MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Discovery (2017) Discussion > My Two Cents

My Two Cents

posted 7 years ago by mrwitticism (160)
9 replies | jump to latest

First off, I should mention I'm only a casual fan of Star Trek, with no great knowledge of the ST universe - though I've seen some of TOS and all of the films (except Beyond), all of TNG and DS9, many of Voyager and Enterprise episodes. That said, here's my assessment:

Frankly, I was kind of bored with this, unimpressed.

The opening wasn't that exciting. How they made a pattern in the dirt for the ship to see where they were, would that actually work? If their ship can't detect two humans, how could they detect a (rather shallow) pattern in the dirt? What about the creature that jumped out of the well? It was a missed opportunity for some well-need action, in my opinion.

I didn't care for the look of the ship, or the way it was shot. Too dark, you could really get a feel for how it was laid out the way you could if it were more brightly-lit. But again, this is just my impression.

Worst part: The Klingons. I just did not like how they looked. Certainly not like any Klingons I've seen before.

I have to admit that I was confused about the time period this took place in. I was expecting it to take place post-TNG-DS9-Voyager. I don't know my Star Trek well enough that when I heard the year that I knew when was in the timeline. But then we see Sarek, and I thought, "Wait a minute, isn't that Spock's father? He's young!" I subsequently read that this show is set 10 years before Kirk, Spock, etc. Why did the makers decide to set it then? At least with Enterprise, we knew that show's purpose: To show the very beginnings of Earth's travels into space exploration, the early years of Starfleet. For what purpose is Discovery set 10 years before TOS?

When the Discovery finally had its confrontation with the Klingons, I found it to be rather ho-hum (individual experiences may vary on that subject), not rising to the level of excitement we might expect from a ST series.

I don't want to be too quick to dismiss this show, and would watch the next episode but it's being held hostage behind a CBS paywall??? Frankly, CBS is just dooming their show doing that. Considering how little enthusiasm I found for episode 1, I'm not about to pay to watch more of the same.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 7 years ago

The reason for the time setting is that it's supposed to include an incident in Trek history that has been mentioned in the show, but never explored.

[–] mrwitticism (160) 7 years ago

Which is?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 7 years ago

which is unrevealed thus far

[–] mrwitticism (160) 7 years ago

"it's supposed to include an incident in Trek history that has been mentioned in the show, but never explored."

So this isn't something that's been mentioned in the ST universe previously? It's only something that they just made up?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 7 years ago

Many things have been mentioned on Trek shows in the past. The people who made the new show are not telling us which one of them they have in mind.

Some have speculated the Axanar incident, but many doubt that it can be that one. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Axanar

[–] mrwitticism (160) 7 years ago

If that's what it is, just some battle, that's pretty lame from a storytelling point of view. It isn't a very significant moment. It wasn't when they made first contact with another race, or formed the Federation, or first encountered the Klingons. It apparently had "something to do with holding the Federation together." Outside of those with a deep knowledge of Star Trek, would a casual viewer really care about this battle? I think not. By comparison, the aforementioned first contact (in ST:FC, natch) was an event that even a newbie to the ST universe could understand and relate to.

I thought that the event might have to do with Michael (a strange, though not unprecedented, name for a female - since there's actress Michael Learned, of "The Waltons" fame) being the adopted sister of Spock.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 7 years ago

Hard to judge whether it was a good idea or not until we know what the incident was. Something with Garth, for example, would be interesting to the fans because Garth later shows up in an episode of TOS.

Not sure if you know... Michael is the star of the series so she must be connected to it somehow.

Her name was invented by original showrunner Bryan Fuller, now fired off the show. He seems to like that name and often uses it in his productions.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

If it's 10 years before the Kirk taking command of the Enterprise, could they be planning to bring Kirk and/or Spock into Discovery at some point as their younger selves in an earlier assignment?

[–] LaurieGonzalez (130) 7 years ago

A couple of things.

First of all, the USS Discovery doesn't show up until episode 3.

They made a point at the very beginning that they were helping the indigenous "people" of the planet by getting the water going while not violating General Order 1. Since you are not a trekie, you might not recognize that as the prime directive, which means they avoid lifeforms on the planet. Therefore this was not a missed opportunity for action, just an introduction.

I completely agree with you about the Klingons! In TOS they looked mostly human. In TNG they had ridges. The different look was mentioned in Trials and Tribblations (I think that's the title) but Worf would not discuss it. In Enterprise, the Klingons start out the way they look in TNG but a disease ravages them. The cure is a mix of human DNA that causes them to look as they do in TOS. With me so far? So why did they mess with the way Klingons look? They should look as they do in TOS.

I'm also not sure if I want to pay six bucks a month to watch this. Especially with subtitles. When I come home from work I don't want to have to read subtitles!