Comiskeybum

Episode 1.3 “Context is for Kings” discussion thread.

Recommended Posts

SPOILERS

I knew it would be the case, but I don't understand why Michael is being blamed for the war and all the deaths. She mutinied for about 30 seconds and accomplished nothing while "in charge."  If she had managed to get the shot fired, and that in turn spurred the Klingons to decimate the fleet, okay now we're talking, but the captain wakes up in 30 seconds, takes control, tries to negotiate peace (against her first officers advice) and Klingons go to town on them.  So maybe it's Georgiou's fault? Or nobody's fault, as it seemed like T'Kuvma was going to have his war one way or the other.  

Otherwise I'm enjoying the show...except for the entire premise.  Erm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kaiser The Great said:

SPOILERS

I knew it would be the case, but I don't understand why Michael is being blamed for the war and all the deaths. She mutinied for about 30 seconds and accomplished nothing while "in charge."  If she had managed to get the shot fired, and that in turn spurred the Klingons to decimate the fleet, okay now we're talking, but the captain wakes up in 30 seconds, takes control, tries to negotiate peace (against her first officers advice) and Klingons go to town on them.  So maybe it's Georgiou's fault? Or nobody's fault, as it seemed like T'Kuvma was going to have his war one way or the other. 

^
Thanks!

I thought I was alone in seeing/understanding that point.  

***** SPOILERS *****

 

 

The only thing that Michael did that was objectionable was killing K’Tuvma (against her own suggestion) which led to his martyrdom.   But... that wasn’t the subject of her court-martial, was it?   She was sentenced to life (bit harsh, Starfleet!) for mutiny but her 30 seconds of mutiny did NOTHING to change the outcome of the situation.   Not to mention that Georgiou AGREED to Burnham’s plan to beam aboard and try to capture K’Tuvma.    That it failed and K’Tuvma was martyred is the only ‘failure’ of Burnham’s that I can see; the mutiny had little-to-no-bearing on the final outcome of the battle of the binary stars.  

The Klingons were determined to engage in a war with the Federation; either in retaliation for Georgiou’s seemingly insulting, “We come in peace” remark (which they mocked in the beginning of the first episode) or if Burnham has been successful in striking the first blow (which might’ve demonstrated a take-no-s#!t stance on Starfleet’s part, and given the Klingons pause; but we’ll never know...).

And Burnham’s performance in “CIFK” further demonstrates that she IS still a good person and a loyal Starfleet officer.   Her poignant case to Capt. Lorca was beautifully scripted and acted; she is and always will be a first officer, whether she holds that rank or not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Thanks!

I thought I was alone in seeing/understanding that point.  

***** SPOILERS *****

 

 

The only thing that Michael did that was objectionable was killing K’Tuvma (against her own suggestion) which led to his martyrdom.   But... that wasn’t the subject of her court-martial, was it?   She was sentenced to life (bit harsh, Starfleet!) for mutiny but her 30 seconds of mutiny did NOTHING to change the outcome of the situation.   Not to mention that Georgiou AGREED to Burnham’s plan to beam aboard and try to capture K’Tuvma.    That it failed and K’Tuvma was martyred is the only ‘failure’ of Burnham’s that I can see; the mutiny had little-to-no-bearing on the final outcome of the battle of the binary stars.  

The Klingons were determined to engage in a war with the Federation; either in retaliation for Georgiou’s seemingly insulting, “We come in peace” remark (which they mocked in the beginning of the first episode) or if Burnham has been successful in striking the first blow (which might’ve demonstrated a take-no-s#!t stance on Starfleet’s part, and given the Klingons pause; but we’ll never know...).

And Burnham’s performance in “CIFK” further demonstrates that she IS still a good person and a loyal Starfleet officer.   Her poignant case to Capt. Lorca was beautifully scripted and acted; she is and always will be a first officer, whether she holds that rank or not. 

 

Well she did do the deed that got them into the war int he first place, and that is killing T'Kuvma, which of course made him a martyr and started this whole war. That along with her previous actions may have been enough for the Starfleet brass to put Burnham away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rusty0918 said:

Well she did do the deed that got them into the war int he first place, and that is killing T'Kuvma, which of course made him a martyr and started this whole war. That along with her previous actions may have been enough for the Starfleet brass to put Burnham away.

Yes, but the court-martial summary seemed more about her mutiny than anything else; and one could argue that with her captain dead, her own life was imminently threatened (she WAS on an enemy ship, after all...). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rusty0918 said:

Well she did do the deed that got them into the war int he first place, and that is killing T'Kuvma, which of course made him a martyr and started this whole war. That along with her previous actions may have been enough for the Starfleet brass to put Burnham away.

I think T'Kuvma decimating all the Starfleet ships and declaring their borders as Klingon territory probably got the ball rolling on the whole war thing.  No one's even mentioned T'Kuvma's martyrdom, but rather seem to focus on all the deaths from that battle, (e.g., "my cousin was on that one ship that got blowed up and it's all your fault," etc.).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kaiser The Great said:

I think T'Kuvma decimating all the Starfleet ships and declaring their borders as Klingon territory probably got the ball rolling on the whole war thing.  No one's even mentioned T'Kuvma's martyrdom, but rather seem to focus on all the deaths from that battle, (e.g., "my cousin was on that one ship that got blowed up and it's all your fault," etc.).  

None of the bitter Starfleeters Burnham’s encountered seem overly concerned with Klingon logic; they seem more shocked that she disobeyed her captain and (inadvertently) led to her captain’s death (or only hastened it, IMO; the binary star battle had only one possible outcome as far as I could tell...war).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 7:58 AM, Robin Bland said:

Yes, The new Trek, like the old, honors real, living people by naming a character after one. I think that's great. Geordi was named after George LaForge, IRRC and I'm sure there are other examples. 

Another thing I've been pondering - tonal change again - everyone we've met so far feels like someone doing their job - a tough job. There's a verisimilitude to the characters and the overall mood; the way they're presented. It's beautiful and slickly filmed, moreson perhaps than any previous Trek, but the characters are all presented with the tics and foibles modern human beings have. hence Sylvia Tilley's nervous ramble, Lorca's vision impairment (and choice to keep it), Burnham's bleak resignation to her situation, even Saru's embarrassment about his involuntary evolutionary responses. The characters are imperfect, and really, really nicely detailed and brought to life by every actor. Great care has gone into creating those character subtleties. This is something I really appreciate and am looking forward to seeing develop. 

So glad you commented on this. The realism you describe was present in the first moments we saw the Shenzou crew in action at the binary stars and it continues with the Discovery. Hope they maintain this, even though it requires a few moments of screen time and bits of dialogue. 

 

Back to the space fungus. Only seen the ep once, so I am reflecting on how the barrage of technobabble initially washed over me. I was skeptical when they said there would be technobabble on DSC. TOS largely forbade its use, and later Treks abused it. But they way it was written and delivered 1) made me think it was based on real science, the deeply weird quantum level science, to the point where I want to research if they are just making this up or is there a physics paper out there that contains the germ of the idea 2) it was so believable that I thought, oh on rewatch I will get more details that will help this make sense, but even at first blush this all makes sense. 

TOS did not use technobabble because they did not need to. We did not need to know how a warp drive or a phaser worked in order to believe that it did work. TNG used technobabble--this is my hunch, but I have not watched the series in a while--to make Data sound smart, and it bled over to the other characters and soon became a plot crutch. DSC, at least in this episode, is using it more strategically. First, the technobabble is necessary because they have to explain how the ship can travel faster than all other ships in the history of the franchise. But unlike TNG and VOY, the technobabble is not smart-sounding gibberish. All the technical details in DSC were actually thought through and means something that will have physical, on screen implications. I'm open to more of it.

Here is a good video on the Spore Drive:          

      

Edited by Justin Snead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having watched the video, I just took it as some sort of quantum entanglement with these spore lifeforms. The Glenn could lock onto them and be pulled to them.

No crazier than most of the rest of what Star Trek calls science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Not having watched the video, I just took it as some sort of quantum entanglement with these spore lifeforms. The Glenn could lock onto them and be pulled to them.

No crazier than most of the rest of what Star Trek calls science.

 

The video does reference quantum entanglement, so you're on to something. 

19 hours ago, nepr said:

About Captain Lorca's immediate future... Have y'all seen this?  Note the date.

Follow stars on Twitter as I do does provide some insight. It's the reason I believe.... spoiler ..... that T'Kuvma is going to be in more episodes, either he is not dead or he is in flashback. I know this because Chris Obi traveled to Vancouver for filming several months apart. He was filming long after the first two episoes were done. Hence he will be in future episodes. 

Isaacs quote, and some others, tease that there will be some pretty big surprises in this season. Being that the show has been pretty unexpected so far, I bet we are in for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ....

Um ....

This felt like a proper first episode. In fact - I'd argue the show should have started here and not with the other two episodes. Imagine if the show started out with a mysterious prisoner that others on the crew disliked. Someone with a sordid, controversial past being brought aboard. Then as the episode (or season if you want to drag it out) continued, there could have been flashbacks instead of revealing it all in two (what felt like) rushed episodes.

Burnham was so much more tolerable here. Maybe the actress just fell into the "curse" of Star Trek pilots where the actor or actress acts wooden until they get a handle on who their characters are meant to be. IDK. But she was far more interesting in this episode than she was in the last two.

Lorca was a nice addition to the cast. A bit on the nose in the "evil" department but we'll see where they are going with him. One complain I have if this ship is some type of Section 31 operation? Between the evil captain and the black badges - it doesn't seem like they're hiding they are Section 31. Like the evil admiral who openly talks about it in Star Trek: Into Darkness. Did the show runners forget this is a secret, clandestine organization?

Not much is shown of Landry but she was a good character. I love seeing BSG alumni popping up in science fiction (or anywhere in general).

I'm not sold on the new cadet character. I'm just not a fan of the bumbling, nervous wreck of a character. She has potential for growth, though.

The chief scientists/botanist character is an absolute prick. But maybe that is a good thing? Not all Starfleet have to be these hand holding types. A lot of potential for story-telling.

The plot about the universe having some type of nervous system like a giant body is unique. There are some people that think we are nothing more than cells inside of a massive body. Maybe Trek is going down that route? Although, the obvious issue is ... this is destined to fail as we don't see it later down the line. Seems kind of like a waste of time but maybe it can give us some good story telling in the mean while.

Personal notes:

I find it funny that there is a rejection of doing this as an updated TOS because it would look too corny (even updated). Yet, the tractor beam of the DSC literally looked as cartoonish as something out of TOS. As did the transporters. But oh well...

Also, Andoria ... is meant to be a cold, frozen world ... *whistles innocently*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that so many think Lorca is evil or nefarious. He's certainly not the kind of captain we are used to, but he's not beyond the pale. Yet. And he basically telegraphed to Burnham that after the war they will use the spore drive to do some old fashioned exploring. 

And does anyone else detect a southern accent that Jason Isaacs is doing?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was probably wrong in saying he is "evil" but I meant it is obvious that his depiction is meant to elicit the reaction that he is a shady character. Between standing in the shadows (explained by his eye condition) and his laboratory there is something ... off about him. The way he wants this infamous mutineer in his crew and how he is clearly operating this secret project makes one feel uncertain about his character. His nonchalant attitude about the crew of the Glenn as well. It's a lot of little things ...

Although, again, I should say that "evil" is a bit much and I shouldn't have used that word. He is certainly different from previous captains (a good thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Founder said:

I was probably wrong in saying he is "evil" but I meant it is obvious that his depiction is meant to elicit the reaction that he is a shady character. Between standing in the shadows (explained by his eye condition) and his laboratory there is something ... off about him. The way he wants this infamous mutineer in his crew and how he is clearly operating this secret project makes one feel uncertain about his character. His nonchalant attitude about the crew of the Glenn as well. It's a lot of little things ...

Although, again, I should say that "evil" is a bit much and I shouldn't have used that word. He is certainly different from previous captains (a good thing)

Oh you are on to something for sure and many many have sensed the same thing about Lorca. I picked up on all the same signals. However, for some reason I just really liked the character and did not see him "through a mirror darkly". Episode 4 gave us some evidence for and against this point of view, but I suppose we should carry that over to the new thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 9:45 PM, Justin Snead said:

Oh you are on to something for sure and many many have sensed the same thing about Lorca. I picked up on all the same signals. However, for some reason I just really liked the character and did not see him "through a mirror darkly". Episode 4 gave us some evidence for and against this point of view, but I suppose we should carry that over to the new thread.  

Rewatched this one. Count me as a Lorca fan, also. Maybe he'll turn out to be  bad guy, or maybe he's a more interesting fusion of shady moral characteristics and positive motivations expressed through all manner of dodgy quirks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now