Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - III - Spock's Beard

[Harbinger]

The only thing I liked about this episode was Anson Mount and his updated uniform.

 

[Cloned]

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I loved the episode last night and I was luke warm on season 1. The tonal shift really helped the show and it was almost like this premiere was a soft reboot. Also that asteroid scene was awesome and probably my favorite scene in the series so far. Loved seeing the crew work together and Detmer and Owosekun might be the underrated dynamic duo this series needs.

I gave it an 8 in the poll that @Cloned just quoted.

 

[johnjm22]

I'm the lone 3 score on the poll @Cloned posted.

On TrekBBS people will like anything Discovery. People even overwhelming liked the season 1 finale which was objectively terrible.

 

[Cloned]

I'm the lone 3 score on the poll @Cloned posted.

On TrekBBS people will like anything Discovery. People even overwhelming liked the season 1 finale which was objectively terrible.

It's realistically the best representation of Trek fans around the world, though.

 

[johnjm22]

It's realistically the best representation of Trek fans around the world, though.

I don't think so.

 

[The Nemesis]

I loved the episode last night and I was luke warm on season 1. The tonal shift really helped the show and it was almost like this premiere was a soft reboot. Also that asteroid scene was awesome and probably my favorite scene in the series so far. Loved seeing the crew work together and Detmer and Owosekun might be the underrated dynamic duo this series needs.

I gave it an 8 in the poll that @Cloned just quoted.

This is kind of the problem. First off, I didn't even know the name of the one who wasn't Detmer, even though she was there all of last season. The only reason I knew Detmer's name was because she got that tiny subplot of constantly hating Burnham since she was on the Shenzhou too. But second and more important: like I said before, we're in season 2 and know next to nothing about like 75% of the bridge crew/senior officers. Last year's narrative focus breakdown for major characters was like:

50% Burnham
15% Tyler
11% Lorca
10% Stammets
9% Saru
4% Tilly
0.9% Detmer
0.1% Everyone who wasn't the above (including dead chief medical officer guy, and that includes the significant plot point that he died)

(That adds up to 100%, yeah? I can't be bothered to double-check my math. )

The problem was that doing a serialized story for season 1 meant that there was no room for other characters to get noticed. You can't stop the story to have a focal episode on other crew members unless they have something to do with the main plot thread. So Burnham is at the center of everything, Tyler/Lorca/Saru/Stammets/Tilly get a fair amount of screentime because they have something relevant to contribute to the war story, Detmer gets her tiny "I still hate you, Burnham" subplot, and everyone else is just there as glorified window dressing. If they want me to care about a character, I need to know more about them. I need some background to humanize them beyond being a name tag at a station and the occasional quippy one-liner or "yes sir". Yes, every Trek series ends up with 1 or 2 standout characters, but the strength is always that it's an ensemble drama with a whole cast that gives something for everyone to latch on to. The only time I can think of where this was a complete and total failure was Mayweather on Enterprise, except here it's like we have a crew that's halfway made up of Mayweathers. The rest of the time everyone at least gets something to do with themselves.

I feel like everyone's so busy trying to reinvent Trek for the 21st century that nobody realizes we haven't had a good, episodic, "go out and explore the universe and see strange new worlds" show since TNG. Even Enterprise, which started out with that promise, bailed on it as soon as it could to try and latch onto viewers with the "Temporal Cold War" bull**** and the Xindi arc. And the best thing about the S2 premiere (Pike) makes me wish that we'd been delivered that as the series conceit instead. Give us the Pike Enterprise with its mostly different crew (they don't even need to have Spock there from the beginning) on their 5-year mission to explore deep space and finding new stuff. Have the Klingon war as a subplot across a few episodes, with them intersecting with its outskirts a few times. Do this "red thing" plot from this season as an underlying story to pop back in on throughout its second season, but don't force it to be the only important thing they do.

I do kind of get why this doesn't happen. Serialized stories are all the rage now because a) they get their claws into viewers and "force" them to keep going, which means a less fluctuating audience and stronger viewer retention for advertisers, b) it lets writers flex their muscles in building gigantic worlds and broad scope ideas instead of forcing them to work at tightly focused, self-contained single scripts, and c) it encourages binge watching on streaming services, which is one of their most marketable features beyond schedule flexibility. But it just makes me sad that we're now going to get teased with a much more intriguing possibility that will never come to pass.

Also the writing at times feels like it could easily have started out not as a Star Trek show and just had a thick coat of Trek paint slathered on top of it along with its bad fanfiction tendencies.

It's still Trek enough that it's better than a lot of the other bad sci-fi that makes it on TV (in an era where classic futuristic sci-fi is shockingly underrepresented), and I'm still going to hang on to see if it can pick itself up off the ground, but where a lot of the other Treks' slow starts were just sort of clunky and disjointed, I don't think I ever looked at them as being as grossly flawed as this one has been so far.

 

[Osprey]

It's realistically the best representation of Trek fans around the world, though.

The site, as a whole, might be the best representation of Trek fans, but that shouldn't be confused for being an accurate representation. Mostly only the most hardcore fans who are still excited about Trek are going to create an account and post regularly on a site like that, and most are going to stick to the sub-forums that they like. For example, if I were a visitor and poster on that site (which I'm not), I would stick to the TOS, TNG and DS9 sub-forums and would rarely ever go into the sub-forums for the rest of the series, which I hated.

It seems pretty clear from that poll that 90% of those who still hang out in the Discovery sub-forum (and watch episodes on premiere night) are fans of the show. It's not very hard to imagine that most Trek fans who disliked Season 1 didn't re-up their subscriptions and stopped posting in that sub-forum (if they even ever participated). In other words, that poll is a reflection of how much the biggest fans of the show liked it and were excited to have their favorite series back on the air.

 

[Cloned]

The site, as a whole, might be the best representation of Trek fans, but that shouldn't be confused for being an accurate representation. Mostly only the most hardcore fans who are still excited about Trek are going to create an account and post regularly on a site like that, and most are going to stick to the sub-forums that they like. For example, if I were a visitor and poster on that site (which I'm not), I would stick to the TOS, TNG and DS9 sub-forums and would rarely ever go into the sub-forums for the rest of the series, which I hated.

It seems pretty clear from that poll that 90% of those who still hang out in the Discovery sub-forum (and watch episodes on premiere night) are fans of the show. It's not very hard to imagine that most Trek fans who disliked Season 1 didn't re-up their subscriptions and stopped posting in that sub-forum (if they even ever participated). In other words, that poll is a reflection of how much the biggest fans of the show liked it and were excited to have their favorite series back on the air.

I can't exactly rebut this as there is no way of disproving (or proving) this supposed bias.

 

[Osprey]

I can't exactly rebut this as there is no way of disproving (or proving) this supposed bias.

Debate isn't about proving or disproving, but making a logical case. If you believe that it's not logical to assume that the Discovery sub-forum is filled mostly with fans of the show at this point, you can certainly rebut it by making a case for why it wouldn't be.

 

[Blender]

Debate isn't about proving or disproving, but making a logical case. If you believe that it's not logical to assume that the Discovery sub-forum is filled mostly with fans of the show at this point, you can certainly rebut it by making a case for why it wouldn't be.

The term I think you are looking for is survivorship bias. That poll is a sampling of a group of people who have already been filtered through certain parameters, as you have correctly pointed out.

 

[Cloned]

Debate isn't about proving or disproving, but making a logical case. If you believe that it's not logical to assume that the Discovery sub-forum is filled mostly with fans of the show at this point, you can certainly rebut it by making a case for why it wouldn't be.

Burden of proof is typically on the person trying to disprove an apparent result.

But I'll try.

1. The poll results from Season 1 on the same site were very similar to the results from this episode. That was before attrition and dropout of people who didn't like the show. Were there more people voting for 1-4 out of 10? Yes. Were the results still typically favourable for the show? Yes. Even if you take out the population who isn't interested or dislike the show, the results are/were still largely favourable.

2. You can find a good cross-section of opinions in the various posts in that thread. It isn't all Discovery boosters and roses over there. A substantial number of posters were vocally against the show on that forum. Some of them gradually grew to like the show over Season 1, some disliked Season 1 but liked the first episode of Season 2, and some still dislike it. Have some who disliked it left the forum? Probably. Is it still a good thing that a sizeable absolute number of Trek fans appear to like the show? Yes.

 

[Blender]

Burden of proof is typically on the person trying to disprove an apparent result.

Nope, this is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person unconvinced of the claim. You claimed that it was "realistically the best representation of Trek fans around the world". I'm unconvinced that it's anything of the sort.

 

[Cloned]

Nope, this is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person unconvinced of the claim. You claimed that it was "realistically the best representation of Trek fans around the world". I'm unconvinced that it's anything of the sort.

Got any arguments for the rest of my post?

And it's not an attempt to shift. TrekBBS is the biggest Trek forum on the Internet. It's not a perfect representation, but I can't see how it's arguable that it isn't the most encompassing. If there is another site that has a wider Trek-specific audience then we can debate it, but as of this moment having the largest sample size to poll from gives it a huge leg up.

 

[Blender]

Got any arguments for the rest of my post?

And it's not an attempt to shift. TrekBBS is the biggest Trek forum on the Internet. It's not a perfect representation, but I can't see how it's arguable that it isn't the most encompassing. If there is another site that has a wider Trek-specific audience then we can debate it, but as of this moment having the largest sample size to poll from gives it a huge leg up.

I think it's a poll that is representative of that forums user base, but considering there is less than 200 votes in the poll currently and thousands have likely watched the episode already, I'm going to need some serious convincing that the specific forum is an accurate representation of all people who have watched the show.

 

[Cloned]

I think it's a poll that is representative of that forums user base, but considering there is less than 200 votes in the poll currently and thousands have like watched the episode already, I'm going to need some serious convincing that the specific forum is an accurate representation of all people who have watched the show.

You're going to be hard pressed to find any poll from any source (especially online) that isn't just a very small percentage of the "eligible" population (eligible meaning a person who has a generally informed opinion on the subject matter). HF is arguably the hockey forum with the largest volume of hockey fans, but even its poll participation generally doesn't exceed 200-300 votes total (I'd say the "high-end" average is more around 150-200).

 

[Blender]

You're going to be hard pressed to find any poll from any source (especially online) that isn't just a very small percentage of the "eligible" population (eligible meaning a person who has a generally informed opinion on the subject matter). HF is arguably the hockey forum with the largest volume of hockey fans, but even its poll participation generally doesn't exceed 200-300 votes total (I'd say the "high-end" average is more around 150-200).

I don't expect to find a poll that is properly representative, but I'm also not terribly concerned with whether a wide audience likes or loves the show either. Tons of people liked Star Trek Into Darkness for example, and it's one of the most nonsensical movies I have ever seen and I hated it, and still hate it today.

 

[Cloned]

I don't expect to find a poll that is properly representative, but I'm also not terribly concerned with whether a wide audience likes or loves the show either. Tons of people liked Star Trek Into Darkness for example, and it's one of the most nonsensical movies I have ever seen and I hated it, and still hate it today.

That's fair, but the original point of contention was surrounding polling and audience reaction, and I think the TrekBBS poll is still the best representation that exists.

 

[Osprey]

That's fair, but the original point of contention was surrounding polling and audience reaction, and I think the TrekBBS poll is still the best representation that exists.

The point of contention is what it's a representation of. It's no doubt a great representation of what fans of the show think of the first episode. We can agree on that. It's not surprising in the least that fans of the show overwhelmingly liked it. What it's probably not is a good representation of the feelings of Trek fans, as a whole, towards the show and the episode.

 

[Jussi]

Well I expected/was prepared to hate it but found myself sucked in by the gorgeous audiovisuals. Hot damn, are the production values through the roof on this. A lot of things to not like (Spock things) but a lot of things to like. Didn't expect Tig in this. Would have been funny if she had tried to move a chair on the floor. Tilly is a bit a of mixed bag, sometimes annoying, sometimes very humanly. Really liked Pike/Anson Mount. They got me intrigued about where the plot is going. Did I understood it correctly that Spock's nightmares had the same 7 locations as those signals? Burnham really shouldn't be the star of this show but meh, I can live with it.

 

[johnjm22]

I've been posting on TrekBBS since 2013. There's a culture there of "Everything nu-Trek is Awesome, people who don't like it are man baby neckbeards that just want old Trek".

Most of the people that don't adhere to the above criteria have been filtered out long ago. Years before Discovery was ever heard of.

STD Season 2:
User rating on metcritic: 4.8
Rotten Tomatoes user rating: 29%

Scroll through the user reviews on IMDB: Star Trek: Discovery (TV Series 2017– ) - Star Trek: Discovery (TV Series 2017– ) - User Reviews - IMDb It's kind of amazing how negative they are.

I think most of the response from general audiences has been meh to negative. I'm sure there's people that love it though.

 

[Cloned]

The point of contention is what it's a representation of. It's no doubt a great representation of what fans of the show think of the first episode. We can agree on that. It's not surprising in the least that fans of the show overwhelmingly liked it. What it's probably not is a good representation of the feelings of Trek fans, as a whole, towards the show and the episode.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Ducks in a row]

After the episode was over they showed some stuff for future episodes and from it we know that the spore drive is going to be used again. Not surprised.

 

[Blender]

I've been posting on TrekBBS since 2013. There's a culture there of "Everything nu-Trek is Awesome, people who don't like it are man baby neckbeards that just want old Trek".

Most of the people that don't adhere to the above criteria have been filtered out long ago. Years before Discovery was ever heard of.

STD Season 2:
User rating on metcritic: 4.8
Rotten Tomatoes user rating: 29%

Scroll through the user reviews on IMDB: Star Trek: Discovery (TV Series 2017– ) - Star Trek: Discovery (TV Series 2017– ) - User Reviews - IMDb It's kind of amazing how negative they are.

I think most of the response from general audiences has been meh to negative. I'm sure there's people that love it though.

I know I'm not the only one who is missing the TOS through ENT (even if VOY and ENT were pretty weak at times) standards of Star Trek, as there are others in this thread that feel the same. Where are the stories that incorporate current issues from our culture only framed and disguised in a futuristic setting? Where is the wonder and awe of exploration? Where is both the cunning and diplomacy that was a staple of this franchise? Even with Kirk having a stereotype of always taking his shirt off and punching people solved most of the problems on the show through non-violent means, the character was extremely smart and charismatic. Where is the contributions from the crew, and most importantly their personalities? We barely know any characters on this show, and most of them don't seem to do or contribute anything of meaning. TOS was the least ensemble of all the previous series with a heavy focus on Kirk/Spock/McCoy, and Kirk would regularly rely on the experts around him when a specific problem came up and all the bridge crew had a distinct personality (we even had characters who only appeared in a few episodes who did as well). Even the new movies managed to do this while Discovery has failed miserably.

I'm going to be severely disappointed if Discovery doesn't start introducing these elements again and fast. I have little hope that Kurtzman has any ability to do it though.

 

[johnjm22]

I know I'm not the only one who is missing the TOS through ENT (even if VOY and ENT were pretty weak at times) standards of Star Trek, as there are others in this thread that feel the same. Where are the stories that incorporate current issues from our culture only framed and disguised in a futuristic setting? Where is the wonder and awe of exploration? Where is both the cunning and diplomacy that was a staple of this franchise?

I agree. Additionally, I miss some of the small seemingly mundane aspects of old Trek. Like those moments where they just show what life is like day-to-day on a Starship. Data and Worf pick out wedding gifts for Keiko & Miles wedding. Garak and Brashir discuss Cardassian literature during lunch. That sort of stuff.

I also miss how much bigger space feels in old Trek. I miss how much quieter (literally) those shows were. STD is a very noisy show in comparison.

Even with Kirk having a stereotype of always taking his shirt off and punching people solved most of the problems on the show through non-violent means,

Solving conflicts by non-violent means is one of Trek's trademarks. It's something that sets it apart from other franchises. Often conflicts were presented as being the result of a misunderstanding, and once each opposing side learned to understand each other the conflict was resolved. This is a good progressive message.

This is why Star Trek has fundamentally not been an action franchise for most of it's history. Solving issues with violence requires action, solving conflicts through understanding requires thought and discussion.

STD thinks it's progressive because of its casting, but it usually solves conflicts by violence, so which iteration of Trek is really the progressive one?