Star Trek Discovery

Overall I did not have such a big problem with the first season despite its obvious flaws.

I watched it... noticed its problems but considered it stupid mistakes that can happen in a first season.

I even enjoyed the mirror universe part because here the writers and directors couldn't do much wrong. I think these few episodes where the best of season 1.

The very first episode of season 2 doubled down on the problems of season 1 and even worse... pointed out these problems while not fixing them.

So it happened to be that finally, in season 2 we get to know the names of the bridge officers. Yeah... in season 2. That imported and well written are the characters of the show that we got to see in literally every episode so far. We finally know their names.

But that is it... we still dont know who they really are and what their story is.

That probably is one of the key differences to all the other Star Trek shows. We knew the names and stories of the bridge crews, we knew what their job was, we knew the relations between these characters.

Even in the original series when the character backstory was not so important during the first episodes we know that this guy with the long ears was called Spock. He was half human, half Vulcan. He was the science officer and driven by logic. The doctor (McCoy) was his emotional counterpart. Scotty was the clever engineer that kept everything running, Sulu and Chekov the sometimes a bit childish characters which kept the ship running and Uhura the clever communication officer that often pointed out what others overlooked.

The original series never was too focused on characters stories but it also never forgot that these characters are the key element of the show.

Then the next generation crew took over and in the very first episode all characters were introduced in the best possible way. There was no focus on just one character... ALL the characters were introduced as individuals with own personalities and traits. Riker, the ambicious but always friendly commander, Picard as the experienced but calm leader, Dr. Crusher as the mother worries about her son, Wesley as the genious kid, Geordi as a Scotty 2.0, Troy as the emotional anchor for the crew and Data has the Android that desires to be more than he is. In that very first episode the audience instantly was able to relate to the characters.

Exactly the same was done with the DS9 crew. Sisco as the commander and father that cares for his son, OBrien that moves with his wife to the new station. Quark, the shady business man. Odo as counterpart to Quark. Major Kira the proud but sceptical Bajoran officer. Dr. Bashir the young doctor with a bright future and a faible for women. And Dax the hundreds of years old Trill and friend of Sisco. After the very first episode you knew who these people are and what to think about them.

And then there was Voyager and also Star Trek Enterprise which followed that simply introduction method in its very first episode.

Discovery so far ignored completely to introduce characters in the appropriate way. Maybe for the fact that Discovery is too focused on a single main characters. No other Star Trek show before had a main character. In all other shows before the focus was on the crew but not that one character. A design choice I dislike because it makes characters unrelateble and does not allow any character evolution to happen.

The Focus on just one main character does not allow side stories to happen at all. And that in result does not create a believable environment for the show.

Ok, Ive been drifting away a bit from the Discovery S02E01 but I think the now overdue introduction of the characters in that episode made the problem with the show even more obvious.

I mentioned the main charcter (Burnham). This very specific episode showed that Burnham has zero character development. She remains the arrogant and ignorant person she was when introduced in season 1.

She ignores direct orders from her captain (again), she (as 3rd in command) appears to be giving orders to Saru (2nd in command) after publicly argueing with the Captain on the bridge about how to preceed infront of all of the other bridge crew. As main character she is written to give a fuck about the chain of command.

Even worse, she is written to be the hero of the entire show... wait... no, that is not correct. She is written to be a superhero. A science officer which has an answer to everything, knows everything and has solutions for everything. She is the top pilot, the champion in martial arts, the expert in biology (telling other species which special abilities they actually have), the strategic mastermind behind every important battle, everybodies darling and involved in literally EVERYTHING that happens on the screen. A true superhero that renders all other characters useless and unimportant.

Mid season 1 I at a point had for a very brief moment the impression that her character would be able to evolve... but she is back in her arrogant state just like in the very first episode of season 1. But what did I expect from the superhero that caused the war with the klingons (which almost destroyed the federation) just to remind the federation at the end of the season what principles to follow (while she ignored all of that throughout the entire season).

The arrogance in that is overwhelming.

But despite my lengthy rant about the crew and the main character (a term which in my eyes should not exist) the main reason for me to hate the first episode of season 2 is the totally fucked up story.

I mean... I can even ignore the hipster Spock that was reveiled in the trailers (yes I am able to ignore the strange look of a well established character in the same way I was able to ignore the changes that were done to the look of the klingons).

My problem starts when well established characters are portait in a totally fucked up way.

Sakek (Spocks father) now is shown as a confused and emotional person that wanted Burnham to teach Spock empathy?

He is Vulcan... a logical being... not a dumbass. All the personal talks between Burnham and Sarek appear absolutely not typical for a Vulcan. Ok, it is known in Star Trek canon that Sarek was not purely focused on logic. He had emotions, he loved his human wife and he loved his children. He broke with Vulcan traditions to bring Spock back from death and at high age he no longer was able to control his emotions (a TNG episode). But he never was a "lets talk about feelings" guy.

Worse than that is the way how the young Spock was shown in that episode. A angry, jealous child full of fear, haunted by nightmares. That is not the Spock we used to know.

And the excuse "back then he was a different person" does not even apply for the matter of fact that Spock had to learn the concept of empathy and friendship via his interactions with Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise.

That angry kid shown in this episode was a different Spock... it was not even Spock similar to the kid of the 2009 reboot movie that couldnt control his anger for a brief moment.

The new Spock in Discovery in my eyes is an emotional wreck.

This dissastrous part of the story could only get worse if the writers took a scientific theory, misunderstand the concept behind it and try to pack a story around all of this.

To sum it up, Federation detects 7 red signals spread accross the entire galaxy and starts chasing the only signal which remained active. Putting aside that I dont understand how they were able to detect 7 signals at the same time that are spread over such a large distance considering that the speed of light is limited, I can not understand why they are chasing red light signals at all. Red light is not energy rich at all... a strong signal would appear in a different light spectrum. But I guess red lights equal a red alert to the story writers. Scientific bullshit.

Since light travels relative slow compared to the size of the galaxy the light sources would have sent out that light tenthousands if not hundred thousand year ago... and due to the different locations of the light sources the light never would have been received by the federation at the same time. It is simply not possible, not even if that light traveled through Star Treks famous subspace.

I am not even sure how they intent to travel to the light sources when they are scattered accross the entire milkyway. The ships of that time period are relative slow and they certainly wont use the spore drive anymore due to a lawsuit against CBS (because that idea was stolen from a video game). On top of that the Federation even in TNG time has not explored much of the galaxy.

galactic-map.jpg

As you can see the federation didnt get far out yet and Voyagers travel back from Delta Quadrant to Sol (which is right on the border between Alpha and Beta Quadrant) was supposed to last 77 years (non-stop) using Federations fastest ship engine (a technology far in the future of Discovery).

Plot hole?

Or is Discovery once more breaking canon?

Ok, so Discovery arrives at the first light source (dunno how) just to realize that this appears to be an ordinary asteroid and with crash landed federation ship on it (what a coincidence).

They cant beam down but they fly there (using manned drones) and manage to beam back. Fine, I am not complaining yet.

They pick up survivors there and a rock sample which for some reason can not be locked by the transporter beam.

It simply falls out of Burnham hand while beaming.

Their explaination: This must be Dark Matter

Worse: "A new branch of science is sprouting before us and we are the founding mothers"

Discovery is fighting toxic masculinity (which NEVER was an issue in Star Trek) with toxic feminism. I am just waiting for the introduction of women turbolifts and women parking lots at the shuttle bay.

Nvm.

Whats wrong with that "Dark Matter" rock?

Pretty much everything.

We dont know what Dark Matter is but we know which properties Dark Matter has to have.

We know that dark matter causes gravity and bend space time while at the same time is not visible to our eyes or any of our detectors.

That alone leaves multiple questions which Star Trek Discovery totally ignored.

1. How in gods name was this rock visible if it consisted of dark matter how gods name was burnham able to touch it?

2. Why didnt the Discovery detect a giant gravitational well around the asteroid?

3. Why wasnt the gravity of the asteroid not strong enough to prevent this asteroid from breaking apart?

What could Dark Matter be in reality?

1. It would be a form of matter that is totally invisible to us. It is there and we can simply not see it. Light does not get absorbed by it, light does not get reflected by it... and it does not interact with other types of matter except for creating a strong graviational pull.

2. It could be just regular matter so densly packed that the object itself is too small for us to be seen with our current detectors while at the same time it creates a massive gravity well. So it also could be similar to a black hole.

With other words... it is either invisible or a blackhole (or at least something very similar).

The rock however, was not invisible nor did it crush Burnham before sucking her into a singularity. It was a rock... an ordinary rock. The big asteroid did not create an unusual gravity well that the Discovery for sure would have detected.

No matter how you look at this stuff... it is pure nonsense.

There even was a negative gravitational push between Discovery and asteroid which changed the course of that asteroid (which again makes no sense due to the different mass ratios of the asteroid and the discovery). That push could can indeed be explained by a relative new theory in which Dark Matter has a negative gravity but in that case drones never would have been able to land on that asteroid nor would Burnham ever have been able to pick up the rock.

But what if that rock would have consisted of normal matter and a small amount of dark matter at the same time?

Yeah, well... then the transporter beam would have beamed up the normal matter and left the dark matter behind.

They probably just would have noticed that the rock got a bit lighter after beaming it to the Discovery. Thats it.

The Season 2 story is a scientific mess already in its very first episode.

There is no logic in any of that.

This mess is even worse that the spore drive of season 1 which is based on 0 science at all.

This dark matter plot is an abomination of modern science, a disrespect of known facts (eventhough they are limited).

And all of that packed into a toxic feministic, egocentric superhero series.

Btw. Burnham did see the "red angel" on the asteroid prior beaming back.... but apparently she does not consider it worth to mention to her captain.

Michael Burnham... please pull the trigger.

(yes, this type2 phaser is pointing backwards right into her face, and none of the show runners noticed this mistake)

My only reason to consider watching episode 2 of that seasons is the newly introduced captain Christopher Pike. A character known from the very first episode of the original series and the movie reboots.

His introduction into Discovery was the only good thing about the first episode. Pike appeared to be a relatable, funny, open, fair and also generous character... which are more personal traits than I can assign to any of the other crew members.

He reveiled his strength and also his weaknesses to the crew. He established trust within a very short time via words and actions.

His decision to give the command of the Discovery back to Saru when collecting the "Dark Matter" sample really showed what a great person this guy can be. He didn't take the fame for himself, he supported the career of a crew member instead.

He showed trust in the crew and I think he earn it back.

I think he is going to be a good captain.

I also think that Lorca was a good captain. He was the bad guy of the past season but Lorca actually was a good captain and an interesting character.

It is pretty telling if you consider the evil guy more interesting than the other crew members.