Sim

Senior Member
  • Content count

    5,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Sim

  • Rank
    Klingon Negh'Var
  • Birthday October 26

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany
  • Marital Status
    Married
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    The Undiscovered Country
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Jean-Luc Picard
  • Favorite Trek Series
    Deep Space Nine
  • Interests
    Music (modern jazz, hard rock, progressive rock, alternative rock, classical music mostly), tv series (mostly genre, HBO and AMC), reading, politics & history, religions

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

19,855 profile views
  1. Episode 1.5 "Choose Your Pain" Discussion Thread

    My wife and I are still loving the show. I see there is quite some speculation about the identity of Lt. Ash Tyler and Stamets' mirror effect in the end... one thing is for sure: I'm really glad that I have really no idea where the authors are going to go! Some wild speculation: As for Lt. Tyler, that he's a Klingon spy is an interesting idea... maybe he's even a genetically or surgically altered Klingon? Maybe the key to explaining the different types of Klingons (IF they're going to give an on-screen explanation after all)? Or maybe he's some kind of Section 31 agent who'll later play a role in giving Burnham a new job? (<--- assuming Burnham won't stay "tolerated prisoner by grace of Lorca" for the rest of the entire show -- she could be hired by Section 31 or something? Also, I could be wrong, but Lorca's backstory somehow demands for a kind of resolution, perhaps he's more a "one season only"-kind of baddie, much like the baddies on shows like "The Walking Dead" ... and once he's gone, Burnham will need another reason for staying on the ship.) And the mirror effect? Could be parallel universes, as Robin said ... or could be some kind of "possession"? Who knows what he brought with him from the mycelium network... On the bottom line, after 5 episodes, I really like the show. Although I still have slight troubles feeling a familiar "Star Trek feeling"... but episode 5 was the best episode in these regards already, with the Tardigrade story and Harry Mudd. A minor complaint, though: Michael Burnham is so far the least interesting character in the show, IMO. That's a pity, as she is clearly the main character. But I can't help it, the other characters impress me more: Stamets (very sympathetic), Saru (interesting new alien race), Lorca (formidable baddie), even Tilly (unusually insecure for a Starfleet officer, but fun)... just Michael Burnham remains weirdly bland, so far. Well, maybe that's going to change. I'm more than open to learn where they are going with her, anyway.
  2. Funny bit I didn't know: A friend who's into gardening told me he loved they called the scientist Paul Stamets -- as the real Paul Stamets is "the Pope, the Messiah and the Santa Claus of funghi breeding and mykology". He's read two books by him.
  3. Wow. Just watched the episode with my wife, and we totally loved it. SPOILERS: Yes, it's much darker in tone than previous Star Trek ... but all the elements that are there to make it dark have precedents in Star Trek: Like someone said above, we had the USS Pegasus, the military interest in the WMD capacities of the Genesis project, conspiracies in the fleet, twisted bodies and so on ... nobody can say these dark elements are not in Star Trek's DNA. Except it's much more explicit this time. So despite the unfamiliarly dark tone, it's all very familiar! My first thought wasn't "Pegasus" (well okay, that too), but Project Genesis. Biology on the submolecular level? Sounds like Genesis. I love how shades of grey the characters are, and the entire situation. Still no flawless, morally superior hero around. But is this truly Star Trek? What about the moral optimism? At least there are hints that Burnham will, despite her questionable past, uphold a moral standard and "do the right thing" in the end -- not because she's a flawless character, but as part of her personal learning curve. That's a great idea. If that's going to happen, it won't be entirely without precedent either, think of Riker in "The Pegasus". The hostility Burnham meets after boarding the Discovery reminds me of what they were trying to do with Tom Paris at first, but failed to keep up. So, this all is very much Star Trek, IMO! Also, this episode was really thrilling and gripping. At least it felt so to me. I liked the first two episodes already, but the show IMO made another huge leap forward and I'm beginning to love it -- at very least, I'm absolutely hooked now. And Burnham herself? I already find her much more sympathetic than in the first two episodes. (Last week, I was more like "let's see where they are going with her", but now, I even start sympathizing with her). Only complaint: That quoting of Alice in Wonderland, like her attempts at poetry last week, are campy. Please stop it. Also noticed that this episode is 48 minutes. Guess the short runtime of the first two episodes was indeed just because they were on regular network tv.
  4. Maybe I got it all wrong ... but I took it like it was the whole point that Burnham is NOT the "smart and good person": She's irratic and impulsive, despite her Vulcan education, and when she attempts heroism, it backfires big time. I think it was intentional that we're not supposed to like her on first glance, because that's what her redemption character arc that is going to follow is supposed to do, over the course of the season. At first, I was a bit confused too, because with old Star Trek, classic heros were a given. I was not prepared for seeing an anti-hero. But IMO, that's really the most fundamental departure of DSC compared to old Trek -- we're supposed to sympathize with a flawed character, rather than a hero. A bit like Tom Paris' backstory... except it's actually more realistically depicted this time -- in case of Tom Paris, they cheated around his character premise by making him too relatable from the beginning, and not even showing his "dark past". This time, we get to see it all.
  5. Hey Founder, great points, and good observation! Upon first viewing, many of the cons you name irritated me too -- although my bottom line feeling is much more positive. I especially noticed the lack of the ship Discovery, the lack of an introduction of its crew and the main characters, and Burnham's irratic, unrelatable character. But ... after quite some thinking, I told myself this: This is not a pilot episode of a new Star Trek show. It's episode 1 and 2 of a fully serialized show like "Game of Thrones" or "The Expanse", that will feature a complex arc and character development over the course of entire seasons. All we got to see so far is just the prehistory of Burnham's character. The new format does not allow a pilot episode like the old shows had -- where we get introduced to all characters and the ship that will be in the focus until episode 178 --, simply because there will be no such strict focus for DSC. The focus will be Burnham, so it was her backstory. Perhaps the show will be less static than previous shows, perhaps even main characters may be killed off during the course of the arcs, much like in the other new serialized shows of this age. So when Burnham appears hard to relate to, irratic or even irrational in the beginning? That's perhaps part of the idea -- she'll get a character growth arc, over the course of which we're supposed to grow to like her. It's the whole point that she is NOT the flawless, likable hero we expected her to be, because we're used to Star Trek main characters being that. No matter how she'll end up on the Discovery, despite her life in prison, perhaps the crew of the ship will meet her with skepticism and resentment at first, too, and her arc is about how she redeems herself? At least that's one possibility. And the fact that the entire first 2 episodes are dedicated to Burnham's backstory, that hints at the scope of the upcoming arc: Rather than just tell her backstory in a few words (like in case of Tom Paris in the VOY pilot), we actually get to *see* it with our own eyes. If I'll love the show and the character by the end of the season, I'll perhaps think in retrospect, it was amazing we got to see this backstory, rather than just being told it in a few words. It feels more epic this way. As for the new Klingon look ... yeah, I had to gulp too for a moment... so hard to see these new Klingons as the same race as so many beloved old characters ... but on the other side, I appreciate they truly look alien again. Also, I subsume this under the "this show needs to appeal to new NuTrek fans, too" design paradigm. I guess I'll get used to it. Much like I once got used to the new Klingon look and style in "The Search for Spock".
  6. Yes, I absolutely agree. It's great that it's very new -- we already got "old" Star Trek, so there is no justification for just remaking it. And then, after the 4th watching, it feels much, much more familiar to me now... I was just overwhelmed by all the new impressions during the first viewing. When I rewatched it, after having gotten used to the new elements, the familiar elements jumped to my eye much more. So now I feel this is a very intriguing, promising start for a new Star Trek show. The visuals are clearly designed in a manner to get the NuTrek fans on board, too, which isn't a bad thing: The show *has* to look modern in 2017. I don't mind the new Klingon design either (no matter if we'll get an onscreen explanation in the end or not). It's great the look truly alien again. But apart from design, the show's most fundamental departure from "old" Trek is IMO that for the first time, there is an anti-hero at the center: With all the old Trek in mind, you would have assumed that Burnham's plan miraculously works out and she'll be the hero at the end. Not so here. It backfired big time, she screwed up and now is a pariah -- amazing! That is truly new in Star Trek. I'm looking forward to Monday to see how it all continues ... On the bottom line: I'm hooked.
  7. Just watched it and have a hard time getting my thoughts on it into an order... so much new input all at once! First of all, I liked it. This was a very promising start of an amazing looking SF series, and it makes me curious about how it's all going to go on from here. Plus the visuals and sets are impressive, it really looks amazing. As for the characters, it only focused on three characters, one of which is dead by the end -- too early to say much about it so far. Burnham is interesting, but I don't have the feeling yet to know much about her, after two episodes. Guess that's what the rest of the season is for. But for the most part, I had troubles considering it a Star Trek show. It did not feel like Star Trek to me ... at all. Doesn't mean that in a bad way: It was really good. Just that I somehow feel on first impression, it appears to be closer to shows like "The Expanse" or even "Game of Thrones" than to "old" Star Trek -- two shows I really like. But I never had this "wow, this feels familiar"-Star Trek-feeling, or even hints of nostalgia. But maybe I just need some time to process all the new impressions, let them sink in and rewatch the episodes. So for the time being, after first watching? Most promising new SF show. But if I'll be able to convince myself it's in the same universe, or has anything remotely to do with the old Star Trek shows, time will tell.
  8. It's IMO a very promising show, but I had troubles getting into it for the first 3 or 4 episodes, too. It takes quite some time to set the stage. But especially the world building gets even more detailed and once the main characters are introduced, it picks up some steam, and there are some nice hard-SF elements here and there. I suspect you'll enjoy it.
  9. The Third Season in Pictures

    I agree about season 3... it still has quite a lot of gems. And I guess my least favorite episode goes to "Alternative Factor" from season 1, rather than to a season 3 episode: This episode is just an incoherent mess that doesn't make much sense (to me at least) ... while the bad season 3 episodes at least are *spectacularly* bad, so they are at least remarkable and memorable.
  10. Alien Covenant

    Based on all the things you write on the movie, I'm torn ... on one side, I wonder if I should even bother watching it, on the other side, a morbid curiosity to see with my own eyes how bad it actually is...
  11. Lots of New Information on Discovery

    Sounds like a good plan! I have to admit, judging from the pictures, he does have a vague Stewardesque vibe...
  12. Lots of New Information on Discovery

    The pictures do increase my anticipation... at very least, the show looks good! As far as I am concerned, I'm ready for DSC... Does that mean you'll give DSC a chance after all? :D
  13. Hello from BolianAdmiral

    Hello again! STD is "Discovery"? You already know you'll hate it? So... are you in the "the visual reboot doesn't match the TOS timeline" camp? We had quite a few debates on this topic ...
  14. The Third Season in Pictures

    I even love the totally terrible TOS episodes... "Spock's Brain" and "That Which Survives" are so bad, they're even good. Years back, a couple of friends and I would watch these episodes when drunk... fun guaranteed! Even "And the Children..." has that cute scene of Kirk grabbing Spock's arms in the turbolift ( it was in this episode, wasn't it?) -- the K/S-happy friend of my wife started squeeking! That alone made the episode worthwhile. And "Way to Eden"? IMO not quite the same league of bad... I love Spock sympathizing with the hippies (great idea!), and the backstory for Checkov, regardless how cliché it is. Also, space hippies were perhaps a much better idea back in 1968, than they appear in retrospect -- and today, you can watch this episode as a document of contemporary history. So... the episode is far from good, but a bit underrated, IMO.
  15. Alien Covenant

    Still haven't seen the movie.