pseudoscience I am not ok with.

Basically, one is "advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and the other is "magic exists, and we all can use it."

 

[Rahul]

Ho-Ly Shit! Was that complete and utter SCHLOCK.
Like, 100% entertaining schlock! But schlock nevertheless. Star Trek has never felt more B-movie than this. The battle scenes were glorious! They didn't make much sense - we saw "surpise overcoming of a superiour army" for the n-th time on this show. The battles didn't follow any kind of logic. And the whole battleground on the massive capital ship took place on two tiny little cheap tv-series sets. But holy! cow! Was there some great choreography and action! Not exactly the thing I was most hyped about a new Trek series. But whatever. They delivered.
Remember how we had discussions like "Star Trek belongs on tv, because the movies inevitable devolve into some underwhelming action movies"? Well, how do you like an entire series being a single, schlocky action movie? Get this!

Other musings:

• "The evil Terran superweapons is going to destroy all life throughout the entire multi-verse!" dun dun DUN. Okay. We're operating full-on, 100% under comic-book logic and rules at this point.
• Re: Lorca's crew on the Charon: Somehow I doubt people would survive 1 friggin year(!) in a torture booth. And then still be ready to effecticely jump in action and fight. Yeah. No.
• "Make the Empire great again". Really? You know, the alt-right is probably the biggest threat to western civilisation at this point. But they're not backstabbing cannibals. Seriously DIS, tone it down a little. No one's gonna' take you serious anymore!
• Lorca's "poetic justice" moment towards Stamets made me laugh out loud! Well done!
• Acting-wise, we've reached a point we're it be fully justified for William Shatner to suddenly appear on the screen and tell the actors to tone down the ham a little
  
• Saru: "We don't believe in no-win scenarios". Really show, really? This series is going to be the cliff's note's fast-track to all of Trek soon, ain't it? Next season: Khan, Augments, Borg, holodecks and Romulan spies. Be excited for what we will retreat the second half of season 2!
• Lorca having the hots for Michael to such a degree came... pretty convienent for her? Right out of left field. We're not operating on story logic here anymore. It's an engine running on "twists", like Mirror Universe humans suddenly being sensitive to light.
• Regarding ship battles: It's now Discovery vs. Big-ass ridiculous supersized secret weapon ships - 2:0! Noice.
  
• You thought the Enterprise riding the wave of a black hole explosion at the end of ST09 was ridiculous? You ain't seen nothing yet! Everythings gonna' pale to DIS jump back home at the end of the episode!
• Also: THE KLINGON WAR ARC IS BACK! Fuck. Fuck. I'm as excited for a continuation of that as for an athlete's foot infection...

 

[cbl1]

S2 will be almost like an entirely new show.

Yes I get the impression they want Season 2 to be more of the Trek values and ensemble cast dynamic. I think the 1st season direction to introduce us to everyone though was a good idea. Past is Prologue (this season was a prologue to how they all came together and became a crew we should care about).

 

[Amaris]

Utter bollocks. The first two articles have absolutely nothing to do with the latter two. This is like saying that because black holes are based on real science and because there is real science about behaviour of anteaters, then an idea of black holes being giant spaceborne anteaters is based on real science.

Nope.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Totally agree here... except for that last sentence. I have two reasons:
1) Objectively, Star Wars movies have never been particularly good at clear, well-paced, plausible, logically coherent storytelling. That's just not what they do. They really don't even try.
2) Subjectively, I have no personal sentimental attachment to Star Wars like I do to Star Trek, so I just don't have it in me to care that much. (Kind of like JJ Abrams' attitude toward Trek, I suspect.) Hence, I found The Last Jedi to be at least as good as any SW picture I've seen before, and better than some.


I could buy that. I could even buy the foreshadowing that he was from the MU. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have just treated post-reveal Lorca as an antagonist rather than a villain... the two are not the same thing!... much less that they had to toss him the idiot ball.


That's interesting. Any clue what Fuller's idea for Lorca actually was?


Eek. I cringe just reading that. It's not territory that Trek has ever done very well... nor does it need to be, since the show is science fiction, not fantasy, and unlike Star Wars works just fine without any sort of spiritualism... and it's especially not territory that I think these writers have the capability to handle with any nuance.

(What's the source for this? Any details?)


You can say that again. (And I'm sure we'll have occasion to.)


Hmm. Eschaton, I think a lot of your posts are insightful, but either you're missing the mark with this comparison or I'm just a huge outlier... because I love comics and have yet to see a Marvel movie I haven't enjoyed (well, okay, Hulk was kinda boring), but OTOH I was thoroughly disappointed with last night's episode of Discovery.

And further undermining the comparison, here's the flip side!...

And then there's this...

KS, I'm with you until that final sentence. I think the MCU films stand on their own merits, and they have done a terrific job of worldbuilding while still being thematically distinct. I think DSC has been a mixed bag and fallen short of that standard, with last night a particular low point.

BUT I still don't know why you have this stick in your craw about a "sociopolitical agenda," or where you're even getting it from. In fact, I think DSC would be a better show if it actually had considerably more of a sociopolitical agenda. Specifically, as McDuff puts it...

Hear, hear.


Really? More info? Link?


Yeah, I noticed and liked that too!


It's just bizarre to me that you can write that sentence and frame it as a good thing.

true story on that idiot ball thing, when did such a Smarty McSmarts turn into Elmer Fud?

 

[Nyotarules]

Well that had me on the edge of my seat, still upset that the writers did a 180 on Lorca and turn him into a pantomime villain. I give it an 8 just for the fight scenes alone, they were brilliant!
I admit to hoping they would find a good mirror version of Tyler to take back with them...oh well

 

[XCV330]

The Mary Sue definition has evolved a lot since then. Rey qualifies, and Mary-Sue Burnham definitely qualifies.

See this video on Burnham being a Mary-Sue;

https://www.sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c103.php

A couple of decades ago Alanis Moirrisette wrote a catchy pop tune that became unavoidable on the radio called Ironic about a bunch of things that were, in fact, not examples of irony at all. But you could tell she really liked the term, and it probably bought her a mansion.

Enjoy your recrementitious use of the term Mary Sue, whether you understand it or not. It is not actually meant to be a term used to describe strong female characters coming to terms with a change of circumstance, but if that concept irks you enough to use it in that capacity with a justification of recent parlance, coupled with the avatar and so on, enjoy.

 

[Longinus]

The Mary Sue definition has evolved a lot since then. Rey qualifies, and Mary-Sue Burnham definitely qualifies.

Indeed. To certain people (like you) 'Mary Sue' just means 'competent female character'.

I'm liking Burnham more and more, and Rey of course totally rules.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Basically, one is "advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and the other is "magic exists, and we all can use it."

yes and I believe Star Trek should keep to the former and avoid the latter. That is the difference between science-fiction and science-fantasy.

 

[Kane_Steel]

I don't think she's particularly divisive. It only seems to be the kind of people who pepper their criticism with terms like "Mary Sue" and "SJW" who have such a visceral dislike of Burnham or Sonequa Martin-Green.

I wonder why...

Look across YT reviews and even on this board, there is far more preference for Jason Isaacs taking the central focus than Mary-Sue Burnham/Sonequa. I previously made a discussion thread on it here. Divisive is an understatement.

Sonequa/Burnham as the series lead couldn't have worked out like they hoped it would, despite their efforts to elevate her as the great one.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Indeed. To certain people (like you) 'Mary Sue' just means 'competent female character'.

I'm liking Burnham more and more, and Rey of course totally rules.

Way to cherry pick my post, watch the SFDebris video I linked on why Burnham is a Mary-Sue and then get back to me.

 

[Tomalak]

Indeed. To certain people (like you) 'Mary Sue' just means 'competent female character'.

The official definition now seems to be "lady in a sci-fi film who is more than just sex appeal."

 

[Nyotarules]

Mirror Georgiou is going to commit suicide or die from shock seeing Captain Saru or invite him to dinner lol

 

[Tomalak]

Look across YT reviews and even on this board, there is far more preference for Jason Isaacs taking the central focus than Mary-Sue Burnham/Sonequa. I previously made a discussion thread on it here. Divisive is an understatement.

Sonequa/Burnham as the series lead couldn't have worked out like they hoped it would, despite their efforts to elevate her as the great one.

Again, it's not a big division if it's just a small subset of vocal white males. But fine, I get it. You prefer your sci-fi to have a strong male lead. Sorry this isn't for you.

 

[Nyotarules]

discussion of Vulcan being conquered pre TOS.

Based on a snarky comment by McCoy

 

[Longinus]

I don´t know if you heard about this, but they are supposed to go into science vs. faith territory... So I guess even more metaphysical stuff with network?

Please, no!

 

[Kane_Steel]

Ho-Ly Shit! Was that complete and utter SCHLOCK.

Damn. Schlock is actually the most accurate descriptor I've seen to describe STD.

Well done.

 

[dahj]

The Mary Sue definition has evolved a lot since then

It sure is convenient to rewrite the definition so you can dismiss any woman now...

 

[eschaton]

In terms of tropes, I think Burnham is more a Broken Bird than anything.

 

[Captain Killy]

The Mary Sue definition has evolved a lot since then. Rey qualifies, and Mary-Sue Burnham definitely qualifies.

See this video on Burnham being a Mary-Sue;

https://www.sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/c103.php

Michael Burnham is only a “Mary-Sue” If you’re threatened by the idea of a strong (Black) female protagonist leading a series. Period. End of fracking discussion.