Comment Stream

Re: DSC S1: Context Is for Kings

Here is an interesting take on the show:

https://www.polygon.com/tv/2017/10/2/16394866/star-trek-discovery-season-1-episode-3-review-context-is-for-kings


"At some point in their different series, Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway all had to wrestle with the puzzle placed before them; even choosing to make unethical and reckless decisions because they believed it to be the only option at the time. "

"One thing that always made Star Trek stand out from the plethora of sci-fi shows and movies was its ability to make its characters feel extraordinarily ordinary in the most eventful of times. They’re human, even if the world they exist in is so fantastical and absurd that we know it couldn’t possibly be real. The stories are grounded in human decisions and the complex emotions that come along with irrationality. It’s when Star Trek is in its most frenzied state that its characters feel like people we know or imagine we could become ourselves. "

****************************************************************

"The third episode has reassured me that it has enough vision to carry it for an entire season."

Re: DSC S1: Context Is for Kings

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: "Kudos to Hank for giving Discovery a chance, and double kudos to him for deciding to stop watching when he realized the show isn't for him. And really, your sarcastic remark was really not needed here."

Thanks for taking on the self-annointed role of Today's Thought Police, but I for one welcomed @KidMarine's comment. Sarcastic, yes, but the remark was not suggesting that someone should just "shut up," as yours does.

A sarcastic remark is no more or less "offensive" (to the people have the market on the received wisdom as to what "offensiveness" is) than reading a post whose primary virtues are the strategic deployment (in capital letters, of course), of "shit, " "emote for shit," "steaming pile of shit," "BULLSHIT," "FUCK ME" and so forth. Sarcasm is no less inherently insightful than profanity, and vice-versa.

"And speaking of the Trekverse: Another staple of Star Trek is that for 40 years we've had an increasingly rich coherent fictional universe to which every new series contributed its share (yes, even "Enterprise").

Is there any of the above in "Discovery"? I've read hundreds of comments by both fans and detractors of the series, and didn't find a single one that speaks positively about this. "

By the end of how many episodes are we to judge whether this "speaks positively" comment, if no one makes it, means that the show is terrible?

Words like "rich," "increasingly," and "coherent" are subjective, value-laden terms. People can disagree whether these terms apply to what we have seen in the first three episodes. I think a case can be made that several of the characters have contributed toward the overall richness of a coherent fictional universe. I might also mention that people whose thought processes display coherence gaps are perhaps not best-suited toward critcizing something for "lack of coherence," but I suppose this remark is "not really needed," right?

Someone said, "'m going to take what I can get. It's Star Trek. It feels like Star Trek to me. It looks fantastic, and there's some great performances among some iffy ones. Most of all, there's Trek-like discussion of morality and humanity's purpose: to better themselves. Of course, survival must come first."

This assessment is a fair one.

Let's see what the common OTHER (and seemingly only) criteria are, based on what has been written here, for evaluating this show:

1. Stylistically, is it too much like the last three movies? (If so, it must be terrible, so no need to go through the other steps).
2. Is it really "Star Trek"? (If not, again, terrible, go no further).
3. Does it observe "continuity" ? (if not, abominable!)

Whether the show satisfied these self-made "tests" is a matter of opinion, as is whether the show MUST satisfy these tests to be "good."

I've noticed, this week, the development of a new "test" (which offers some conglomeration of the first two, above: ""Does the show display "Optimism for the future, high concept social commentary, or role models that make you and humanity strive to be better humans""? Does the show ""undermine the entire premise of the Trekverse?"" Having contrived this very particular answer, the questioner concludes, "no," and, "yes," respectively.

Good enough as Q.E.D., I suppose, but I'm not sure if "the entire premise" of the Trekverse can be reduced to a mathematical formula-and am even less sure that we should try doing so. The gist of the new test seems to be that lack of optimism and lack of "role models" is bad not only as Trek, but as television (as opposed to just being what it is, a characteristic).

Many episodes (DS9, the Xindi Arc) and at least one movie (VI) were not big on optimism or "good role models." These episodes and movies showed that optimisim only really means something in a world where pessimism, dissent, and conniving, also exist. If Discovery becomes, or turns out to be, "dark" as an affectation, or for the sake of it, I would probably share the sentiment that it seems to disregard the "positive vision for humanity" thing that has ultimately undergirded Trek. (For the measurement-obsessed, though, I think it is way too early to definitely conclude that Discovery has failed test #4. There are signs, IMHO, that it may be on its way toward a decent grade, given we are in Episode 3, not 100).

However, ultimately, being "optimistic" is neither virtue nor vice. Good and bad storytelling are virtue and vice. When Deep Space Nine was being created, the issue of whether fans would perceive that show as too "dark" were very much on Michael Piller's mind. It turned out that "dark," as part of a palette with moods, tones and characteristics, made for a great show -over time (a question to the complaint-mongers: Was "in the Pale Moonlight" terrible dramatically because it was too "dark"?) If all fans care about (to invert a Meyerism, if all fans care about is, not whether Spock is killed well, but is killed) - is "dark," "dark," "dark" - then perhaps it is the fans - and not the people who are making the show - who are suffering from a deficit of imagination.