Star Trek Discovery: The Vulcan Hello

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I don't really get the creative reason for choosing this particular time period when this is Star Trek and you could go almost anywhere. You don't want to be tied down to 60s aesthetics? No problem, set the show in almost any other time period. There are plenty of fans who would have preferred a show set a hundred years beyond TNG. I don't see another forgotten sibling for Spock as a goldmine for creativity, but then I don't think they set the show in this time period for creative reasons.

So I have problems with the show's "artistic vision" from the very start. Then you throw in the try-hard edginess (some writers still don't realize that there's a middle ground between being a perfect boy/girl scout and mutiny/should never be allowed near a starship, ever), and I haven't seen a whole lot that I like with the show.

[CharlesPhipps]

I don't really get the creative reason for choosing this particular time period when this is Star Trek and you could go almost anywhere. You don't want to be tied down to 60s aesthetics? No problem, set the show in almost any other time period. There are plenty of fans who would have preferred a show set a hundred years beyond TNG. I don't see another forgotten sibling for Spock as a goldmine for creativity, but then I don't think they set the show in this time period for creative reasons.

I think you overestimate just how much die hard Trekkies represent the fandom. For the majority of people Star Trek is Kirk either Shatner or Pine. Honestly, though there's a decent reason to set it during this time period, which is continuity lockout. What's a Dominion, what's a Borg, why are the Klingons our allies, and so on.

TOS is the time when the galaxy was at its most untamed and undefined.

[MixedDrops]

I'm a little perplexed by this video... It seemed to consist only of a synopsis, but no review. I was anticipating some commentary about the division among fans, perhaps something about the costuming and technology relative to the supposed setting... something, at least.

Perhaps this is going to appear in the second part?

This is pretty typical of Chuck's reviews, I'd say. Usually you can only infer what he thinks of the a show during the plot summary when he feels really strongly about it, like his disdain for Kannazuki no Miko is made more and more apparent as he makes his way through that show, but that's the most extreme example. Even then you can tell he usually just snarks his way through the actual episode and tries to hold off his actual opinion until the very end.

That's part of the reason I value Chuck's opinion quite a bit, he's often able to separate his own feelings from a work and still give a good analysis of it, so if he ends up falling on a negative opinion of Discovery he's one of the few people who I'll take on good faith in regards to that. It's not that I don't think people aren't allowed to dislike the show, but a lot of the hate directed towards Discovery is the modern outrage culture finding the latest thing to nitpick to hell and back on (Cries of "SJW"ism despite the fact Trek has always been that aside, the fact Chuck brought up that Michael's name was a controversy is also a good microcosm, considering how beyond the fact Michael isn't always a male name even in the present day, the name of a character really doesn't matter at all unless there's some kind of hidden meaning to it).

As for my feelings on the pilot episode, as others have mentioned a big problem with it is that it's not very good as a pilot episode. The majority of Discovery so far hasn't really been about the Klingons at all, and that was actually something that disappointed me. I got the impression the show was going to be heavy on Klingon politics to explore why a society would be needlessly fearful of cultural annihilation, but they really didn't do much the first half of season 1 other than be generic bad guys for the most part.

[Xaios]

As someone who was both extremely skeptical of Discovery before its release and did not like the pilot episodes, the show since episode 3 (or 2, depending on your point of view) has won me over. That said, neither "The Vulcan Hello" nor "Battle At the Binary Stars" are particularly compelling. They feel like "Encounter At Farpoint," a rushed attempt to introduce us to the show's universe. Thankfully they've thus far felt like the low point of the series, as opposed to Encounter At Farpoint, which, while not a particularly good episode overall, was still leagues better than nearly every other episode of season 1 TNG. Pretty much every episode of Discovery since has been a significant improvement over the pilots.

[Fianna]

I think you overestimate just how much die hard Trekkies represent the fandom. For the majority of people Star Trek is Kirk either Shatner or Pine. Honestly, though there's a decent reason to set it during this time period, which is continuity lockout. What's a Dominion, what's a Borg, why are the Klingons our allies, and so on.

TOS is the time when the galaxy was at its most untamed and undefined.

But even if it's set at a time when Kirk was alive, he won't actually be appearing in the series, so that's kinda moot.

And if they set a series far enough post TNG/DS9/Voyager, they wouldn't necessarily have to mention the Borg or the Dominion, no more than a story set in the modern day has to reference the Ottoman Empire.

[CharlesPhipps]

But even if it's set at a time when Kirk was alive, he won't actually be appearing in the series, so that's kinda moot.

Kirk? No. Spock? Yes.

Ditto, the Enterprise.

And if they set a series far enough post TNG/DS9/Voyager, they wouldn't necessarily have to mention the Borg or the Dominion, no more than a story set in the modern day has to reference the Ottoman Empire.

No, but fans of things like Marvel comics bring up every new series, "WHY HAVEN'T SHIELD/THE AVENGERS/JESSICA JONES INVOLVED THEMSLEVES?" Enterprise had a huge amount of people wondering why there were not more nods.

Just saying, there's no way of winning here.

[professor_iago]

This episode nailed everything about Michael I had a problem with during the season premiere: She didn't give her captain the same level of trust and confidence that her captain gave her.

[CharlesPhipps]

This episode nailed everything about Michael I had a problem with during the season premiere: She didn't give her captain the same level of trust and confidence that her captain gave her.

Michael has:

1. Killed someone for probably the first time in her life
2. Suffering radiation damage
3. Is facing an unresolved childhood trauma
4. Is panicking

Starfleet's response? THROW THE BOOK AT HER!

[thevirtualjim]

"Her name could be Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla for all i care..."

One of the many reasons Chuck is my favorite reviewer.

[Sir Will]

This episode nailed everything about Michael I had a problem with during the season premiere: She didn't give her captain the same level of trust and confidence that her captain gave her.

Michael has:

1. Killed someone for probably the first time in her life
2. Suffering radiation damage
3. Is facing an unresolved childhood trauma
4. Is panicking

Starfleet's response? THROW THE BOOK AT HER!

Yeah, don't care. None of that is an excuse for what she did.