Discovery is doing something we've not seen for a long time in a Star Trek series. Being interesting.
I've heard the complaints about how un-Trek the show feels, but I've got some of my own thoughts.
Spoilers ahead for Episode 1, 2 and 3.
It's feels un-Trek, but then what is Trek?
To me, Star Trek (in whichever incarnation you're watching) was at its best when trying to answer questions about human nature, both the good and the bad parts. Initially I thought Discovery veered too close to feeling like Battlestar Galactica and other high paced dramas we have now, where there is ample conflict and characters with shades of grey. Then I realised something.
Star Trek already went down that route, in 1993. It was called DS9, and it was bloody good.
DS9 already experimented with the kind of storytelling we now see in every series. It may have been made in the 90s but it demonstrated many things that we're now familiar with - long story arcs, consequences that persisted, character conflict - and this made it interesting.
In contrast, Enterprise was dull and uninspiring, retreading old ground without adding anything refreshing.
In contrast, Enterprise was dull and uninspiring, retreading old ground without adding anything refreshing.
You simply cannot make Discovery and make it an episode of the week series. People expect much more.
Characters, conflict and hidden agendas
The big shake up is that Discovery's lead, Michael Burnham, isn't the commanding officer. In fact, she goes from being first officer to being tried and convicted for mutineering. The USS Shenzou, the ship she serves on, is destroyed and her captain is killed while fighting the Klingons. It's interesting as it allows a different kind of story to be told, using a character who's fallen from grace, who doesn't fit the usual mold of an upstanding Starfleet officer.
On the subject of not fitting the mold, we also have Gabriel Lorca, Captain of the Discovery. He comes across unnerving and off kilter. If the phrase "the end justifies the means" should ever be used, it might be here. Without talking too much about plot, he uses his discretion to recruit the convicted Michael. He isn't your beloved captain, and the mood among the crew seems uneasy (but that could also be because they're on a war footing). He's respected, perhaps feared, but definitely not loved.
He's even labelled as a warmonger by Stamets, one of the science officers, though not to his face. He's definitely not on board with his captain's ideas, and thinks his research is being perverted for war. There is conflict and not everyone agrees with each other.
By the end of Episode 3, we're still left pondering the mission of the Discovery. Details are sparse and the crew are on strict orders not to divulge anything to outsiders. Everything is on a need to know basis.
The pilot was a great JJ Abrams movie
I walked away after watching the pilot with this funny feeling that I'd seen it somewhere before. Then it hit me.
It was kind of similar to Star Trek (2009). It had a lot of the same beats to that movie.
Some things were completely gratuitous as well. Michael flying through space on a jet pack and space walking, these weren't really necessary and it would seem odd to risk your First Officer in this manner.
However I've learned not to trust pilots as an indicator of how the entire series will be. The pilot was necessary, if only to grab viewers' attention and establish some kind of backstory for our main character and the events that will unfold. Episode 3, set 6 months after the events of the pilot, was more to my liking.
Visuals
Discovery doesn't disappoint in its production values. Every episode looks very cinematic, very well shot with sets that look solid. The cinematic quality can definitely be attributed to shooting in 2:1 widescreen ratio. Earlier Trek series were good for their time, but this wider aspect ratio just looks nicer.
I'm glad they put the effort into making it look this good because, frankly, in 2017 audiences expect it. Visuals aren't everything, but still necessary to tell a story.
Discovery doesn't disappoint in its production values. Every episode looks very cinematic, very well shot with sets that look solid. The cinematic quality can definitely be attributed to shooting in 2:1 widescreen ratio. Earlier Trek series were good for their time, but this wider aspect ratio just looks nicer.
I'm glad they put the effort into making it look this good because, frankly, in 2017 audiences expect it. Visuals aren't everything, but still necessary to tell a story.
The opening title
The new theme takes some getting used to. It's not as memorable as anything that's come before it, but it's growing on me each time I listen to it.
The new theme takes some getting used to. It's not as memorable as anything that's come before it, but it's growing on me each time I listen to it.
Klingon subtitles
I liked that they made the Klingons speak almost entirely in Klingonese (yes that's what it's called) and contrary to what some people have said, I think it sounded convincing. Previously, Klingon characters would throw in the odd bit of Klingon and it sounded like made up words to sound alien and aggresive.
Having entire scenes where they speak nothing but Klingonese makes it more immersive. In one of the few instances where they spoke English, T'Kuvma utters with disdain the line "we come in peace", as though there is no equivalent in his language.
As for the new look, that's an entire conversation for another time.
Everything looks too hi tech for a prequel: you can't have it look like 1960s TOS.
They made those uniforms blue: yeah, it's a bit too close to Enterprise, but if the show is good then I don't care.
Michael is Spock's step sister: yes she is and I can live with that.
Daft Punk makes an appearance.
Comments