Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 48 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
CanOfUbik
Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 5:03am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Project Daedalus

For me, the most hopeful sign of this episode was that Discovery seems to begin to tackle its Burnham problem. Spock's monologue after the game of chess was pretty much a summary of Discovery's much too narrow narrative focus on Burnham.

Not only did Spock state the problem, the episode took some steps in the right direction by having quite a lot of scenes of other characters interacting without Burnham. Most importantly though, the final scene had Burnham doing her Burnham thing (stubbornly ignoring everybody else against all reason) and was -not- proven right in the end, but instead needed Number 1 (whom she had left dying on the floor forever) to save the situation.

This gives me hope for the rest of this season and even more so for season 3, when the new show runners can work without having to clean up the baggage left by the old ones.
Set Bookmark
CanOfUbik
Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 4:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: If Memory Serves

So, with the Red Angel (a female, human time traveller) interfering so Spock could save Burnham, Burnham being the catalyst for how most of the story since season 1, and it being revealed that Leland is responsible for the death of Burnham's parents, could DSC be setting up for the big reset button?

The Red Angel seems to want to stop some kind of apocalypse (given the corrupted probe from 500 years in the future probably some nanotech/machine uprising stuff), and its first intervention was to save Burnham from death. Maybe the finale will be the realisation, that saving Burnham is the right call, but that it has to come before her parents die, so sehe never even becomes Spock's sister. That would give DSC the convenient reason to wipe the slate clean and reshuffle for season 3.

And would fit with its pechant for blatant unsubtilety.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

I'll just jump in here to counter one argument: I believe it is a straw man to argue that Michael is a failed role model. I have seen no evidence whatsoever in any of Discovery that we are meant to think of Michael as a role model. They start the series literally with her betraying her Captain, getting the Captain killed, and then accidentally starting a war. This is by no means a role model. What this is MEANT to be, clearly, is a redemption arc.

Now, it's obviously a failed redemption arc - her reasons for committing mutiny are never clear, her reasons for killing T'Kuvma are never clear, and worst of all, the reasons for everyone blaming her for starting the war are never clear (how exactly did her actions lead to the war? I really have no firm idea on that.)

In Season 2, she even has a brief moment (a good one) where, when thanked by Pike for following orders given that she disagreed with them, she answers that she has learned the hard way what not following orders can lead to.

So, this is undeniably meant to be a redemption arc, not a role model. We are MEANT to think she screwed up, that she paid a price, but then, because she is willing to learn from her mistakes, she is rewarded in the end with forgiveness.

I am not saying this worked - it didn't. And clearly, in the second season, they are trying to rewrite the character so that she is just a good officer with a bit of baggage, rather than a previously hated mutineer, and frankly, it is an improvement, if you just forget that all that mutineer-Klingon War stuff happened. (I would rather an unconvincing rewrite rather than writers feeling trapped with an unworkable character - see Bashir, Julian.)

Anyway, all of this to say, there is no evidence that Michael is intended to be read as a role model, and, I believe, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 9:44am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Brother

@Hank

Great post. I think you've hit on both a) CBS' motivation in making a Trek series like this, and b) the likely pitfalls of such an approach.

Look - Star Trek used to be something pretty special. Turn on TOS, TNG, or DS9, and you will be watching something that, really, was unlike just about anything else airing at the time. X-Files seasons 1-5 was also very special, and very unique. So was Lost. So was BSG. Just as turning on Game of Thrones or Black Mirror now will show you something unlike just about any other show out there.

And what of Discovery? It just isn't that different, yet. The first episode of Season 2, while absolutely solid, is just like Star Wars, and Guardians of the Galaxy, and a number of other things. Star Trek is following the trends now, thereby becoming mere product, rather than inventing the trends, thereby creating art. (And I don't mean that every episode of those previous shows achieved the status of great art. I am defining art here as an attempt to give an audience something they didn't know they needed until they got it, rather than trying to give an audience exactly what you perceive they want. That, to my mind, is the primary difference between art and product.)

There is a safety to this, sure, to creating product. But also the nagging feeling that something special, something essential, has been lost.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 8:08am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Brother

I'm torn on this.

It was entertaining, absolutely, in the same way that Star Wars is entertaining, and the Abrams 2009 Star Trek was entertaining. Basically, it's Star Wars set in the Federation universe. It feels like Star Wars. It has the aesthetic of Star Wars, the pace of Star Wars, the character interactions of Star Wars, the plot mechanics of Star Wars, and the storytelling philosophy of Star Wars. It's about a bunch of fun, easily characterized people racing against a clock in breathless, witty and adventurous style against a bunch of spontaneous external obstacles. The quips come fast. The dialogue is functional and funny. The action and the pace are the very point. In terms of characterization and even drama, everything is in broad strokes, like Star Wars. There's even the notion that Michael is going to have to go out into space to find Luke...ahem, I mean Spock. The whole damn thing has just taken on the feel and ideology of Star Wars. And, on that level, it worked quite well, better, even, than the Abrams movies, I think. I like Star Wars.

But hell. Have we just given up? Are the storytelling attitudes of TNG and DS9, that Star Trek is about intelligent people trying to come to terms, slowly, carefully, with a practical or ethical problem, gone? Why can't this show just slow the hell down? It's fun, yes, but it's not ABOUT anything. It's a roller coaster ride. It's about the experience itself, but it doesn't EXPLORE anything.

I dunno. I was totally engaged. The characters are fun, in the same way that Han and Luke were fun in the 1977 Star Wars. It looked great. The action was sparkling.

But I'm disappointed. I'm going to keep watching, of course, and hoping. But Star Trek used to be an intellectual show. That's why it was nerdy. It appealed to both the emotions and the smarts. Now it's all emotion. It's visceral. It's fast. It is desperate to entertain. And, frankly, to semi-steal a line from Citizen Kane, it is easy to entertain when all you want to do is entertain. But do they have any intention of trying to bring back the ethics, the intellect, and the patience to Star Trek? I don't know. We'll see.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 1:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: General Discussion

Yeah, this notion that everything in the Star Trek universe must, at least, have a certain number of common intrinsic values is, to my mind, a misunderstanding of precisely the benefits of having such a wide universe. Just because Star Trek can literally contain ANY kind of story is not evidence that it represents nothing - it's evidence rather that it can represent everything.

Since someone just brought up The Odyssey, I'll add the ancient Greek canon of stories as another example of an "expanded universe" that, within its boundaries, could encompass basically any type of storytelling at all. Within that shared universe of heroes and gods and half-gods, you've got everything from epic dramatic poetry to war stories to adventures to closet domestic dramas to romantic comedies to slapstick comedies to outright fantasies. The Greeks understood the advantages of using common characters and settings and even plots to tell vastly different types of stories, with vastly, even incompatible, worldviews and themes. And that's the thing - not only did the genres and tones change, but the values and philosophies of life and the world changed too. And now, we consider all that stuff part of the overall Greek canon of literature. If the stuff is good, it's good.

On the other hand, the whole "Discovery isn't real Trek" crowd also reminds us that audiences being unwilling to accept such vastly different approaches to the same basic material also hasn't changed in thousands of years. When Euripides borrowed the characters and situations from Sophocles and Aeschylus, critics at the time also said he wasn't treating the material seriously enough, or that it wasn't "real" tragedy. And this was two and a half thousand years ago. So, people crying foul at Discovery not being "real Trek", know that you're in good company.

Here's my take: the Abrams movies are not good movies, and they are not good Star Trek. That doesn't mean Star Trek cannot be a pure action movie - it means it should not be a mediocre action movie. If someone came along and made a Star Trek action movie as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Mad Max: Fury Road, I'm sure we'd all have less problem with it.

Discovery did not fail as a season because it was not true to Star Trek. It failed as a season (despite doing quite a few things right in the first half or two thirds) because it failed to follow through with its dark implications. It got cold feet, it made the ambiguous Captain EEEEVIL, and then it introduced a dumbass speech by Michael assuring its angry audience that don't worry, it was only kidding, it's gonna be real Star Trek from now on. The season failed due to cowardice and impatience. Deep Space Nine largely ignored complaints about it not being real Star Trek, and now we largely consider it the best of the lot. That says something. Discovery should have had the courage of the DS9 writers. Discovery needed to have the courage to be LESS like the rest of Star Trek, and it would have been a far better show.

So, yes - Star Trek can be anything, just as much as a story about Apollo or Agamemnon can be a anything. It just needs to be done fully and honestly and skillfully. That's my take, anyway.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:26am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: General Discussion

@Jason R

I agree with your analysis and prediction. Here is the unknown factor: can these various Star Trek series be GOOD? I mean, did Star Wars start to seem less special because there were too many of them? Or because, with Solo, it became clear that they were content to make mediocre and forgettable stuff? If literally every single new Star Wars movie was a high quality piece of entertainment (and I am someone who liked Last Jedi very much, as well as Force Awakens and especially Rogue One), would it still feel over-extended?

The orthodoxy among the Star Trek producers is that the death of Star Trek in the early 2000's was due to over-extension. But that's not strictly true. The death of Star Trek in the 2000's was due to the low quality of the last two series and movies (Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, Nemesis.) It only felt over-extended because it was all crap.

So...let's say Discovery Season 2 is great. (I happen to think this very unlikely, mind you. In my opinion, they learned the wrong lessons from season 1. It wasn't too dark, or too gritty, or too unaligned with canon. It just didn't have the courage of its convictions, or the writing chops.) But let's say it is. And let's say this new comedy series is hilarious. And let's say the new Picard show is new and amazing. Then, over-extension ceases to be a problem, no? I have no particular problem with Star Trek being anything at all - space war, comedy, school story, drama, adventure, political show, anything - as long as it's GOOD.

I know. I'm having pipe dreams. But still.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 10:29am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

@Adonis

Excellent post! Thank you.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 12:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

@Peter

In general, your main attack on this show, and this episode in particular, is, I think, that the Federation being depicted is not the utopia we have come to expect from later fictional representations of the Federation. Now, I concur, there are whole loads of problems with this episode which, unfortunately, make the season leading up to it less good than it was before, but I do want to focus on that one complaint of yours, because it does seem unsustainable to me.

Basically, you are arguing that the people who founded this utopia need to already be the utopic individuals that the utopia is designed to bring about. This is a classic paradox in the representation of utopias, explored most interestingly, to my mind, by Fredric Jameson, but the core problem here is a confusion of cause and effect. Do perfect, utopic individuals bring about a Utopic Federation, or does a perfect, utopic Federation alter human nature to create utopic individuals? If the former, then how did these people become perfect in the first place, if it is usually assumed that it is the society, the utopia, that causes people to become more perfect selves? Which came first?

Essentially, you are blaming the early Federation citizens and leadership for not already being the perfected Federation citizens that the Federation itself is meant to create. But this is less a fault of the writers of Discovery and more a structural impossibility of depicting utopia in the first place. In your mind, when DID the Federation become a utopia? When did Federation citizens become more perfect individuals than we are? It's easy enough to depict a Federation where human nature has already changed, and Picard can give speeches about how humans no longer care about personal possessions or feel jealousy or whatever, but how did they BECOME this way? What fissure in human history did these people cross that allowed them to alter utterly the very nature of being human? Were they already that way BEFORE the Federation itself was formed? If so, how? Or was it the structure of the Federation and its utopic constitution that TRANSFORMED imperfect humans (us) into utopic humans?

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Discovery writers are trying to fictionally depict that transformation, to show us HOW a flawed human Empire became a utopic civilization, to show how a flawed humanity somehow overcame its natural instincts to become the angelic beings of The Next Generation, I think that's a hugely ambitious and valuable goal; it's not something Star Trek has ever really attempted before. The writers of TOS, and especially TNG, just took for granted that human nature itself could change completely, but they were happy enough avoiding a fictional depiction of that process. We were always meant to take it on faith. Now, the writers of Discovery, attempting this probably impossible feat of representation, haven't quite made that transformation believable or smooth, not at all, but it makes no sense, to me, to criticize them for trying. It's something most writers of utopia have avoided doing, for obvious reasons - because such a transformation goes against our reality principle; we all know it just isn't possible.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 8, 2018, 11:35am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

@MadManMUC

See, when you say you don't like a Star Trek actor's acting, by your own admission you don't actually mean that at all - you mean you find the character unlikeable. This is an entirely different criticism. And you're perfectly welcome to that criticism, but it isn't the same thing as faulting the actor's acting skills.

All the casual dismissing of people's acting I see on this thread seems really arbitrary to me and, I'm sorry to say, imprecise. It is absolutely not an actor's job to "create a relationship" with anyone or to "be likeable" or to "make the audience care." That is the job of a roommate, or a spouse, or a best friend. To seek that kind of relationship with a fictional character seems to me, at best, a misplaced ambition. Who says you have to like a fictional character? Are you going to have drinks with them? Are they going to marry your kid? Here's a simple example: do we "like" Luke Skywalker in the original trilogy? What's there to like? I CARE about him greatly, because he is the hero, and the protagonist, and I believe his situation and his stakes, but like? In real life, the man would be insufferable. In A New Hope, he's a whiny brat, and by Return of the Jedi, he's an aloof weirdo. But I follow his story with enthusiasm because Mark Hamill did the job of making me believe he is who he says he is.

As far as I am concerned, it is the actor's job to make the audience believe he or she is the character the script says he or she is, and perhaps to add enough human realism and complexity to that person so that they seem real. That is the goal: verisimilitude. A performance is a memesis, a simulation, of a real person, not an actual person, and the actor's job is to make that simulation as believable as possible.

On that score, the vast majority of actors from Star Trek being dismissed here as bad actors are perfectly fine actors. Sonequa Martin is being asked to play a relatively simple character (as most characters in the Star Trek franchise have been relatively simple) - someone with problems making connections, with some emotional repression (which often leads her to emotional decision-making), and with some guilt for having betrayed a mentor. She is also intelligent. All pretty standard stuff. And do I believe that this Michael character exists, and that she is who the script tells me she is? Absolutely, with no hesitation. At the moment, she is probably the dullest character of this small cast, but that protagonist-problem has plagued writers from Dickens to Stephen King, so the writers here are in good company. She is perfectly solid. Do I like Michael? Absolutely irrelevant. I don't base my amount of "caring" about a fictional character based on how much I "like" them, or "approve" of them, or sympathize with their ethics or decision-making. That is how I chose my wife. For a fictional character, I have to find them HUMAN. In that respect, she more than suffices.

(As an aside, there have been, of course, on occasion, Star Trek actors who have far surpassed the material given them, and added such mind-boggling complexity to their characters that they seem more real to us than even real-life people. Stewart and Spiner are probably in that small company. The rest are probably in the cast of Deep Space Nine.)
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 2:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

@Peter G

See, the reason I think you're misunderstanding the series as a whole (in my opinion) may in fact be because of what I see as your misreading of Michael.

"Burnham's mutiny wasn't done because she was eeeevil or power-mad, it was because she's undisciplined and cares for little more than how she feels in a given moment. The contrast you're drawing, that the dilemma here is between her being good or her being Darth Burnham is, to me, not pertinent to the criticisms I'm making. What I'm saying is that she's self-centered, typically makes emotional decisions rather than considered ones, and routinely will deviate from any pre-established plans when it personally suits her. Basically, she's not trustworthy. This has nothing to do with *her conception of her motives*, which I think is honorable. I think she tries to do the right thing, or hopes to. When the crew judged her upon her arrival it wasn't because they thought she was evil, but rather (correctly) because she had violated Federation principles because her own say-so was more important to her. And they were right. She puts her own feelings above Starfleet judgement or the Captain's orders. Basically she's Tony Stark in space, which is fun when it's a comic book, but not fun for me when it's in a Trek setting."

So, you say she's undisciplined, and only does what she feels in the given moment? Wait a minute, I'm confused; are you arguing that she should follow orders more often? But then, when she follows Lorca's orders, for example to torture the tardigrade in order to make the spores work, you would argue that she never should have done that. So I really don't understand - how can you criticize her for failing to follow orders in some cases and then criticize her for following orders in other cases?

See, this gets to what I believe is one of the fundamental themes of the first season - the question of authority vs. individual choice. You and others read this as inconsistent writing, when in fact the ambiguity surrounding the question of when to follow orders and when to follow your personal instincts is precisely what the series is engaging with. Yes, there is some muddy writing around the entire mutiny itself: it's unclear from those first two episodes what precisely the outcome of the mutiny was - there appears to be no particular outcome, other than Michael's own guilt - but still, her motive for disobeying orders was because she felt she had inside information about how to prevent a war that her Captain failed to consider. Her motivation for mutinying is pure, as you say, although, perhaps, also rash and emotional - you would argue that the lesson she should have learned from this is to trust her commanding officer, I suppose. IS that the lesson she should take from this? In this case, we know that mutinying was wrong, because WE have inside information that the Klingons were going to attack anyway, which makes her mutiny pointless. But SHE didn't have that inside information. Given what she knew, why was the mutiny such a bad idea? Because disobeying or failing to trust your commanding officer is always the wrong thing to do?

But then, she is immediately placed under the command of Lorca, a person who seems to reject a lot of classic Federation principles, and encourages her to think of context, or her own instincts, rather than always following the chain of command. And then this new Captain immediately orders her to hurt this tardigrade. So - what is the easy lesson here? Follow orders, trust authority? Can't be - because following Lorca's orders, we learn, was also a bad idea. In fact, so many of the authority figures on this show so far (including Lorca and, now, the shell-shocked Admiral) or clearly NOT people anyone should be blindly obeying. The Admiral's putting Georgiu in control of the bridge is clearly an asinine act of desperation. Should Saru listen? Or should Saru mutiny against the Admiral and throw Giorgiu in the brig? Oh oh - now, suddenly, knowing when to mutiny and when not to mutiny is not such an easy question. I would argue, actually, that at this moment, NOT to mutiny against the Admiral would be the wrong thing to do, given her emotional state.

Also, as another example, consider that episode when Michael and Ash were on the planet, under the command of Saru - should they have blindly obeyed Saru in that context? Clearly not. He was going nuts, and they disobeyed him, and quite rightly.

So what the hell is Michael supposed to think about all this? She is trying to earn redemption for having shown a severe lack of trust in her commanding officer, and all she keeps encountering is evidence that, dammit, she SHOULD be questioning orders, all the damned time, considering how flawed and corruptible authority figures around her have turned out to be.

So: dismissing Michael as a selfish and emotional wreck who constantly disregards orders is an unfair and unsustainable reading of this character. She is, rather, a character who is constantly being put in positions where she must wrestle with the notion of authority vs. personal instinct. Sometimes when she resists orders, she is wrong to do so. But sometimes when she obeys orders, she is wrong to do so. Knowing when to obey authority is not easy. This continued exploration of this ambiguity, this struggle, in regards to authority is, I think, new in the Star Trek franchise.

We have, of course, had individual episodes where Captains or their first officers ignore orders. Ironically, most of the time, those decisions are treated, afterwards, heroically. Kirk and Picard ignore the Prime Directive several times, and it is often seen as the right thing to do, as a more humane and flexible attitude towards a mechanically rigid law. Kirk literally steals the Enterprise and breaks a quarantine merely to save a personal friend, and he is rewarded with a new Captaincy and three more movies. Time and time again, we have seen individuals in Star Trek reject orders, and the problem is usually solved easily and by the end of the episode or film. (In Star Trek III, Kirk wrestles with the ethics of betraying Starfleet NOT AT ALL.) At other times, we see that following orders was the wrong thing to do (Riker in The Pegasus comes to mind.)

But what we have here is an extended exploration of those difficulties, more extended than we have ever had in the franchise before. At the beginning of the series, Michael learns a lesson about trusting her commanding officer, and then she spends the rest of the season learning NOT to trust her commanding officer. Or the first officer (in that Saru episode). Or the new officer (Ash). Or the Admiral, who is clearly off her rocker. She consistently learns NOT to trust, while trying to earn redemption for an act of DIStrust against her captain and friend. None of this is easy, and just because Michael isn't given little Picardian monologues about how hard it is to know when to trust others and when to trust yourself does NOT mean that she show is not deeply invested in these questions. The tension in almost every episode centres on this very theme. The show explores these questions through character, through juxtaposition, through parallelism and repeated tropes, rather than through dialogue.

And, most of all, it offers no easy answers. Anyone who claims the presence of after-school-special messages from this series are misreading the series.

@Dom

And this would be one answer to the question you posed - what ethical dilemmas do I think the show is exploring. This is one of them. I believe there are at least three or four others.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 6:02am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

@MidshipmanNorris

I agree with your post 100%. This show is deeply resonant, in a way not seen in Star Trek with this intensity and consistency since Deep Space Nine. Those who hate the show (and there appear to be many on this board) are, I think, misreading the show. It is, of course, difficult to have an opinion about a thing until one knows what that thing IS.

@Drea and @Peter G
Thank you for your considered responses. Here is why I disagree with you: this show is clearly not uninterested in the ethics involved in all these actions, events, and decisions. What is DOES do is explore those issues in a less direct way than, say, TNG or DS9. Those shows were very on-the-nose. The characters basically repeated whatever ethical debate the writers had in their own heads when planning the episode. Here are the pros, here are the cons. Now, that can certainly be compelling, and God knows some of the best scenes ever to appear on television happened in that Enterprise-D conference room, with Picard at the head. But it isn't the only way to explore ethical issues, and it isn't necessarily the most sophisticated way,

This show, in many ways, is more complex than the earlier Trek shows. It explores its ethical issues through action. It puts forward moral or ethical quandaries and then wrestles with them through action. When people see, on the screen, only action, they are missing the thematic content below the action. This is absolutely not a mindless action show, as the three Abrams movies so clearly were - this a Trek show deeply invested in issues of morality, character, and theme, and it presents those issues through visuals, through narrative, through symbol, through parallels or contrasts between characters, through other rhetorical devices almost never seen in Star Trek before.

And look - the pacing has been off. They have, in let's say a third of the episodes, gone much faster than they should have. So this exploration has by no means been perfect, and they need to slow down in their second season. But it's there. And to dismiss the writers out of hand for been uninterested in ethics or morality is, to my mind, grossly unfair, given what's actually there on screen. You just shouldn't be looking for it in dialogue.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Feb 6, 2018, 6:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

@Peter G (and others of a similar point of view)

I keep hearing this notion of Discovery being a bad Star Trek show because the characters do immoral things, and nobody around them acts as if the action is immoral, and thus this entire fictional Trek universe has lost all sense of morality.

I find this criticism strange, for many reasons. We can take this forced mind-meld as an example - who says this meld isn't meant to be red-line-crossing? It absolutely IS played as a violation of sorts, and the reason for this expediency is, in the context, fairly obvious - the Admiral and Sarek are not at all certain who these people are, or whether they are imposters. Think of it, perhaps, as the equivalent as the forced blood-letting that Sisko's Dad has to undergo in Deep Space Nine, to prove his identity, but with a much more urgent time constraint. It isn't pretty, and it isn't meant to be, and that level of amoral expediency is designed to communicate the severity of the stakes involved.

Nowhere in this show, absolutely nowhere, not in 14 episodes, have I seen any indication whatsoever that the show's ideology is any less moral than the ideology of, say, Deep Space Nine. The depiction of actions is not an endorsement of those actions. The show wasn't pro-torturing the tardigrade, nor pro-torturing Stamets, nor even pro-murdering that mirror-version of one of Michael's old friends in the turbolift. Those actions happened, and the show depicted those actions to explore the psychological and ethical ramifications of a person who considers themselves moral having performed questionable acts (or feeling forced to perform questionable acts, rather.) This show's morality is simply doing what Deep Space Nine did before it - questioning how far morality can go in more and more grievous situations.

It's not like the United States, for example, was pro-murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with an atom bomb. They felt it expedient. Whether or not it was necessary is a question that has plagued historians and other thinkers ever since, and it was obviously an IMMORAL thing to do, no questions asked. If Discovery wants to explore similar moral quandaries, I think we should encourage it to do so, rather than demanding a strict and comforting moral code from its characters, which would teach us nothing, and only provide some confirmation bias, so we could warmly hug ourselves in our certainty that our own sense of morality is the right one, and that we would always stick to it. That seems like a less ambitious goal, in some ways, then what we have in this show here.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Sun, Feb 4, 2018, 9:20am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

So...Discovery haters are also largely climate change deniers? Aaaah, it all starts to makes sense......

:)
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Sat, Feb 3, 2018, 7:18am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

I can't believe I'm allowing myself to be pulled into this...

but

@Jorel

Um...climate change has absolutely nothing to do with the behaviour of the sun. No one in the history of climate change science has ever claimed, for an instant, that climate change has the remotest connection to anything having to do with the sun. It has to do with the amount of carbon dioxide we spew into the atmosphere, which we DO have control over.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 3:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@Peter G

CBS may not be a single artist who is changing its artistic vision, but the actual writers of the show are. They are individuals who grew up watching the same Star Trek as us, and have chosen to attempt new artistic expressions/ styles/themes/approaches in an already existing framework. This sort of thing has been going on since the beginning of Western storytelling itself; Homer, in The Iliad, tells a story in an existing fictional universe, and then, a few centuries later, Aeschylus gets his hands on that fictional universe and, in his trilogy, tells a slightly new story in that same fictional universe, but in doing so, not only changes the very genre that Homer originally wrote in, but also openly criticizes the very philosophies and approaches inherent in the original vision. This altering of storytelling approaches, tropes, and even underlying philosophies in already existing fictional universes by subsequent writers has been going on literally since drama was invented, and was done gleefully by those same very people who invented drama. So, I would say the Discovery writers themselves (not to be confused with CBS the corporation) are in good company.

All of which to say, there is absolutely nothing new about new writers entering established fictional universes and changing, to the very marrow, how stories within that universe are told, and what sorts of stories those can be. If it was good enough for the inventors of drama itself, how can we say this ought not to be done?
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 11:54am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@BZ

A great post! Just wanted to point that out.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 11:51am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@Dom

A very good question. It seems to me, actually, the archetypal question of a customer. This suggests, to me, that you think of yourself as a customer of Star Trek, and you think of Star Trek as a product, like a meal at your favorite restaurant. This is by no means a criticism, just an observation. To answer your question, I don't think of myself as a customer at all, but as an audience for a work of art - art, not product. Star Trek has, too often, satisfied itself with being only a product (basically, supplying to the customer precisely what the company thinks the customer wants), and I am on cloud nine about the fact that Star Trek has, for the first time since the end of Deep Space Nine, decided to aim for ART again. We should all be grateful, and I am a little saddened that we aren't.

As a viewer, what does Star Trek mean to me? Great storytelling, of absolutely any type. I want art. I want risk. I want surprise. I want depth. I don't always get those things (and I haven't gotten them all season with Discovery, either), but dammit they're trying, and they are often succeeding. The first questions I ask, when I approach any new work of art (which Discovery is) are: what IS this thing? What is it trying to be? How does it work? I bring as little as possible to the table in terms of expectations. I want to give the thing a chance to DO, to be itself, to present its argument, to explore its possibilities. Why should I have any expectations at all? Why should I limit it, reject it, try to control it? I give the thing a chance to be and do whatever it wants, and then I judge it based on how well it succeeds at ITS OWN GOALS. I want to be surprised, moved, changed. If a new work of art can be a totally different thing, and yet still work, that, to me, is fantastic.

And your other question, why call it Star Trek? Well, from the point of view of the producers, it's to get butts in the seats, and I don't blame them for that. Artists gotta eat. But from the point of view of the artist, think of it as variations on a theme. Within a single fictional universe, an artist can create comedy, tragedy, romance, linear adventure, disordered chaos, fantasy, science fiction, realism, dream-logic - anything it wants. That, to me, is what art is about. Discovery is damned different from anything the franchise has done before, granted, but you know what? It's exciting, and unpredictable, and crazy, and risky, and probably in over its own head, and I love it for all that. It brings something new to the fictional universe, and to my mind, the more variety in styles and storytelling approaches a fictional universe has, the more spontaneous and malleable and unpredictable it is, the better.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 11:35am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@Kinematic

Oh, and by the way, by referencing Dick in all this, I am simply pointing out likely lines of influence. I am not claiming that the Discovery writers are as good as Philip K. Dick, just as The Wrath of Khan is nowhere near as good as Moby Dick. But that (understandable) difference in quality is no reason to scoff at the notion that this Star Trek probably has a Philip K. Dick influence behind it. And I think it's important to acknowledge that and understand it, or viewers will be approaching this show with the wrong expectations. Criticizing Discovery for being insufficiently like Isaac Asimov would be like criticizing a David Lynch film for lack of internal logic. TNG may have gotten its underlying storytelling approach from Asimov, but clearly Discovery has not.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 11:27am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@Peter G

What can I say, other than that I completely disagree with you. Any characterization that requires retroactive re-framing and re-thinking or even, God forbid, a rewatch in order to be understood or appreciated is failed characterization? What do you base such a claim on? Is Keyser Soze a failed character because he only makes sense in retrospect? Or Edward Norton's character in Primal Fear? Sixth Sense only really makes sense if you rewatch it. For that matter, perhaps a better parallel (since I don't actually think Usual Suspects is that great a movie) would be the narrator in Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. That novel's ostensible narrative hides another, more authentic narrative beneath it, and only once the novel is finished can we even begin to get a handle on the narrator we've just been following for 300 pages. Suddenly every page reads differently, just as, throughout Season 1 of Discovery, now every scene will read differently.

So no, I simply don't see why re-examining all Lorca scenes now, after the reveal, in order to recover his heretofore hidden characterization should be an off-limits exercise. It's clearly what the writers (and Isaacs) intend for us to do. Are you arguing for your right, as a viewer, to refuse to do the work the artists intend for you to do in order for that work to be appreciated? You, of course, have that right, but it really just means that your sensibilities are out-of-synch with those of the artist's. Either way, it seems clear to me that, like in Christie's novel, the true and authentic characterization of the man can only even begin to be examined now, in retrospect, after the novel (or series of episodes, in this case), is over. That is when we come to appreciate Lorca as the complex character he is. It isn't like he was one character, and then suddenly he was another; he's the same man. He's always been the same man. The man who gave Michael that speech about context, or Stamets the speech about exploring the universe, that WAS him. Now we can appreciate the levels this man was playing on. And the fact that we can only do that now, after it's all done, is, to my mind, very exciting.

@Dom

As for the Asimovian logic and ethical debates being an integral part of most previous Star Treks, all I can say is, yes, it was an integral part of those previous Star Treks. But it's not of this one. And I have no problem at all with a franchise deciding to move from an Asimovian influence to a more Dickian (and Carroll-ian) influence in order to spice things up, and try new things (especially after the failures of Voyager and Enterprise, both of which were trying to repeat old formulas and philosophies.) Caves of Steel and The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch are both classics, and I am absolutely open to Star Trek trying, essentially, just about anything, with any philosophy or storytelling approach it damn well pleases (that unpredictability is what makes it art, rather than mere product), and as long as they do it well, I am satisfied. So far, I think Discovery is doing a Philip K. Dick's version of Star Trek exceptionally well for a first season.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 10:02am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

I really like the idea that Lorca had been lying to his crew the whole time. This is not arson, but the foundational purpose of the entire character and arc. If we step back, and think about all those scenes between Lorca and his crew, scenes with Stamets, scenes with Michael, the whole thing becomes sort of...haunting. He is not a 2-dimensional mustache-twirling bad guy at all, any more than Shakespeare's Iago is. Look at what he was able to accomplish, not just in logistics, which are based largely on intellect, strategy, and luck, but in terms of interpersonal persuasion - the man was able to ACT, to look people straight in the eye and give inspirational speeches, talk of exploration and context being for kings and how much he needs a person like Michael....and ALL of it was bullshit. This is a deeply charismatic, utterly amoral, extremely proficient ACTOR (I mean Lorca, not Isaacs) - something like, as I said, Iago, or maybe Richard III. His PERFORMANCE as the "real" lorca is what makes MU Lorca so complex, that he was able to walk among that crew, forge those bonds, say those things, and not mean any of it. Imagine having to be Michael, or Stamets, and have to think back on every moment they spent with Lorca over the last year, have to rethink everything, have to realize he could have pulled out a knife and stabbed any one of them at any moment without batting an eyelash, and they trusted him. And they even grew to like and admire him. Terrifying. Haunting.

It also brings up the question of how complicit the rest of the crew is. How could all of Starfleet have fallen for this guy's long con? How could Saru and Michael have been okay with his, for example, leaving Mudd to die? Or allowing Ash to have free reign of the ship? (We now realize he did that because, frankly, he didn't give a shit.) Or allow Stamets to keep risking his own life? His crew went along with all these highly questionable decisions, and we now know his motivations were entirely personal and selfish. Now people like Michael, Saru, and Stamets will need to look at themselves in the mirror very carefully, and wonder why they were willing to look away from so much sketchy behaviour from their charismatic, no-sensense warrior of a captain. This reveal could do some real damage to crew's ability to trust THEMSELVES, let alone trust any new Captain.

Furthermore, it establishes a very interesting thematic question for Michael - she started by betraying a Captain she shouldn't have, and then found herself NOT betraying a Captain that she should have. This parallelism is entirely deliberate on the show's part, and it makes any simple "lesson" or takeaway for Michael very difficult. Is the lesson always trust your Captain, always have faith in the chain of command? That appears to have been the lesson to be learned from her mutiny, and yet now we find how easily the chain of command can be infiltrated, and corrupted, and Michael probably thinks she should have turned on THIS Captain even earlier. So what's the right answer? How is one supposed to respond to authority, and balance it out with one's own ideas of what is best to do?

No thematic content to this series? Nonsense.

By the way, I also think a lot of posters here are missing the intention of the series. Jammer actually DOES point out the "craziness" quotient in all this, to his credit, and admits to having enjoyed it, but then he second-guesses himself. Have we all forgotten the reference early in the season to the rabbit hole? This whole season is meant to be taken as a wild ride through Wonderland, and on that score, I think it works wonderfully. There are, of course, some flaws, and other questions that will need to be resolved in order not to BECOME flaws, but the sensibility of the show is different, I think, than what people think it is, or ought to be. Approached as an exercise in escalating batshit craziness, where it becomes clearer and clearer that nothing and nobody that we think we know is what we think it is, realizing that we are no longer in Asimov's Star Trek world of calm logic and ethical debate, but rather Philip K. Dick's world of funhouse mirrors and characters turning inside out, only then do we come to see the show much more accurately for what it is. And that's when we come to appreciate it more.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

@Dom

"So a story about war has to be pro-war? I suppose you've never heard of "All Quiet on the Western Front"? Or heck just about any war Vietnam War movie. DS9 also managed to depict a war but never felt like it was endorsing or glorifying violence. In DS9, when characters stooped to the moral low ground to win the war, it was treated as a big deal. On Discovery, it's just another day in the office."

That's because Discovery is much more realistic. On Deep Space Nine, in the midst of a war that has been ongoing for years, the crew only has to stretch their morals, like, once? Three times? Yeah, right. Talk to anyone who fought in any real-world war, and they'll tell you their morals went out the window literally for years. (This became clearest to me in my discussions with my grandfather about his WW2 years in Europe.) During a real global war, when the safety and security of the planet are in the balance, morals became irrelevant. Soldiers might have been haunted by their actions in the years afterwards, possibly, but on a day-by-day basis, on a front, during endless battles, with Nazis shooting at your head, or at your plane, or at your submarine, these soldiers wouldn't spend half a minute thinking about the morality of the situation. In that respect, all the moral hand-wringing in, say, In the Pale Moonlight is far more "television-logic" and far less realistic than the "get'r done" attitude on Discovery. Personally, I find the much more realistic LACK of moral hand-wringing on Discovery entirely refreshing (speaking as someone who still loves Deep Space Nine, mind you, for all its lack of believability in that respect.)
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

@Mertov

An excellent post. Lots of valid points made.
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 5:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Firestorm

@Slackerinc

Okay; but doesn't that suggest that narrative coherence - plot - is the most important aspect of a show's aesthetic appeal? It's important, sure, but why should it be the ultimate arbiter? What about character? What about emotions evoked? What about cleverness and wit? What about world creation? And what about colours and textures and music? Would you examine a painting and then dismiss it merely because the story depicted offers no satisfying resolution? What about the experience itself, in the moment, of engaging with the work? Doesn't that count for a lot? In fact, isn't that precisely what David Lynch has been trying to teach us with the third season of Twin Peaks?

This episode has a weak resolution. But it also has at least one brilliant moment, our first view of the clown, as he barrels down the corridor and knocks Alara down. It was funny and creepy and surprising, and its success as an isolated moment does not depend on a logical explanation for it. It's about the image itself, the
Juxtaposition of his presence, the speed at which he ran, and then, finally, the punch line that he appeared on the ship's camera. It's a lovely moment of television, skillfully rendered. That the logical underpinning that comes later is unsatisfying does not diminish the impact of that earlier moment. The only reason they even bother to invent a logical explanation is because viewers, who have learned nothing from David Lynch, sort of demand it. It's so clear that, for the writer of this episode, their heart wasn't in the obligatory logical explanation anyway, but in creating a creepy visceral experience. Can't we appreciate art that achieves success in ways other than in the mere narrative realm?
Set Bookmark
Ubik
Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 6:40am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Firestorm

Of BSG and Lost, I will say this: For the first season of Lost, possibly two, it was among the best-written television series we have EVER seen. Be grumpy all you want about the last couple of seasons - it's certainly justified - but that should in no way diminish our pleasure at that first season of the show. To this day, it's miraculously good, in character work, in structure, in theme, in tone, everything -
it's incredible, all around. Fans get greedy about these things. YOU try having a show last 5 or 6 years and keep the standard set by that first season; it would be practically impossible. Many believe it's the showrunners' fault for not having a plan; okay, fair enough. But there is no reason to believe the show would have maintained that impossibly high standard even if they DID have a plan. Yes, the show fell apart, but that's largely because it lasted too long, and because answers are never as satisfying as questions. BSG also maintained a very high standard throughout, and while there were certainly significant dips in quality in the mid-seasons (Balter's arc, for example, plummeted in interest), the mutiny stuff in the end was gripping as hell. In the end, both of these shows, despite their lows, had such high highs that they should still be regarded as the standard for high-quality science fiction television. AND, later shows can even try to learn from their mistakes, which is even better.

As for this episode, it was giddily entertaining for the first 3/4, with a predictable let-down in terms of the explanation at the end. But that's okay. It's fairly easy to guess what the writers did here - they thought up the premise and the conflict, which were cool and well worth doing, and only afterwards did they try to find some semi-workable sf explanation for it, which they sort-of kind-of did. Everything before the explanation is wacky and scary enough, I would say, to warrant a halfassed resolution - why not? This episode is about the tonal experience, and about the character fearing that she has too much fear - so thematically, it was on-point. And yes, by the midway point, the episode was extremely reminiscent of TNG's Remember Me, and perhaps, like many of even the better Orville episodes so far, it suffers by reminding us of a similar, but better, earlier Trek episode. In this case, it's being compared to a semi-classic, so we shouldn't be too harsh on it. For much of its running time, I think it worked just fine.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.