Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[Osprey]

You're preaching to the choir, I really like the Orville myself. It feels a little bit off at times but I had zero expectations from this show when I saw the first previews. It's been quite a nice surprise.

Ah, OK. You said, "Judging by the comments in this and other forums," so it sounded like you were basing your comment on the reviews of others, not your own experience watching it. Now that I think about it, I recognize your name from the Orville thread.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

Ah, OK. You said, "Judging by the comments in this and other forums," so it sounded like you were basing your comment on the reviews of others, not your own experience watching it. Now that I think about it, I recognize your name from the Orville thread.

I can understand why you believed that. I was answering to the poster above me who was stating their opinion as if it was a fact that after 6 episodes STD was Star Trek. I wanted to counter that argument with more than just my own opinion.

 

[Cloned]

You say that criticism is fair, but it seems that you mean only the criticisms that you share and those that you don't you call "nitpicks" and "shallow complaints."

That's because these ARE nitpicks and shallow complaints.

Obviously everything in entertainment is subjective to a certain degree, but there are some things that are close to objectively being superficial and nitpicky.

Do you see people making a big deal about James Caan's obvious air punching in his fight scene with Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather as taking away from the "realism" of the movie? No, because that's nitpicky and superficial. Just like how "space doesn't look empty enough." Obviously STD is nowhere near the caliber of work that Godfather is, but that shouldn't make nitpicking and shallow complaints acceptable as legitimate criticism.

Taking a more Trek example about canon into perspective: Do you see people making a huge deal out of Sisko and the Saratoga being at Wolf 359 after TBOBW showed the Enterprise traversing through a dead fleet with no life signs? No, because people understand that just because something isn't explicitly stated on screen in a previous iteration of the franchise, it doesn't mean you can't insert it into canon later. Some of the complaints about canon that I'm reading in this thread (to me) sounds like somebody saying "Sisko's entire character motivation comes from a violation of canon!"

Is STD canonically perfect? Of course not. Was DS9, or even TNG? No! I'm willing to accept certain (re)interpretations of canon (as long as it isn't anything drastically repugnant) for the purposes of dramatic license.

Since 1966. Seriously, things can and should adapt, but your argument literally excuses anything. You could be proposing turning Star Trek into Dora the Explorer and present the "since when did Trek become so narrow" argument to anyone who objected to your proposition. You can't simply do anything that you want to a franchise in the name of being progressive. There is a point that's too far to go, at which it doesn't feel like Star Trek anymore. Some of us feel that we're past that point here and some of you don't. I think that even you have to admit, though, that this is very different from other Trek. If so and this series is boldly going where no Trek has gone before, then isn't that also an admission that Trek has been more narrow, more reserved and more exclusive than this... since 1966?

I'm kind of shocked here. Are you actually premising your argument on the tenet that Trek SHOULD be narrow, reserved and exclusive? That's the most elitist and Trek-fan-egotistical statement I've ever heard.

All I asked for was an explanation for what "failing miserably as Star Trek, but entertaining otherwise" was supposed to mean. What quality about that episode made it entertaining, yet failing miserably as Star Trek?

I think that you're reaching. There are no doubt some who spit on Star Wars and are only Star Trek fans, but I imagine that the majority of Star Trek fans are also Star Wars fans. When we say that we don't want Star Trek to turn into Star Wars, it's in no way an "inferiority complex" because of Star Wars or a criticism of it, since we love Star Wars, too. It's simply a recognition that the two franchises are very different and we want them kept that way.

It's important to do what you do well. Star Wars does escapist space opera and action extremely well and Star Trek does futurism, science and allegory extremely well. If either were to try to do what the other does, what it does so well would be compromised. It'd be like a commercial product that incorporates multiple functionalities to try to replace multiple other products and, consequently, not doing its original functionality as well as when that's all that it did. If Star Wars were to become more like Star Trek and Star Trek were to become more like Star Wars, then they'd both end up being the new generic sci-fi and we'd lose what both of them used to do so well. It's not an "inferiority complex" to not want Star Trek to become more like Star Wars because most of us don't want Star Wars to become more like Star Trek, either.

It IS possible to be ambitious and do more. Are you typing your replies on an iPhone or an Android phone? I am, but maybe I shouldn't be, because a phone should only be used for making phone calls as a singular function instead of incorporating multiple functionalities. I find it ironic that you are a fan of futurism and imaginative science, yet you seem (and want Star Trek) to be constrained by these soft boundaries and seem to be more comfortable with conservatism and what you already know. Futurism and imaginative science come from expanding boundaries, not recycling what you already know.

If you really believe in that, then you shouldn't be writing about the things that you like in the show and defending it, since you don't know where it leads any more than us. If the fact that we could end up liking the show means that we should hold off on criticism for now, then the fact that you could end up disliking the show means that you should hold off praise and defense for now.

There's a difference between realistic/hopefully optimistic and unrelentingly negative/pessimistic. I'm a Trek fan. I WANT this show to do well. We all should. Hoping it fails or nagging on every single little negative detail just so that Trek can fall back into this exclusive, conservative boundary is, quite frankly, exactly what Trek fans have become stereotyped as. A bunch of hyper-obsessive canon enthusiasts who are more concerned with pointing out every single canon violation than enjoying the overall product.

 

[Osprey]

That's because these ARE nitpicks and shallow complaints.

Obviously everything in entertainment is subjective to a certain degree, but there are some things that are close to objectively being superficial and nitpicky.

Do you see people making a big deal about James Caan's obvious air punching in his fight scene with Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather as taking away from the "realism" of the movie? No, because that's nitpicky and superficial. Just like how "space doesn't look empty enough." Obviously STD is nowhere near the caliber of work that Godfather is, but that shouldn't make nitpicking and shallow complaints acceptable as legitimate criticism.

That's a poor comparison for a number of reasons. First, they didn't design the air punching to look like that. It was more a technical limitation (Caan couldn't actually punch him) likely combined with an oversight (not realizing that it looked fake until it was too late). The space shots in STD were designed to look the way that they are, as are the other things that are being "nitpicked." Also, The Godfather is considered one of the best films ever made, with very few problems, so it's easy to overlook the odd one here or there. If it were not considered a good film and someone were going through a long list of bad things about it, the poorly done fight scenes might make the list. Conversely, if STD didn't have so many issues, something like dense space shots might be overlooked. For example, The Orville has some problems (corny-looking CGI, for one), but they're easy to overlook because that series gets so much right. If it had gotten so much wrong, instead, those things wouldn't be overlooked. That's just how it is.

You're missing the point if you're judging each criticism as a "nitpick." Johnjm22 didn't criticize the dense space shots simply because he didn't like them. He was giving it as evidence of a pervasive theme throughout the show to crowd the screen with so much stuff, especially post-processing, that it becomes distracting and gives the impression that they put more care into visuals than things like characters and storytelling. He's even explicitly made that point and you've seemingly been ignoring it to focus on one example--space shots--that he gave for it. Sure, you can make criticism of dense space shots and an abundance of lens flare, reflections, computer screens and heads up displays each look like a nitpick on their own, but, taken together, criticism of the show's visual design is a perfectly valid complaint. In fact, you can probably take any perfectly valid complaint and break it down into the smallest components in order to dismiss each component as a nitpick, if that's your agenda. In a way, the person doing the accusing of nitpicking is often doing the nitpicking, himself, by focusing in on the examples that people give (ex. space shots) and ignoring the big picture that they're complaining about (ex. visual design).

I'm kind of shocked here. Are you actually premising your argument on the tenet that Trek SHOULD be narrow, reserved and exclusive? That's the most elitist and Trek-fan-egotistical statement I've ever heard.

When people say, "that's the most [blank] thing I've ever heard," it's usually because of their own failure to understand the other side's argument. You used the phrase "narrow, reserved and exclusive" to characterize what Star Trek has been for the last 50 years so that you could justify it being different going forward, so I said that Trek should continue to be what it's been for the last 50 years. Is that really an elitist and egotistical argument? I think that it's a bit silly to characterize people's arguments in unflattering terms ("narrow, reserved and exclusive") and then act shocked that they're willing to stand by their arguments in spite of your unflattering characterizations.

I find it ironic that you are a fan of futurism and imaginative science, yet you seem (and want Star Trek) to be constrained by these soft boundaries and seem to be more comfortable with conservatism and what you already know. Futurism and imaginative science come from expanding boundaries, not recycling what you already know.

I find it ironic that you say that Trek shouldn't be about "recycling what you already know" when the show takes place only 10 years before TOS, has Klingons as the main enemy, has Vulcanism as a central thread, even has Harry Mudd in it and looks just like the new Star Trek films. Recycling what we already know is precisely what this series is doing, and it's doing it because some people are "more comfortable" with that. Meanwhile, some of us have been arguing for a post-Voyager series that doesn't recycle so much and isn't so constrained by boundaries... and, ironically, you're criticizing us for wanting the opposite while you're defending the show that's deliberately boxed itself into an already well-established era of the timeline and is forced to recycle.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Holy hell you guys are still going...

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

I didn't care for the last episode. Glad we won't have to see that poor Tardigrade get nipple clamped up anymore though.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Holy hell you guys are still going...

@Osprey and @Cloned are nerds.

 

[Osprey]

@Osprey and @Cloned are nerds.

I resent the accuracy of that statement!

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

I'm a nerd about Star Trek too but I don't go out of my way this hard .

 

[Osprey]

Are you guys happy now? There have been no posts in this thread and, therefore, no Star Trek discussion for two whole days (<gasp>) because you called people "nerds" for "going at it." Cloned was going to reply to me and keep it going, but you scared him away by making him feel insecure about his passion. Now do you appreciate what we do for this thread? When we bicker, everyone wins.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

Are you guys happy now? There have been no posts in this thread and, therefore, no Star Trek discussion for two whole days (<gasp>) because you called people "nerds" for "going at it." Cloned was going to reply to me and keep it going, but you scared him away by making him feel insecure about his passion. Now do you appreciate what we do for this thread? When we bicker, everyone wins.

What have I done?!

No worries, there's another episode in a couple days time. That should kickstart the debate again

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

In the meantime, thought this was an interesting coincidence. I don't think it's anything more than that but some seem to believe it was deliberate.

http://anas-tronaut.blogspot.ca/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades.html

 

[Osprey]

In the meantime, thought this was an interesting coincidence. I don't think it's anything more than that but some seem to believe it was deliberate.

http://anas-tronaut.blogspot.ca/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades.html

That seems like more than coincidence to me. In the author's words, his game involves "intergalactic travel using giant Tardigrades to travel anywhere in the universe." Even the size of the tardigrades is approximately correct, and the blue field is very similar. The character similarities, while they could've been brushed off as coincidental if they were the only ones, are more suspicious in light of the other similarities.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Science fiction is all about inspiration and borrowing ideas from past sci-fi, so some latitude has to be given for seeing a neat concept and being inspired to borrow elements. On the other hand, the similarities are so striking and this isn't "past sci-fi." If the show had borrowed these elements from a 60s sci-fi novel, for example, hardly anyone would care, but the guy is still developing this game and intends to make a living on it once it's released, something which could be affected by the show, and he wasn't compensated or even politely asked. He could have a legal case.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

That seems like more than coincidence to me. In the author's words, his game involves "intergalactic travel using giant Tardigrades to travel anywhere in the universe." Even the size of the tardigrades is approximately correct, and the blue field is very similar. The character similarities, while they could've been brushed off as coincidental if they were the only ones, are more suspicious in light of the other similarities.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Science fiction is all about inspiration and borrowing ideas from past sci-fi, so some latitude has to be given for seeing a neat concept and being inspired to borrow elements. On the other hand, the similarities are so striking and this isn't "past sci-fi." If the show had borrowed these elements from a 60s sci-fi novel, for example, hardly anyone would care, but the guy is still developing this game and intends to make a living on it once it's released, something which could be affected by the show, and he wasn't compensated or even politely asked. He could have a legal case.

Yeah, I can't entirely disagree. The similarities are striking enough to at least warrant consideration and some level of acknowledgement. It's bewilderingly comparable.

On the other forum I originally saw this on, a writer who was/is supposedly involved with Discovery says there's no relation between the development of the Tardigrade/Intergalactic travel elements we've seen in the show and those in the game... but even if there was, I wouldn't expect him to admit it.

 

[Tawnos]

Are you guys happy now? There have been no posts in this thread and, therefore, no Star Trek discussion for two whole days (<gasp>) because you called people "nerds" for "going at it." Cloned was going to reply to me and keep it going, but you scared him away by making him feel insecure about his passion. Now do you appreciate what we do for this thread? When we bicker, everyone wins.

We’re better off for it.

Tardigrades came up in The Orville too. I think they’re just in the zeitgeist right now.

 

[Cloned]

Are you guys happy now? There have been no posts in this thread and, therefore, no Star Trek discussion for two whole days (<gasp>) because you called people "nerds" for "going at it." Cloned was going to reply to me and keep it going, but you scared him away by making him feel insecure about his passion. Now do you appreciate what we do for this thread? When we bicker, everyone wins.

lol, not a chance.

I just realized we are both entrenched in our positions, so there's no point in trying to convince each other otherwise. Just gonna let the series do the talking and hopefully you'll eventually come to the right side.

 

[Osprey]

We’re better off for it.

I think that you're the only one here who feels that it's better to have no Star Trek discussion than any with criticism in it.

lol, not a chance.

I just realized we are both entrenched in our positions, so there's no point in trying to convince each other otherwise. Just gonna let the series do the talking and hopefully you'll eventually come to the right side.

My theory of your reason was funnier.

 

[Cloned]

My theory of your reason was funnier.

Probably a good thing, because I was beginning to think you didn't have a sense of humour.

 

[Osprey]

Probably a good thing, because I was beginning to think you didn't have a sense of humour.

I have a terrific sense of humor. I don't take many things seriously. Take this show, for example .

 

[SJSharksfan39]

We’re better off for it.

Tardigrades came up in The Orville too. I think they’re just in the zeitgeist right now.

Was that in the episode about the zoo (second episode I believe). I must of missed it or forgot to make the connection.

 

[Osprey]

Was that in the episode about the zoo (second episode I believe). I must of missed it or forgot to make the connection.

I just looked it up and it was in the first episode. The scientists on the planet briefly mentioned that they spliced redwood seeds with tardigrade DNA to create super trees. That was likely because tardigrades can survive in the most extreme environments, even the vacuum of space, which allows for the plausibility of how Mercer uses one of the seeds at the end of the episode. I'd say that there's a big difference between having that, which is based on the actual science of real, living Earth tardigrades, and having fictional space creatures larger than bears that can perform instantaneous intergalactic travel that are based on another work of fiction.

 

[Tawnos]

I think that you're the only one here who feels that it's better to have no Star Trek discussion than any with criticism in it.

Nah. I just think when you’ve reached a point where there are two obviously entrenched sides to a debate, continuing said debate serves no purpose other than to create animosity.

You and I have very different views about what is valid to judge this show based on. We hashed it out and now we can just leave it at that.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I just looked it up and it was in the first episode. The scientists on the planet briefly mentioned that they spliced redwood seeds with tardigrade DNA to create super trees. That was likely because tardigrades can survive in the most extreme environments, even the vacuum of space, which allows for the plausibility of how Mercer uses one of the seeds at the end of the episode. I'd say that there's a big difference between having that, which is based on the actual science of real, living Earth tardigrades, and having fictional space creatures larger than bears that can perform instantaneous intergalactic travel that are based on another work of fiction.

Ok. Tardigrades were not on the mind when I saw the Orville pilot so I didn’t think anything of it.

 

[Osprey]

Nah. I just think when you’ve reached a point where there are two obviously entrenched sides to a debate, continuing said debate serves no purpose other than to create animosity.

You and I have very different views about what is valid to judge this show based on. We hashed it out and now we can just leave it at that.

That's perfectly fair. I was trying to leave it at that, which is why I wrote that lighthearted post to signify that the debate was in the past and to smooth out any ill vibes that the thread had gotten, and your reply of "we're better off for it," to use your own words, seemed to serve no purpose other than to create animosity again. Maybe I took it the wrong way, but you rarely reply to me without being critical of me, so I'm going to assume that you're being critical when you're cryptic like that. Explaining yourself like this will help me to trust your intentions and allow us to leave things at that.

Ok. Tardigrades were not on the mind when I saw the Orville pilot so I didn’t think anything of it.

Yeah, the Orville's pilot was on weeks before the tardigrade appeared in Discovery.

 

[Osprey]

Blender, about your theory for Lt. Tyler...

(Major spoiler warning)

Spoiler

It appears that the same actor, Shazad Latif, plays both Tyler and Voq. Imdb.com lists a different actor for Voq, Javid Iqbal, but this "person" has Discovery as his only acting credit ever and the only photos of him are in makeup as Voq. Also, I'm reading that this Iqbal has never appeared on the promotional tour for the show, whereas Latif has appeared on the tour as a series regular, even though Lt. Tyler doesn't appear until episode 5. Also, before being re-cast as Tyler, Latif was cast as a Klingon named Kol.

Amusingly, when Latif was asked about Iqval, his response was "Well, yeah, if you check IMDb he’s an actor on Star Trek: Discovery." OK, that's a really odd thing to say about a fellow cast member. Then, when the interviewer asked whether we'd ever get to meet Iqval, the CBS publicist ended the interview. Haha.

https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/21/shazad-latif-responds-to-lt-tyler-star-trek-discovery-fan-theory/

Basically, it looks like CBS/Paramount made up this Iqbal person to try to disguise the fact that Latif plays both characters and that Tyler is Voq in disquise.

Articles on the subject:
https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/star-trek-discovery-voq-javid-iqbal/
https://www.avclub.com/this-star-trek-discovery-actor-might-not-actually-exis-1819635988

Article on last week's episode and the problems with it, especially the fact that Lorca looks like an idiot for trusting an obvious spy:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/10/and-now-star-trek-discovery-has-lost-its-soul/

This makes me wonder how dumb the writers think that Star Trek fans are. Maybe it could be coincidence that the first episode without Voq in it is the first episode with Tyler in it, but didn't they think that we'd catch on pretty quickly when Voq, pretty heavily developed in the first four episodes, continues to be AWOL and never seen from again while Tyler becomes a show regular? This isn't a deceit that could possibly be sustained for very long at all, so it really makes me wonder what the writers were thinking.