Star Trek: Discovery

I've now seen episode 3. I...... have questions.

One of my first questions is: Why the hell is this a prequel? So, they want to use Klingons as a villain, but considering how alien they are, did we really need that to make the story set-up work? The longer the show goes without tying the Klingons to anything recognizable from the earlier seasons, the louder my question is going to get. Why is this a prequel? We needed Sarek in the show? Why?

I ask this because the story idea introduced in Episode 3 seems nonsensical in the context of Prime Timeline 2256, ten years before TOS Season 1.

When you make a story a prequel, then design a story around some new, never before seen technology, it prompts the question: What the hell happened? This question, to me, is not compelling enough to base a series on. "Let's investigate why the tech we're talking about was a mega failure!" This is a concept that could be an interesting *episode*. A la "The Pegasus". But, why am I supposed to be interested in something I know will fail?

For my next question: Are the producers sure this is in the Prime Timeline? The one in which TNG, DS9 and, ahem, VOYAGER exist?

A third question: Why is this show so fucking dark? I get that VFX are expensive, and it is easier to fudge if the screen is mostly dark. But.... yeesh. There is such a thing as too dark. (I'm talking about actual lighting, not mood/tone.)

In conclusion, this episode felt less like Star Trek than the first two did. This had a much stronger "generic sci-fi" vibe. If it were some new sci-fi show, I'd feel much better. Since it is calling itself Star Trek, I am now much more skeptical.

Edited to add: I mostly hate the theme and credits. I am wondering if Akiva Goldsman is responsible for the title credits? The combo of the visuals and music remind me a lot of Fringe, on which Goldsman was an EP. Actually, this whole episode felt more like Fringe than Star Trek.

Second edit: In case you had lamented the lack of technobabble in the first two episodes, fear not! There is a metric shit ton of technobabble in this episode.

Final edit: Kinda spoilery so

I was resistant to the show being a prequel before I ever saw it. But, obviously, I decided to watch. The first two episodes which functioned as a prologue didn't make me question why it was a prequel. The inconsistencies weren't that big a deal.

But episode 3 definitely crossed a line for me. I fundamentally do not understand the justification for this show being a prequel. After seeing three episodes of it, it is quite obvious that there are several compelling reasons for this show to be set far post-DS9/VOY. Every quibble I have with the show right now would vanish if it were set AFTER all the other series. (Well, every quibble except for the title credits and theme music.)

So I am left baffled as to why the decision was made to make it a prequel. They've said they're not putting Spock in the show. There seems next-to-zero likelihood that we'd see the Enterprise crew. The Klingon story they are telling is not related to anything we know about the Klingons and isn't even really filling in any gaping hole in our knowledge of their culture. If anything, the story is skirting on the edge of violating canon. I don't see why Burnham had to be raised by Sarek. Why? What is unique about Sarek that requires him to be in this story? How is this series linking the ENT timeline to the TOS timeline? How is this series informing anything that happened in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY?

I see nothing right now that would override the very compelling reasons to set the show in the future: 1. Different look of Klingons 2. Collapse of Klingon governmental system. 3. Advanced tech on Federation ships. 4. Experimental tech never seen in earlier series.
 

The AVC still from episode 3 has Michael in what looks like a "The Cage" era-appropriate uniform.

It's a prison uniform, but has a Federation patch on it.  Presumably because Michael used to be in the Federation.  You know, like the way that ex-soldiers that are drummed out of the service and sent to prison get different prison uniforms from all the other prisoners, and that have insignia to identify that prisoner as a former member of the organization, because that is totally a thing that happens and isn't really, really stupid.

Hahahaha, my god no, I don't think you should. I watch it through Netflix so feels reasonable but signing up for CBS' service? Not worth it just for the one show, no way.

I honestly have no clue what they want but if it makes it to season two, I expect a decent amount of retooling.

Wasn't it going to be an anthology series at one point, with each season being a different time period with a different crew? I imagine they dropped that idea after Fuller left, but I do wonder what they're going to do after such a heavily serialized season. 

"Star Trek for folk not really into Star Trek" seems about right, probably explains why it's following the general ST film style of being very accessible to non-fans. Trouble is that the film series at least has something for fans too, this doesn't.

What I read was that Fuller's plan was for a single, super-epic story that would start before TOS and end somewhere post-Nemesis. That implies a complete or near-complete turnover of the cast (possibly multiple times). It wasn't exactly an anthology, put not exactly not an anthology either.

I've finally had the time to watch the first three episodes, which I binged tonight (I've been traveling this entire time and thus have not been able to take part). I...have no idea what to think.

Likely spoilers - ye be warned.

I find the show interesting as a sci-fi series. The what-the-fuck situation on the Discovery itself and what is Lorca's deal and all that is intriguing to me, and I want to find out what's going on there (though I fear it's just going to be Section 31 again, which I kind of find too predictable). I like the cast and the performances for the most part. The effects are great. Etc.

I just am having a lot of trouble reconciling it as Star Trek. It feels like an interesting new sci-fi show with potential, but I don't know how "Star Trek"-y it feels. It's like they took the often-mocked "we can't show conflict between Starfleet officers" thing and swung so far to the other extreme that the pendulum almost goes all the way around again. We've been taken from a general atmosphere of shows set among professional grown-ups with good intentions into the most dysfunctional, weirdly sinister ship in Trek history (which just sort of reinforces my Section 31 expectations), with a lead who's an unbalanced mutineer and a captain who comes across at the end like a creepy villain-in-hiding or something. It's like DSC takes place entirely amongst the ship of one of the corrupt, crazy captains/admirals that our actual heroes would have to stop/set right on other Trek shows, which *could* be interesting. I'm just really thrown off by all of it.

(I feel like Michelle Yeoh's character could have been the captain of a real, classic-style Trek show that I'd LOVE, but, alas...)

And the whole "this is totally set in the prime timeline ten years before TOS" I find pretty much impossible to reconcile. This is so heavily inspired by the Abrams aesthetic and non-Trek dark & gritty sci-fi - and incorporates absolutely none of the design language of TOS - that it just kind of further makes me feel like this is a totally new thing that takes place apart from everything else. It's compounded by the fact that the insistence on this being a prime timeline prequel means we *know* the Discovery experiment fails, because the bizarre organic engine thing never appears again.

So...I don't know. I am into the show and want to keep watching, but I feel weird trying to accept this as Star Trek.

What if it is Star Trek..... but not!?


Says the producers.

Isn't that almost certainly because there is a zero percent chance that CBS would be cool with Netflix offering the show during the season, because then nobody would sign up for All Access?  So like, not that it's a good idea, and it's still annoying, but it arguably makes business sense from CBS' standpoint?

Oh yeah, my bad.  That does make no sense, yeah.  Also idk that die-hard Trek fans are that big of a market that they're going to singlehandedly make All Access as watched as something like Netflix or Hulu, even if the show were super-Star Trekkish.

Haha but Lorca's got a pet tribble so you know it's Star Trek, see.