This isn't a full review, but I do have some brief thoughts.
I think I liked it. It was intense. Interesting.
I really liked the characters. And I liked the actors.
Although final judgement will have to wait until I see more episodes.
I do, however, have some continuity nitpicks.
First...
Thoughts on Continuity
As someone who used to be a Star Trek fan since the 1980s, I remember when people used to complain about Star Trek's continuity problem.
In interviews, writers and producers used to complain about how hard it was to tell new stories in the Star Trek world since there was so much continuity to keep track of, and it was suffocating new stories.
Amazing how times have changed. Television shows have gotten so sophisticated that, by comparison, Star Trek's continuity looks like nothing.
In most Star Trek episodes, the Enterprise would go to a completely new planet, and the basic story would reset with each new planet.
You had to keep track of the technology available on the Enterprise (what the ship could do, and what the ship couldn't do). And you had a handful of facts to keep straight about the Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans. And that was pretty much it
Compare that to the complex convoluted story going on in Game of Thrones now.
OK, Game of Thrones is an extreme example. But pretty much most shows on TV now have a ongoing story and continuity to keep track of.
Even Star Wars, which was always supposed to be the fun, brainless science fiction franchise, is rapidly developing a more convoluted continuity than Star Trek. (Kirk and Spock can always go off and investigate a completely new planet, but every episode of Star Wars has to fit into the saga of the rise and fall of the Galactic Empire.)
That being said, I do have some thoughts:
1) Why make this a prequel? Why? Prequels are boring. We already know what's going to happen to the Federation in 20 years, you can't surprise us. (Or you could, but then you'd create continuity problems). Why not just set this series after the established continuity? What advantage do you gain by making this a prequel?
(I know Star Trek: Enterprise was a prequel, but isn't that widely cited as one of the main reason Star Trek: Enterprise flopped?)
2) Making the main character into Spock's adopted sister also creates problems.
We already did the "Spock has a long lost sibling you never heard about" thing in Star Trek V. And Spock already had to explain away once why Kirk had never heard of his brother. So why do it again?
(That being said... now that we've already opened up this Pandora's box, I'm going to expect to hear about the young Sybok at some point on Star Trek: Discovery.)
3) Some fans are complaining that the technology in Star Trek: Discovery doesn't look like the set of the original series. But to me, this is water under the bridge at this point. Star Trek: Enterprise and J.J. Abrams Star Trek already showed us technology that doesn't look like the original series.
My own personal philosophy is that you have to cut the show some slack on visual representations, because visual styles have changed since 1966.
4). I would have been content to also excuse away the Klingon make-up as evolving visual representation. Except that the show wasn't. Star Trek: Enterprise went through the trouble of doing a 3-episode story arc to explain why the Klingons during Kirk and Spock's era look different than the Klingons in the TNG era. So it's canon now. So I'm counting this as a continuity nitpick.
5). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but during the original Star Trek series, only the Romulans had cloaking technology. It wasn't until later that the Klingons developed it.
So, if this show is set 10 years before Kirk and Spock, the Klingons shouldn't be able to cloak their ships, right? (See, this is exactly the reason why they shouldn't have made this a prequel. Look at all the problems prequels cause!)
Bonus Link:
Star Trek Discovery (Pilot Episodes) - re:View
3 comments:
Watching episode 2 now, and I have another nitpick--Photon Torpedoes are not that small.
I'm having great difficulty getting behind this show, and I'm not sure why. The prequel element really bugs me -- I thought a new show could be launched in the rebooted universe, and maybe that's what this is?
But the acting bugs me, the cluttered sets bug me, the continuity blunders bug me (maybe they'll devote three episodes to how the Klingons lost the turtle before they put it back on again). It bugs me they're part of a pay-to-stream fleece -- and what could be more Star Trek than that? This is a property that's bilked its fans of untold fortunes by capitalising on cutting edge content release.
Maybe I'm just getting infected by the global craziness -- pay no attention to me, please.
I'm with you on the prequel element, at least.
I've been largely enjoying this new Star Trek series on the whole. But... why did they have to make it a prequel?
And they mess up continuity right from the first episode.
I mean, a few episodes in, once the writers are getting tired and everyone is rushing to meet the deadline, I can understand there might be a few slip-ups. But all these mistakes right from the first episode? (Klingons are not supposed to have cloaking devices at this time, Photon Torpedos the wrong size, etc).
If they had just set this series in normal continuity (i.e. after DS9) I would have very little to complain about. In fact, I would be a fan.
I've largely been enjoying the story so far. I just don't understand why it had to be a prequel.
Of course, I'll have to suspend judgement to see where they go with this, ultimately. If it turns out there's some sort of pay-off later in the story where it ties in perfectly to Kirk and Spock, then I'll understand why they made it a prequel.
Post a Comment