|
Flatscan posted:Nope. It makes Michael genuinely responsible for the continuation of the war, at least in part, rather than entirely blameless as she would be if they'd done nothing. How is wanting actions having consequence the same as wanting a morally black and white show? Every second post I've made has been complaining that the klingons' motivations were horribly undeveloped and they exist solely to fill the villain slot. What I was suggesting is that by bringing the capture attempt forward you still have a failed mutiny (a moment about how it goes against federation principles to strike first even if it could have worked) then an alternate plan is devised to capture the leader, which is set against the ticking clock of the federation and klingon fleets arriving. Then when it all goes to poo poo, Michael gets to watch the result of her failings. That's using the existing plot points. The whole making a martyr of the leader is a little bit wonky anyway since he's rallying them against the federation's "we come in peace". And her character would still be a human orphaned by klingons, raised by vulcans, serving in Starfleet who on the verge of her own command mutinied against her mentor to go against Starfleet principles (in a move that may have actually saved lives) but it fails and she then gets her captain killed in a starfleet friendly mission and starts a war out of vengeance and childhood trauma That's plenty of moral ambiguity for a character introduction dude. Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Oct 6, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:It's as if the writers didn't think out the internal logic of their show and just move from action scene to CGI action scene Some people definitely aren't thinking or being logical, able only to focus on action scenes, but it isn't the writers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
She did a bad American Army Mans thing and got a life sentence by the committee of darkface scaryman judges but got rescued by DJ Trauma on the Event Horizon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Seriously though, it seems like some of you would only be happy with a novelised version of this, where every thought can be explained and every background character could have their motivations examined. And Wesley Crusher could counterfeit gold-pressed latinum at the academy. Unfortunately TV programmes have time and storytelling constraints that books do not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:She did a bad American Army Mans thing and got a life sentence by the committee of darkface scaryman judges but got rescued by DJ Trauma on the Event Horizon. That sounds awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Seriously though, it seems like some of you would only be happy with a novelised version of this, where every thought can be explained and every background character could have their motivations examined. And Wesley Crusher could counterfeit gold-pressed latinum at the academy. Unfortunately TV programmes have time and storytelling constraints that books do not. They want it to be episodic and have everything resolved at the end of 45 minutes instead of at the end of the season.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:Except that whole turning him into a martyr instead of a disgraced captive thing, which is explicitly and lengthily explained prior to them boarding the ship. Just because a character on the the show "explicitly and lengthily" (I think it was one line) explained something doesn't mean they can predict the future. After all, earlier in that episode Burnham was 100% convinced that the only way to prevent a war was to fire on the Klingon ship before it had a chance to do anything...and she was 100% wrong. T'Kuvma went there and confronted Starfleet with the express purpose of proving the Federation lie, "We come in peace". If Burnham had given them the Vulcan Hello before they even started talking, it would have proved his point. As for trying to capture T'Kuvma, just because Captain Georgiou speculated that bringing him in alive would end the war does not mean she was psychic. We have no idea how things would have turned out. If anything, the episode proved that after 100 years of no contact, humans were completely ignorant about Klingon motivations and psychology. Things are further complicated by the third episode, where not a single person brings up the killing of T'Kuvma. Do they even know what happened on that ship, and how things went down? Instead, they all blame her for the mutiny...a mutiny that did not change a single thing in the confrontation with the Klingons, and Burnham was back working side by side with her Captain a short time later. Having said all that, in the dark and depressing mirror universe they are setting up, it seems easy to believe that rumours and misinformation have led to everyone believing Burnham's actions did start the war, regardless of the facts. Considering this is a Starfleet with sinister tribunals, prison slave labour, and evil Captains, I could easily see the admirals deciding to pin the blame for the war on one officer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:As for trying to capture T'Kuvma, just because Captain Georgiou speculated that bringing him in alive would end the war does not mean she was psychic. That was Mike too. 'Kill him and you make him a martyr... yadda yadda yadda.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They want it to be episodic and have everything resolved at the end of 45 minutes instead of at the end of the season. Quite literally an obsolete form of storytelling in TV drama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Seriously though, it seems like some of you would only be happy with a novelised version of this, where every thought can be explained and every background character could have their motivations examined. And Wesley Crusher could counterfeit gold-pressed latinum at the academy. Unfortunately TV programmes have time and storytelling constraints that books do not. At least I can wipe my rear end with a novel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Well you certainly need something for that, with all the pants making GBS threads going on in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Sure. No episode or combination of episodes of Voyager was as good as any of the three Discovery episodes so far. Many DS9 episodes particularly in the first and last season weren't as good. TNG has plenty of episodes far far worse than these three episodes. In terms of plot, dialogue, drama, effects, and basic acting Discovery is towering over an awful lot of older Star Trek episodes. Just getting back to this post, since I initially didn't find the time to respond: The thing that kept me from turning off Voyager (and many other Star Trek shows) is that they give you something exciting and new to think about in every episode. Even if they utterly botch the execution, there are still some really wild ideas to ponder. One of the best and most disappointing episodes of Voyager is Year of Hell. A starship that can eliminate things from existence is a brilliant concept in itself. They don't stick the landing, but that doesn't stop it from being a fascinating idea. Discovery's first two episodes don't have that sort of spark. Episode three's fungus teleportation and giant amoeba are way more interesting than the entire Klingon war storyline. I think that's also why people are clamouring for an episodic format. An entire season of new crazy ideas could be really cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They want it to be episodic and have everything resolved at the end of 45 minutes instead of at the end of the season. Most people itt are either saying "ehhh these are very weird decisions" or "There's potential here but it's a knife edge path to goodness but I'm (extremely) cautiously optimistic" or "this is fun but doesn't seem to have the ethos of Trek at it's core". A few are saying "this is overproduced garbage" but that still isn't what you are claiming. Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Well you certainly need something for that, with all the pants making GBS threads going on in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:...and evil Captains, I could easily see the admirals deciding to pin the blame for the war on one officer. I've never understood this one criticism of ST:D, half the captains in starfleet were evil if the shows were anything to go by. Evil or insane dudes who kamikaze planet eaters, go rogue killing cardassians, conduct illegal cloaking experiments, kill sentient life forms to power engines, and on and on. Starfleet captains have a passion for going evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:That sounds awesome. Maybe for a Jan Michael Vincent movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
The only people ever promoted to admiral were all raging cunts. It's like Starfleet's standing order number two.And More posted:Just getting back to this post, since I initially didn't find the time to respond: I take exception to the suggestion that there is anything about Voyager worth thinking about except the why? and how? of a franchise reaching that nadir point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I am the guy that liked some episodes of Voyager, I guess. I could even go so far as to say a few episodes of Enterprise was good. And I still couldn't lower my expectations enough to like Discovery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Enterprise had more heart than Voyager even if it was mostly just as bad for the majority of its run. It was certainly more divergent from the feel of Star Trek than Discovery what with the whole 9/11 'whatever it takes' race war against space muslims under captain Jonathan Bush. However, it had become genuinely pretty decent in the period after the space Nazi story (loving ST), but before the Fat Cameo Finale™
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Enterprise had more heart than Voyager even if it was mostly just as bad for the majority of its run. It was certainly more divergent from the feel of Star Trek than Discovery what with the whole 9/11 'whatever it takes' race war against space muslims under captain Jonathan Bush. However, it had become genuinely pretty decent in the period after the space Nazi story (loving ST), but before the Fat Cameo Finale™ It also had a nice episode after S3 where Archer actually went through some self-reflection about how militarized the ship had suddenly become and how he doesn't even think twice about about MACO being on the ship. It felt like they were going for that Picard cries with his brother episode after BoBW, but even as an imitation it was a nice way to pivot from the vibe of S3 to what Coto wanted to do in 4. Also someone mentioned it in the ST thread, but the thing to remember when you go back to Voyager is that they (probably unintentionally) ended up doing Trek as gothic horror.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:You guys do remember that she killed T'Kuvma, right? The leader of the now unified Klingon Empire? The guy that she herself believed killing was a mistake (before stupid emotions kicked in) because it would inevitably lead to war? And that everyone knows she killed him? Nobody in the show has actually referenced that since it happened. They did mention the mutiny 4 separate times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I take exception to the suggestion that there is anything about Voyager worth thinking about except the why? and how? of a franchise reaching that nadir point. Admittedly, those are very good and entertaining questions when it comes to Voyager. I still like Year of Hell for the most part. It finally makes sense that Janeway is loving evil in that episode, too. They just don't solve the issue in a smart way, which is a shame. Fidel Cuckstro posted:Nobody in the show has actually referenced that since it happened. I'm still not convinced Michael told anyone. I'd really like to hear the captain describe what he thinks Michael did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Star Trek fans don't actually like Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
And More posted:I'm still not convinced Michael told anyone. I'd really like to hear the captain describe what he thinks Michael did. That's been my charitable assumption too, but people keep telling me everyone obviously knows and is obviously just not mentioning it because the writers are really efficient with their dialogue as you can tell from...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Star Trek fans don't actually like Star Trek. More like fans of [thing] are more likely to be critical of [thing] than non-fans. I loving love Star Trek but I'll gladly tell you about all the ways it sucks by not living up to it's promise, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Star Trek fans don't actually like Star Trek. There's a distinction between fans and Trekkies I feel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Lots of posters bad at watching TV itt. When Michael mutinied she wasn't successful in firing first ("Vulcan hello") on the Klingons, true. But she did have the weapons officer load torpedoes and lock targeting just before the Captain walks in and belays the order to fire. Remember earlier in the episode when Michael convinces the captain to lock weapons on the Klingon beacon, which the Klingons detect, causing T'Kuvma to decloak his ship? Michael is a convenient scapegoat for escalating the confrontation, and she blames herself for the captain's death and creating a martyr by killing T'Kuvma so she accepts blame for the whole event. Michael's family was wiped out in a Klingon attack, she has a strong emotional response to them. She convinces the captain to lock weapons on the beacon, causing T'Kuvma to decloak. She tries to convince the captain to fire first, mutinies, gets the weapons officer to load torpedoes and lock target on the neck of T'Kuvma's ship but the captain stops her from actually firing. Then 24 more Klingon vessels show up, T'Kuvma gives his speech and opens fire on the Federation ships. It doesn't matter that the Klingons always intended to start a war and fired first or that Michael killed T'Kuvma. Michael mutinied and caused weapons to be locked on them twice before the shooting started. Federation leadership uses her as a scapegoat and she goes along with it because she feels guilty for mutinying, getting her captain killed, and martyring T'Kuvma. Even if she didn't start the war she's willing to go along with shouldering the blame for it. edit: and she killed that Klingon officer on the beacon, too. She is guilty of killing a Klingon officer, locking weapons on the Klingons twice, and mutinying before the Klingons opened fire. That's plenty of justification in the minds of Starfleet and everyday Federation citizens to blame her for starting the war even though the Klingons fired first and planned to start poo poo all along. things Michael blames herself for: mutiny getting her captain killed martyring T'Kuvma which unites the Klingon Empire against the Federation things Starfleet / the Federation blame Michael for: mutiny getting her captain killed provoking a war with the Klingons by killing an officer of theirs and locking weapons on them twice Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Lots of posters bad at watching TV itt. I see. Lock target load twice martyr kill Klingon causing captain death T'Kuvma.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Lots of posters bad at watching TV itt. Guys the speculation is clearly visible on screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
So now it's not just one bad-apple in Michael or two bad apples with Lorca as well, now all of Starfleet are characters from The Wire. An obvious thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:So now it's not just one bad-apple in Michael or two bad apples with Lorca as well, now all of Starfleet are characters from The Wire. Good. I think Star Trek is a wide open universe for telling stories. There were rogue ships / hosed up captains in every Star Trek series. I kind of dig the idea of telling the story from that angle. What was it like to be on the Phoenix when they were testing the cloak? What would the world look like to an ensign on one of the ships where the captain had a Conspiracy bug in its neck? Who were the ones who set up and maintained Section 31? Star Wars is the one that's stuck doing the same stories in the same setting, over and over and over again. Storytelling in television has evolved, and Star Trek should evolve with it. I'm not convinced that Discovery is amazing or anything, but I like where it is going, and I'm intrigued by what they might do. It all may turn to poo poo, but so far, it's compelling. It's very well produced. And after seeing things like Legion, Fargo, and Better Call Saul, I'm sure as gently caress not interested in Todd McFarlane's Star Trek: Voyager with sex/poop jokes rehash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
I'm absolutely ready for Star Trek to try something new (and for the record, a TNG-ish show about The Other Guys on board the USS Not The Flagship who are still decent folk but use the replicator to make weed edibles while getting into allegorical sci fi adventures constitutes "new enough" in my book) because gently caress all those years of stagnation. Voyager had like a dozen really solid episodes and there were a couple of good ones from ENT but overall it just wasn't worth it. But Discovery has been pretty boring so far because it seems to be about crappy people doing lovely things, and that's not something I ever tuned into Star Trek for. Being serialized I'm sure they're going somewhere with this, and I would hope it's something appropriately Star Trekky but so far it just feels like a lame rip of the same depressive crap everybody else has been peddling with varying success for the past decade, as opposed to reheated crap from the 80s and 90s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:it seems to be about crappy people doing lovely things That's how I would describe most of Voyager, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
The two-episode prologue onboard the old ship featured a very Star Trek (good people doing good things) environment, but it was so heavily centered on the character flaws of the protagonist that it's easy to lose sight of this. So far, there hasn't been an indication that The Federation Is Evil, but there's some morally questionable things going on for the sake of war on Discovery, for sure. I'm really intrigued by the series. I'm not ready to give it a recommendation yet, but I'm excited by a new take on the franchise that does not feel like a nostalgia trip or overly earnest fanfic. I want some darkness in my Trek - frankly, it needs it - and not the JJ Abrams "let's redo Khan but miss the point" kind. So I'm hoping they don't go down that road, storytelling-wise. Aesthetics-wise, I'm fine with it (assuming a reduction in lensflare.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
I like it when shows do new things. Also movies. Just spitballing here: what if superheroes were real? Think of how things wouldn't be like the comic books at all! Fuckin hell, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Then why the subterfuge in obtaining her at all? It doesn't hurt to conceal it, and it doubles as a test to see how smart she is at piecing things together. Just like how Michael was allowed to break into the plant bay. That was most likely a test too. Decius posted:Like asking repeatedly "How did Michael know where to go on the Glenn?" when she even says "all Starfleet ships are designed similarly, so this should work..." before doing her rescue thing. The series so far has been really unsubtle and spelled out basically everything and still people have trouble following it. No, we get that the ship layouts are the same. But it's still a valid question because memorizing the layout of the Jeffries tubes for a ship which she expected to leave the next day seems odd, not to mention why would people let a prisoner read the blueprints of a brand new ship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
iirc she said something like she hopes all starships are laid out similarly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:No, we get that the ship layouts are the same. But it's still a valid question because memorizing the layout of the Jeffries tubes for a ship which she expected to leave the next day seems odd, not to mention why would people let a prisoner read the blueprints of a brand new ship. I think the point is that all starships have the same basic Jeffries tube layout? So, presumably she memorised the layout of her old ship, and that's how she knew her way around the new one. It doesn't really make sense, but there you go. edit: Beaten
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
People in navies are often very interested in ships. It is the least unlikely part of the script that an officer in a fleet might have looked over the plans of another/better ships in the fleet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:People in navies are often very interested in ships. It is the least unlikely part of the script that an officer in a fleet might have looked over the plans of another/better ships in the fleet. She asks the guy whether this ship has the same layout as all the others, though. Man, you just don't pay attention, do you? Maybe you should look up from your PC for once, and pay attention to the show.  edit: Here is the quote: "One Federation ship is pretty much like another, I hope." And More fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
How does that quote invalidate what I suggested?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 00:17
|
|