Why does all sci-fi have to be dark and gritty? Trek's not about that. And with so much dark and gritty sci fi out there, leave Trek alone. This is why Orville is doing so well...it's not dark and gritty.
I think this depends on your perspective. Out of curiosity, what makes you feel Discovery is so "dark and gritty"? Granted, a war setting can be dark. However, look at who they are and where they are. Humans obviously made it past all those things we know happened in future Trek lore (WWIII, Eugenics Wars etc.) and came out ok. They're out there exploring the galaxy in peace with many other species. Isn't that showing a bright future for humanity?
I like the Orville too, however it remains to be seen how well it's doing. There has already been significant ratings drops for it.
Indeed. And why does the conversation have to be "us vs. them"?
Discovery's story is just getting started... shoot, we haven't even met the ship or crew yet!
I think the tone of the Discovery crew, even in the face of war, is going to be the hopeful, peaceful standard some fans demand-but-don't-see (yet).
Why does all sci-fi have to be dark and gritty? Trek's not about that. And with so much dark and gritty sci fi out there, leave Trek alone. This is why Orville is doing so well...it's not dark and gritty.
I think this depends on your perspective. Out of curiosity, what makes you feel Discovery is so "dark and gritty"? Granted, a war setting can be dark. However, look at who they are and where they are. Humans obviously made it past all those things we know happened in future Trek lore (WWIII, Eugenics Wars etc.) and came out ok. They're out there exploring the galaxy in peace with many other species. Isn't that showing a bright future for humanity?
I like the Orville too, however it remains to be seen how well it's doing. There has already been significant ratings drops for it.
Indeed. And why does the conversation have to be "us vs. them"?
Discovery's story is just getting started... shoot, we haven't even met the ship or crew yet!
I think the tone of the Discovery crew, even in the face of war, is going to be the hopeful, peaceful standard some fans demand-but-don't-see (yet).
See, this is what I'm hoping for. I'm a little (okay a lot) annoyed by the Klingon overhaul, but... I'm going to hold out hope, that there is a bit of the Trek spark in this show. I've seen.... promise. But so far the show has yet to really make itself shine in any way in my eyes.
but then TNG and Voyager were slow starts so... I will give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
That being said though, sticking this show behind a paywall has a very real potential of killing it before it can gain traction. And possibly Trek as a whole. A very real fear.
I think the tone of the Discovery crew, even in the face of war, is going to be the hopeful, peaceful standard some fans demand-but-don't-see (yet).
“So this is by far, let me amend it, the most serialized version of Star Trek that has ever existed, and as such, it’s longform character storytelling. Without conflict, there is no longform character storytelling... Our story of the Klingon War is our season one.” - Akiva Goldsman, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
"However, the results of the war are going to allow for a lot of new storytelling that will be the result of everything that happens and the people that are left behind; the casualties, the things that have grown in Starfleet as a result of the war. That’s what we’ll inherit in the second season.” - Alex Kurtzman, Lead Writer and Co-creator of Star Trek: Discovery
"Whether we’re talking about ISIS or whether we’re talking about Donald Trump, these are things in the air. New demagogues arise. And what do you do with an enemy who is implacable, who is not interested in negotiations? These are tough questions. And our series will do a disservice if it doesn’t honestly address these things.”- Nicolas Meyer, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
Probably because numerous interviews have said the first season revolves around the conflict started by Micheal Burnham, and those interviews usually talk about the "hard, difficult choices you have to make in war". Like strapping a bomb to a corpse to murder Klingon morticians. It's ok though. Since all Klingons are unreasoning killers, those morticians probably murdered like, 20 children apiece. Or maybe because of the emphasis on the show being inspired by Game of Thrones. Interviews about cast dying (which rarely happens in "peaceful" themed episodes).
Everything about the first season, as prefaced by the pilot and reinforced be writer and producer interviews says "this season is about war with an implacable, unreasonable foe. but don't worry, it will end in a utopian TOS, even though season two will focus on the horrible aftermath of war and the scars it leaves behind"
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
Klingon DECLOAKS?
Klingons didn't HAVE cloaks 10 years before TOS. In fact, ROMULANS shouldn't even have them (they were NEW in TOS), but of course, Enterprise also jumped that shark.
I didn't see it. I was prepared to give it a chanc
The exact time Klingons had acquired cloak is unknown. There is fan speculation that they got it from the Romulans in their TOS era alliance with them, but it's never been confirmed on screen. We don't know who got what when.
And of course, this Klingon had access to cloaking technology. It was something new the 24 Houses do not possess. (At least until now, we will see what happens next.)
Post edited by mustrumridcully0 on
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I'm pretty sure the Klingons whole purpose for being where they were and doing what they did was to start a war, whether Burnham was there or not. Burnham did what she did to try and stop it. And let's be honest here, the Klingons were the aggressors here, fired first and killed quite a few people themselves. They were in no way "innocent morticians".
Well... I guess?
T'kumva started the whole mess. The dudes who were collecting bodies were just kind of... collateral damage? I mean, if the guys sweeping decks did not want to die in a terrorist attack, they should have not been there? Isn't strapping a bomb to a corpse exploiting the culture of the Klingons to murder them?
Don't get me wrong. These concepts makes for good storytelling! These kinds of issues could certainly be addressed in Star Trek. But... uh... they weren't. Not saying these kinds of things should never be in Star Trek. I'm just not happy with how they handled it. I'm used to my Trek looking at moral dilemmas before doing stupid things, rather than just skipping to doing stupid things.
I think the tone of the Discovery crew, even in the face of war, is going to be the hopeful, peaceful standard some fans demand-but-don't-see (yet).
“So this is by far, let me amend it, the most serialized version of Star Trek that has ever existed, and as such, it’s longform character storytelling. Without conflict, there is no longform character storytelling... Our story of the Klingon War is our season one.” - Akiva Goldsman, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
"However, the results of the war are going to allow for a lot of new storytelling that will be the result of everything that happens and the people that are left behind; the casualties, the things that have grown in Starfleet as a result of the war. That’s what we’ll inherit in the second season.” - Alex Kurtzman, Lead Writer and Co-creator of Star Trek: Discovery
"Whether we’re talking about ISIS or whether we’re talking about Donald Trump, these are things in the air. New demagogues arise. And what do you do with an enemy who is implacable, who is not interested in negotiations? These are tough questions. And our series will do a disservice if it doesn’t honestly address these things.”- Nicolas Meyer, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
Probably because numerous interviews have said the first season revolves around the conflict started by Micheal Burnham, and those interviews usually talk about the "hard, difficult choices you have to make in war". Like strapping a bomb to a corpse to murder Klingon morticians. It's ok though. Since all Klingons are unreasoning killers, those morticians probably murdered like, 20 children apiece. Or maybe because of the emphasis on the show being inspired by Game of Thrones. Interviews about cast dying (which rarely happens in "peaceful" themed episodes).
Everything about the first season, as prefaced by the pilot and reinforced be writer and producer interviews says "this season is about war with an implacable, unreasonable foe. but don't worry, it will end in a utopian TOS, even though season two will focus on the horrible aftermath of war and the scars it leaves behind"
You act like the two are incongruent. That's not entirely true.
The writers are trying to be very deliberate in their storytelling, in order to make an overt allusion to reality. I'm glad you quoted Nick Meyer, because he did the SAME THING in Star Trek VI. Mirroring the US and Russia in the face of the USSR collapse, the Federation and Klingon governments hated each other, let alone didn't trust each other. You had people from Valeris, to Col. West, to Adm. Cartwright... to, at least initially, our beloved James Kirk... as blatant racists/speciesists/nationalists. Then, some (spearheaded by Spock, and later Kirk) began to push for that "Trek utopian" ideal.
The war is just the setting. The way you respond to it is how you fight for and uphold utopia. I mean, you complain about the war setting, but maybe you missed the constant overtures for peace and dialogue made by Starfleet representatives in the pilot...
A real face-off with a Klingon would not have gone anything remotely close to this....
Define "real."
Klingon decloaks behind you, fires some torps and disruptors. You blow up and the Klingons toast their epic victory with made up battle stories.
But a Klingon ship sitting there doing nothing and waiting for reinforcements before attacking ONE ship?!?! Yeah, that's a 'real' Klingon.
Klingon DECLOAKS?
Klingons didn't HAVE cloaks 10 years before TOS. In fact, ROMULANS shouldn't even have them (they were NEW in TOS), but of course, Enterprise also jumped that shark.
I didn't see it. I was prepared to give it a chanc
The exact time Klingons had acquired cloak is unknown. There is fan speculation that they got it from the Romulans in their TOS era alliance with them, but it's never been confirmed on screen. We don't know who got what when.
First canon confirmed appearance is in TAS, 2269 the IKS Klothos, it took three days to install the cloaking device in the engine room according to an older Kor in DS9. Commander Kor was the first Klingon to use the device from there the device spread to other D7 cruisers, the D12 bird of prey, and their upgrades, the B'rel, K'vort and K't'inga.
The Romulans began using Klingon D7's in 2268 when the D7's were on the verge of being replaced by the K't'inga class a few years later. Since the Romulans had access to Klingon Tech and Klingons had access to cloaking devices within months of each other, that is the closest we can get to the truth.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
...but maybe you missed the constant overtures for peace and dialogue made by Starfleet representatives in the pilot...
The overtures for peace that the two-dimensional Klingons would always ignore?
The way the writers backed the crew into a corner so that the ONLY response is more violence and death?
The way the writers made a mockery of diplomacy because the Klingons only speak the language of violence? I mean, we can pretend the series is about peace and that it is the fault of those darned Klingons that we can't be explorers... but I'm sure it's the writer's fault. If they wanted peaceful resolutions there would be peaceful resolutions.
On a slightly different topic, various posters have claimed that Star Trek: Discovery is highly political and that the Klingons are "Trump supporters". I dismissed these claims... until someone sent me this interview that Rolling Stone made with Aaron Harberts, the showrunner that took over after Fuller left. It's... interesting.
Fuller soon brought on longtime collaborator Aaron Harberts and his writing partner Gretchen Berg as co-executive producers... Handed the reigns, they started to envision a slightly darker version of the usual Trek stories. There's a simple reason for that: Donald Trump.
The Trump phenomenon was "front and center in our minds," Harberts admits when talking about the post-Fuller production process. "We felt like it would be interesting to really look at what's going on in the United States." He mentions that among the show's antagonists are an ultra-religious and violent Klingon faction whose rallying cry – "Remain Klingon" – is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again."
"It's a call to isolationism," the showrunner says in reference to the slogan. "It's about racial purity, and it's about wanting to take care of yourself. And if anybody is reaching a hand out to help you, it's about smacking it away . . . That was pretty provocative for us, and it wasn't necessarily something that we wanted to completely lean into. But it was happening. We were hearing the stories."
You can't always in every situation get a peaceful solution to your problems. That is the illusion that TNG loved to present, but of course, peaceful solutions are always possible if the author is on your side. In TNG's case, the goal was to decidely show an optimistic view of the future, that our better selves can prevail. But it also introduced as the Borg that (at least initally) were presented as the kind of enemy that you can't negotiate with.
DS9 went further. Its whole Dominion War Arc reminded us that sometimes we have to fight. But its conclusion also reminds us that we must never stop trying to try a peaceful resolution.
And now we have Discovery that uses a similar method. We know already where the story of the Federation and Klingon Empire leads to (the Organians will already tell Kirk in a few years, we'll see it a century later). We know that peace and cooperation is possible. And now we might get to see some of the work that went into that.
---
I think these Klingons were not that two-dimensional.
You might say they are simply evil war-mongers. But there are not simple. We see some glimpses of their culture and their motivation. The scene with the albino Klingon is also there to remind us of their complexity and that they are not just hate-mongers - the albino is included by T'Kuvma and given the honor of the position of a torchbearer, because he earned himself that place in the eye of T'Kuvma.
That can serve as a reminder that there is actually a way to get in the "good graces" of these seemingly extremist group. But it's not an easy way, and it might require some struggle to get there.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
what death penalty? there is currently NO death penalty for any action committed in federation space (because pike hasn't gone to talos yet, so that one has yet to be established)
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Aside from an assault already against her superior officer and a mutiny attempt.... I don't see how I could take much more of this series very seriously when compared to traditional Star Trek series.
She committed at least two, and possibly three crimes that would be capital crimes under the UCMJ....it depends on whether her violations of both sections of Article 90 (ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER) were considered to be in time of war or not. Granted, the Federation only has the Death Penalty for one thing (going to Talos IV), but Burnham would have never seen the inside of a Federation starship again....except for the brig in the vessel taking her to prison.
The most laughable thing about it is that it would have made no difference if she had gotten her way.....they had come there to declare War on the Federation. All she would have done is pre-empt it by attacking first, which would have caused the Federation untold difficulty with the "peacenik" factions.
1. Don't assume that in this case, the only death penalty remaining is going to the planet of the telpathic buttheads. Also, Burnham is going to PRISON, not some "rehabilitaiton" colony. The intent here is to lock her up and throw away the key.
2. Also, the T'kuwa did what he did for a very specific long range plan, to maneuver the Federation to give the excuse needed for war. Nothing actually started until the Shenzhou locked phase cannons.
3. And... the Vulcans screwed up.... had been **** up for decades.
Funny since the Federation's supposedly got rid of that sort of prison system. o.O
You can't always in every situation get a peaceful solution to your problems. That is the illusion that TNG loved to present, but of course, peaceful solutions are always possible if the author is on your side. In TNG's case, the goal was to decidely show an optimistic view of the future, that our better selves can prevail. But it also introduced as the Borg that (at least initally) were presented as the kind of enemy that you can't negotiate with.
DS9 went further. Its whole Dominion War Arc reminded us that sometimes we have to fight. But its conclusion also reminds us that we must never stop trying to try a peaceful resolution.
And now we have Discovery that uses a similar method. We know already where the story of the Federation and Klingon Empire leads to (the Organians will already tell Kirk in a few years, we'll see it a century later). We know that peace and cooperation is possible. And now we might get to see some of the work that went into that.
---
I think these Klingons were not that two-dimensional.
You might say they are simply evil war-mongers. But there are not simple. We see some glimpses of their culture and their motivation. The scene with the albino Klingon is also there to remind us of their complexity and that they are not just hate-mongers - the albino is included by T'Kuvma and given the honor of the position of a torchbearer, because he earned himself that place in the eye of T'Kuvma.
That can serve as a reminder that there is actually a way to get in the "good graces" of these seemingly extremist group. But it's not an easy way, and it might require some struggle to get there.
nope, they ARE two-dimensional. The albino scene was meaningless fluff, a 'token minority' scene and that's it, actually just a demonstration of how ALL non-Leftist minorities are viewed by those of a similar political persuasion to Kurtzman and Fuller. the Albino in that scene was a black Trump supporter, because anyone who opposed Hillary is a racist, bigoted homophobe including minorities who opposed her, because that's the narrative in hollywood and among that social set.
The show was made by people who were VERY UPSET by the outcome of the 2016 election, it's made to their views because no matter how extreme someone is, or how easily they can dehumanize their opponents, they always think they're the 'rational one'.
READ THE INTERVIEW, then apply what you read.
They stripped OUT detail about Klingons, altered what they kept, to further the political parable they're selling.
There's a reason every aspect of Klingons that made them appealing over five series and forty years was removed from this version. It's why Antifa-Burnham gets to get away with **** that would pretty much result in life imprisonment if it didn't get her the death penalty.
The showrunners deliberately applied the strategy of least respect, both to the intelligence of their audience, and the integrity of their story.
what death penalty? there is currently NO death penalty for any action committed in federation space (because pike hasn't gone to talos yet, so that one has yet to be established)
what death penalty? there is currently NO death penalty for any action committed in federation space (because pike hasn't gone to talos yet, so that one has yet to be established)
Now it's possible Starfleet have always kept this regulation or if it was something new, either way, Janeway specifically mentioned there is an option for the death penalty for being mutineers.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
what death penalty? there is currently NO death penalty for any action committed in federation space (because pike hasn't gone to talos yet, so that one has yet to be established)
Now it's possible Starfleet have always kept this regulation or if it was something new, either way, Janeway specifically mentioned there is an option for the death penalty for being mutineers.
Okay, seriously, where are people getting the idea that T'Kuvma's house are Trump analogues? T'Kuvma explicitly bases his entire mission around 'prophecy', the 'Black Fleet', Klingon Unity as the legacy of Kahless - hell, he specifically calls himself the successor of Kahless the Unforgettable! As Burnham's said, T'Kuvma was setting himself up as a Messiah. These aren't political extremists, they're religious extremists - analogous to Jihadists and Christian Fundamentalists more than Alt-Right Radicals. Did no one else notice how all 23 other Houses looked at the situation through a political/strategic lense? How it took T'Kuvma dropping the Kahless spiritualist dogma and appealing to their cultural fear of the Federation for them to support him (and even then, he didn't exactly give them a choice: he immediately opened fire and Starfleet retaliated; the other Houses didn't have time to decide, the battle had begun)?
what death penalty? there is currently NO death penalty for any action committed in federation space (because pike hasn't gone to talos yet, so that one has yet to be established)
Now it's possible Starfleet have always kept this regulation or if it was something new, either way, Janeway specifically mentioned there is an option for the death penalty for being mutineers.
Or she was just saying how she felt.
Or being hyperbolic. People still use the term 'hanged' to mean severely punished. Either that, or Trek Writers forgot their own canon. But that never happens, right? /sarcasm
Okay, seriously, where are people getting the idea that T'Kuvma's house are Trump analogues? T'Kuvma explicitly bases his entire mission around 'prophecy', the 'Black Fleet', Klingon Unity as the legacy of Kahless - hell, he specifically calls himself the successor of Kahless the Unforgettable! As Burnham's said, T'Kuvma was setting himself up as a Messiah. These aren't political extremists, they're religious extremists - analogous to Jihadists and Christian Fundamentalists more than Alt-Right Radicals. Did no one else notice how all 23 other Houses looked at the situation through a political/strategic lense? How it took T'Kuvma dropping the Kahless spiritualist dogma and appealing to their cultural fear of the Federation for them to support him (and even then, he didn't exactly give them a choice: he immediately opened fire and Starfleet retaliated; the other Houses didn't have time to decide, the battle had begun)?
The ACTUAL CREATORS OF THE SHOW said that the Klingons are analogous to Trump supporters. Their slogan "Remain Klingon" is is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again. I myself did not believe it until I was shown the interview. I thought they were generic enough to be stand ins for whomever you want to vilify.
Comments
Indeed. And why does the conversation have to be "us vs. them"?
Discovery's story is just getting started... shoot, we haven't even met the ship or crew yet!
I think the tone of the Discovery crew, even in the face of war, is going to be the hopeful, peaceful standard some fans demand-but-don't-see (yet).
See, this is what I'm hoping for. I'm a little (okay a lot) annoyed by the Klingon overhaul, but... I'm going to hold out hope, that there is a bit of the Trek spark in this show. I've seen.... promise. But so far the show has yet to really make itself shine in any way in my eyes.
but then TNG and Voyager were slow starts so... I will give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
That being said though, sticking this show behind a paywall has a very real potential of killing it before it can gain traction. And possibly Trek as a whole. A very real fear.
“So this is by far, let me amend it, the most serialized version of Star Trek that has ever existed, and as such, it’s longform character storytelling. Without conflict, there is no longform character storytelling... Our story of the Klingon War is our season one.” - Akiva Goldsman, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
"However, the results of the war are going to allow for a lot of new storytelling that will be the result of everything that happens and the people that are left behind; the casualties, the things that have grown in Starfleet as a result of the war. That’s what we’ll inherit in the second season.” - Alex Kurtzman, Lead Writer and Co-creator of Star Trek: Discovery
"Whether we’re talking about ISIS or whether we’re talking about Donald Trump, these are things in the air. New demagogues arise. And what do you do with an enemy who is implacable, who is not interested in negotiations? These are tough questions. And our series will do a disservice if it doesn’t honestly address these things.”- Nicolas Meyer, Producer for Star Trek: Discovery
Probably because numerous interviews have said the first season revolves around the conflict started by Micheal Burnham, and those interviews usually talk about the "hard, difficult choices you have to make in war". Like strapping a bomb to a corpse to murder Klingon morticians. It's ok though. Since all Klingons are unreasoning killers, those morticians probably murdered like, 20 children apiece. Or maybe because of the emphasis on the show being inspired by Game of Thrones. Interviews about cast dying (which rarely happens in "peaceful" themed episodes).
Everything about the first season, as prefaced by the pilot and reinforced be writer and producer interviews says "this season is about war with an implacable, unreasonable foe. but don't worry, it will end in a utopian TOS, even though season two will focus on the horrible aftermath of war and the scars it leaves behind"
The exact time Klingons had acquired cloak is unknown. There is fan speculation that they got it from the Romulans in their TOS era alliance with them, but it's never been confirmed on screen. We don't know who got what when.
And of course, this Klingon had access to cloaking technology. It was something new the 24 Houses do not possess. (At least until now, we will see what happens next.)
T'kumva started the whole mess. The dudes who were collecting bodies were just kind of... collateral damage? I mean, if the guys sweeping decks did not want to die in a terrorist attack, they should have not been there? Isn't strapping a bomb to a corpse exploiting the culture of the Klingons to murder them?
Don't get me wrong. These concepts makes for good storytelling! These kinds of issues could certainly be addressed in Star Trek. But... uh... they weren't. Not saying these kinds of things should never be in Star Trek. I'm just not happy with how they handled it. I'm used to my Trek looking at moral dilemmas before doing stupid things, rather than just skipping to doing stupid things.
You act like the two are incongruent. That's not entirely true.
The writers are trying to be very deliberate in their storytelling, in order to make an overt allusion to reality. I'm glad you quoted Nick Meyer, because he did the SAME THING in Star Trek VI. Mirroring the US and Russia in the face of the USSR collapse, the Federation and Klingon governments hated each other, let alone didn't trust each other. You had people from Valeris, to Col. West, to Adm. Cartwright... to, at least initially, our beloved James Kirk... as blatant racists/speciesists/nationalists. Then, some (spearheaded by Spock, and later Kirk) began to push for that "Trek utopian" ideal.
The war is just the setting. The way you respond to it is how you fight for and uphold utopia. I mean, you complain about the war setting, but maybe you missed the constant overtures for peace and dialogue made by Starfleet representatives in the pilot...
First canon confirmed appearance is in TAS, 2269 the IKS Klothos, it took three days to install the cloaking device in the engine room according to an older Kor in DS9. Commander Kor was the first Klingon to use the device from there the device spread to other D7 cruisers, the D12 bird of prey, and their upgrades, the B'rel, K'vort and K't'inga.
The Romulans began using Klingon D7's in 2268 when the D7's were on the verge of being replaced by the K't'inga class a few years later. Since the Romulans had access to Klingon Tech and Klingons had access to cloaking devices within months of each other, that is the closest we can get to the truth.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The way the writers backed the crew into a corner so that the ONLY response is more violence and death?
The way the writers made a mockery of diplomacy because the Klingons only speak the language of violence? I mean, we can pretend the series is about peace and that it is the fault of those darned Klingons that we can't be explorers... but I'm sure it's the writer's fault. If they wanted peaceful resolutions there would be peaceful resolutions.
On a slightly different topic, various posters have claimed that Star Trek: Discovery is highly political and that the Klingons are "Trump supporters". I dismissed these claims... until someone sent me this interview that Rolling Stone made with Aaron Harberts, the showrunner that took over after Fuller left. It's... interesting.
Fuller soon brought on longtime collaborator Aaron Harberts and his writing partner Gretchen Berg as co-executive producers... Handed the reigns, they started to envision a slightly darker version of the usual Trek stories. There's a simple reason for that: Donald Trump.
The Trump phenomenon was "front and center in our minds," Harberts admits when talking about the post-Fuller production process. "We felt like it would be interesting to really look at what's going on in the United States." He mentions that among the show's antagonists are an ultra-religious and violent Klingon faction whose rallying cry – "Remain Klingon" – is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again."
"It's a call to isolationism," the showrunner says in reference to the slogan. "It's about racial purity, and it's about wanting to take care of yourself. And if anybody is reaching a hand out to help you, it's about smacking it away . . . That was pretty provocative for us, and it wasn't necessarily something that we wanted to completely lean into. But it was happening. We were hearing the stories."
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/inside-star-trek-discovery-the-franchises-answer-to-the-trump-era-w504563
So, uh, I guess those posters were right. Shame about the Klingons.
DS9 went further. Its whole Dominion War Arc reminded us that sometimes we have to fight. But its conclusion also reminds us that we must never stop trying to try a peaceful resolution.
And now we have Discovery that uses a similar method. We know already where the story of the Federation and Klingon Empire leads to (the Organians will already tell Kirk in a few years, we'll see it a century later). We know that peace and cooperation is possible. And now we might get to see some of the work that went into that.
---
I think these Klingons were not that two-dimensional.
You might say they are simply evil war-mongers. But there are not simple. We see some glimpses of their culture and their motivation. The scene with the albino Klingon is also there to remind us of their complexity and that they are not just hate-mongers - the albino is included by T'Kuvma and given the honor of the position of a torchbearer, because he earned himself that place in the eye of T'Kuvma.
That can serve as a reminder that there is actually a way to get in the "good graces" of these seemingly extremist group. But it's not an easy way, and it might require some struggle to get there.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Funny since the Federation's supposedly got rid of that sort of prison system. o.O
Military industrial complex, bankers, corporations, contractors, and the puppet politicians that lick their boots to name a few.
You nailed it, Pat.
What form of torture counselling is that?! :P
The Cage took place two years earlier.
Now it's possible Starfleet have always kept this regulation or if it was something new, either way, Janeway specifically mentioned there is an option for the death penalty for being mutineers.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Or she was just saying how she felt.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Or being hyperbolic. People still use the term 'hanged' to mean severely punished. Either that, or Trek Writers forgot their own canon. But that never happens, right? /sarcasm
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
lol I liked it. It was shiny and had sprinkles on it.
The ACTUAL CREATORS OF THE SHOW said that the Klingons are analogous to Trump supporters. Their slogan "Remain Klingon" is is intentionally reminiscent of "Make America Great Again. I myself did not believe it until I was shown the interview. I thought they were generic enough to be stand ins for whomever you want to vilify.
Read for yourself: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/inside-star-trek-discovery-the-franchises-answer-to-the-trump-era-w504563
Ooooooh! Sprinkles!