STD - The War Without, The War Within

[kingofmadcows]

This has been bugging for the whole war, the show would have us believe that the Klingons being split between 24 houses is somehow an advantage and that coupled with the Klingons just being "better warriors" (like this was Civilization and races have +2 -2 bonuses to make them focus on war or economy or diplomacy) is why they are kicking the Federation's ass.

DISCO has touched on this before as Cornell was captured attempting to negotiate with some houses individually.

That just gives me a headache, having your empire actually be just 24 smaller empires is a huge disadvantage especially when facing a huge, united state like the Federation.

I don't care how pacifistic the Federation is, let's be nice and assume the Feds and Klingons have roughly equal resources/populations etc (despite T'kuvma's whole ideology makes sense only if the Klingons were in decline and the Federation ascendant) a pacifistic giant will crush an warlike midget that is 1/24 of his size.

And he will crush another midget and another until when the angry Klingon midgets realize they're better off working together half of them are already taken out by the Federation.

Plus there's this very simplistic representation that societies stay the same during war, what we should have seen is the Klingon houses joining together and the Federation losing some of it's distaste for war.

As the Klingons work on the aspect that is holding them back in the war (factionalism) so would the Federation be working on it's own faults.

Thus the overall balance of power remains, letting the hero ship be the one that actually breaks the stalemate.

Plus DISCO having the Klingons go though this process of unification would help explain why in TOS you have Kirk dealing with a united Empire as opposed to feudal houses (ENT also tried to explain part of that)

It is possible that the Klingons have always been more powerful than the Federation. Look at "Yesterday's Enterprise," The Federation and Klingons were at war for 20 years and the Federation had been getting it's butt kicked through the whole thing. And the Klingons were forced to significantly cut down their military after Praxis.

[Karha of Honor]

STD lumbers graceless towards the end of the first season, and Netflix execs start screaming down the telephone to CBS about the money versus ratings thing in the worldwide markets. Soon the first soft reboot will happen, to be followed by a third soft reboot, and then maybe someone will call Manny Coto again (and this time, he'll probably say no). God, but I can't believe that I have to admit that ENT is no longer the Dumbest Trek show, and that Neelix is no longer even in the top five most annoying Trek characters. Great going CBS.

I'll say this for Discovery, it really made me rewatch a lot of Futurama.

You can make the case that it's dumber but DISCO owns ENT season 1 more than Mike Tyson would own Archer in a fistfight.

What kind of "increasingly obvious contempt" because rumors I heard is he was being quite fair. And even praised it for not going scientifically absurd like Enterprise and Voyager were. Which hey, are works of art masterpiece compared to STD.

You need to rewatch those.

[Mindworm]

This has been bugging for the whole war, the show would have us believe that the Klingons being split between 24 houses is somehow an advantage and that coupled with the Klingons just being "better warriors" (like this was Civilization and races have +2 -2 bonuses to make them focus on war or economy or diplomacy) is why they are kicking the Federation's ass.

If this were Civilisation (well 4 anyway in 5 & 6 all AIs are equally useless, for most of Civ 5 Monty was known for being the least insane one. ) then the Klingons would have still been at the knights and maces stage while the Enterprise was hovering over their biggest castle.

[Sir Will]

What kind of "increasingly obvious contempt" because rumors I heard is he was being quite fair. And even praised it for not going scientifically absurd like Enterprise and Voyager were. Which hey, are works of art masterpiece compared to STD.

I mean, he once said it was nice it didn't have as much technobabble as those shows but he's also ranted about just how incredibly ridiculous the spores are. Far worse than anything those shows did.

[Actarus]

What kind of "increasingly obvious contempt" because rumors I heard is he was being quite fair. And even praised it for not going scientifically absurd like Enterprise and Voyager were. Which hey, are works of art masterpiece compared to STD.

I mean, he once said it was nice it didn't have as much technobabble as those shows but he's also ranted about just how incredibly ridiculous the spores are. Far worse than anything those shows did.

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

I believe he was right to reserve his opinion for the last episode. First, since it's serialized, it's hard to judge an episode by itself. Many problems could be answered in following episodes. Second, DSC has become so controversial that it would have been a flaming session after each review. If he had been positive about an episode, the STD haters would have flamed him. If he had been negative, the DSC lovers would have done the same (and the haters would have flamed him anyway for not hating the show enough). He's better off recieving all the shit in one blow instead of 16...

[RobbyB1982]

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

He dislikes the science, most of the characters, the gratuity and senseless death, the subtitles, the plot and the logic leaps. ANd just look at the song he chose for the opening theme, a depressing dirge about this is just how it is now. He's complained pretty strongly about something in every episode. You can hear the frustration in his voice.

He'll find nice things to say and he's not going to write it off completely, but he's pretty clearly not been enjoying it for the most part. I think his main verdict will be that it doesn't feel like Trek.

ANd while its true that every Trek show has had a weaker first season while finding their voice, those flaws have usually been "the show is bad because the people making it don't know what they're doing" and not "the show is actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants to not be Trek at all and wants to be GoT."

Granted, Discovery is getting a new showrunner and writing team next season to course correct, so it could change a *lot* more than they usually do since its a mandated soft reboot.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

He dislikes the science, most of the characters, the gratuity and senseless death, the subtitles, the plot and the logic leaps. ANd just look at the song he chose for the opening theme, a depressing dirge about this is just how it is now. He's complained pretty strongly about something in every episode. You can hear the frustration in his voice.

He'll find nice things to say and he's not going to write it off completely, but he's pretty clearly not been enjoying it for the most part. I think his main verdict will be that it doesn't feel like Trek.

ANd while its true that every Trek show has had a weaker first season while finding their voice, those flaws have usually been "the show is bad because the people making it don't know what they're doing" and not "the show is actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants to not be Trek at all and wants to be GoT."

Granted, Discovery is getting a new showrunner and writing team next season to course correct, so it could change a *lot* more than they usually do since its a mandated soft reboot.

I had a really hard time following the Klingon scenes. I feel like it's something I should get used to and/or that I shouldn't be bothered by, but it's just so jarring to listen to and read.

Also I don't like the titles scene.

On the wiki it says that Jonathan Frakes is directing season 2 (or at least the first episode idunno).

[Actarus]

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

ANd while its true that every Trek show has had a weaker first season while finding their voice, those flaws have usually been "the show is bad because the people making it don't know what they're doing" and not "the show is actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants to not be Trek at all and wants to be GoT."

I think this is a very subjective critic. "Actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants not to be Trek, etc." Why make a show in the first place if all you want is antagonizing your audience? I don't buy it at all. On my part, I tried to remain open-minded about the show. Does it feel like TNG or DS9? Of course not. Rick Berman is not at the helm anymore, so it could not feel the same. Just like Berman's Trek did not feel like Roddenberry's Trek of TOS.

Overall, I enjoyed this first season, despite all of its flaws. I believe it's still a case of "finding their voice." The second season will tell us if the show can become great. TNG's first season was, in my opinion, way worse than DSC's, and it took them three seasons to make the show memorable.

[Karha of Honor]

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

ANd while its true that every Trek show has had a weaker first season while finding their voice, those flaws have usually been "the show is bad because the people making it don't know what they're doing" and not "the show is actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants to not be Trek at all and wants to be GoT."

I think this is a very subjective critic. "Actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants not to be Trek, etc." Why make a show in the first place if all you want is antagonizing your audience? I don't buy it at all. On my part, I tried to remain open-minded about the show. Does it feel like TNG or DS9? Of course not. Rick Berman is not at the helm anymore, so it could not feel the same. Just like Berman's Trek did not feel like Roddenberry's Trek of TOS.

Overall, I enjoyed this first season, despite all of its flaws. I believe it's still a case of "finding their voice." The second season will tell us if the show can become great. TNG's first season was, in my opinion, way worse than DSC's, and it took them three seasons to make the show memorable.

It's 2019, you don't have 3 seasons to figure it out.

[clearspira]

It's obvious that Chuck does not like the spores, but Discovery is not all about them. It's just one element and we most probably won't see them much again since Starfleet can't use the spore drive ethically. Personally I can't say from his reviews if he has "contempt" for the show or if he appreciates it despite its flaws. Flaws that every ST series showed in their first season.

ANd while its true that every Trek show has had a weaker first season while finding their voice, those flaws have usually been "the show is bad because the people making it don't know what they're doing" and not "the show is actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants to not be Trek at all and wants to be GoT."

I think this is a very subjective critic. "Actively and intentionally attacking its audience because it wants not to be Trek, etc." Why make a show in the first place if all you want is antagonizing your audience? I don't buy it at all. On my part, I tried to remain open-minded about the show. Does it feel like TNG or DS9? Of course not. Rick Berman is not at the helm anymore, so it could not feel the same. Just like Berman's Trek did not feel like Roddenberry's Trek of TOS.

Overall, I enjoyed this first season, despite all of its flaws. I believe it's still a case of "finding their voice." The second season will tell us if the show can become great. TNG's first season was, in my opinion, way worse than DSC's, and it took them three seasons to make the show memorable.

It's 2019, you don't have 3 seasons to figure it out.

Yep, you don't. Not without exceptional circumstances anyway.

And as for the idea that every Star Trek has a crap first season and thus STD having one is somehow justified, I really hate that defence as that means that STD did not make any effort to learn from the previous mistakes of the other shows. This has happened six times now over 53 years. How many more ''original'' mistakes can there be?