New Star Trek series - 2017

Steampunk said:
I'm surprised at how easily the Federation were tricked into war because of a broken comms satellite. They should have bailed out of the confrontation, fallen back and then regrouped with bigger numbers. If the Klingons had chased them over the neutral zone, the Federation would have had the moral high ground to defend themselves, would have had more ships and greater firepower, would have had better supply lines while the Klingons would have had theirs stretched into Federation space. All those other Klingon houses ran to answer the light of Kahless on the border, but they wouldn't have come into Federation space, and they wouldn't have formed up together back into a single empire if there was nothing there for them to fight.
Click to expand...

They weren't in the neutral zone were they? I thought it was the edge of federation space otherwise there isn't a hope in hell the federation would fight there. As soon as the klingons rocked up they would have done a runner back into their own space. We also don't know how much of a fleet star fleet has at this point. What turned up might have been a fair bit of it. I don't think fighting a war in space is the same as a traditional military campaign either where your supplies run out and you take weeks/months to get home.

Steampunk said:
It's like the Klingons were the brainy, clever, manipulative ones, and the Federation were the stupid warmongers who charged in without thinking. What was the Federation defending? Not a colony, they were light years away. It was an unnecessary conflict that took place where it was unfavourable to the Federation.
Click to expand...

They were in federation space and simply called for backup because they were outnumbered.

Steampunk said:
As for Burnham, she did what she did to protect her ship and captain. Mutineer? More like disobeying a direct order, assaulting a senior officer, etc, but the logs and report will show that in the end that she might have been doing the right thing, and the Federation response was the wrong thing, getting their asses kicked and reuniting the Klingons in a war against the Federation. It convenient for the story that the happy-clappy "never shoot first" Starfleet suddenly can't see things from Burnham's point of view, or that she might have been the one prevented from making the right decision under the circumstances to save the ship and prevent war.
Click to expand...

I don't think star fleet care what your motives were when it comes to mutiny in space. If you can't follow chain of command and be depended on to do so then you are no use. You can't have a rule saying "do this or else (unless you kind of have a good reason). The captain wasn't acting strangely and she wasn't doing something that would obviously endanger the crew. If the captain spoke to star fleet they would have told her to ignore Michaels advice as well. They would probably have gone easy on her when the facts were looked at but she wouldn't be absolved of guilt.

Steampunk said:
And don't get me started on Georgiou deciding the two of them were the best people to launch a two man assault on a Klingon capital ship to kidnap it's commander. That was always going to end badly. You would have sent a security team or marine squad, not just the two physically smallest officers trained for command rather than ship assault and combat. No wonder Georgiou got killed.
Click to expand...

This is how star trek has always worked. The first officer, captain, main cast always go on away missions, usually with a no name crewman to die. They also wanted to kill the captain and that was their way of doing it.
 
Ep 3 seemed to have very little in common with eps 1 and 2...
I quite like it, but then I am quite a big ST fan.
 
Maybe I've missed it, but why is she called 'Michael'? That really grates with me every time I hear someone say it.
 
Maybe she's just called that, I remember decades ago that the actress who played the mother in The Waltons was also called Michael, I remember on the title credits they had to put Mrs on the front of her name in the listing so that everyone knew it was a she :)
 
It was bugging me too when I started watching it, but apparently this is why...

Martin-Green will play Commander Michael Burnham, and the traditionally male name for the female character has become a point of discussion for fans of Star Trek.

However, fans of Discovery’s co-creator Bryan Fuller should recognize it as the creator’s signature.

"We've worked on many shows with Bryan and it's a motif,” executive producer Aaron Harberts tells TV Guide. “It's his signature move to name his lead women with names that would typically be associated as male.”

Looking back on Fuller’s work, the pattern holds. Ellen Muth played George on Dead Like Me, Anna Friel played Chuck in Pushing Daisies, and Caroline Dhavernas played Jaye on Wonderfalls.

The producers of Star Trek: Discovery considered a handful of names for Martin-Green’s character before eventually landing on Michael.
Click to expand...
http://comicbook.com/startrek/2017/09/23/star-trek-discovery-michael-burnham-name/
 
So no decent reason than the man that produces it likes to cast women with mens names, is that some how sexist..
 
Trig said:
So no decent reason than the man that produces it likes to cast women with mens names, is that some how sexist..
Click to expand...
It's a bit weird is what it is. But whatever. I will get used to it. No big deal.
 
After watching the third episode last night the first two do still feel like a prequel. Weird that the first two episodes where in 4k Dolby vision but episode 3 is in 1080p with Dolby vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom