Discovery Season 2 (spoilers likely)

[pjknibbs]

Latest episode: much better imo. I thought the "previously on.." was a nice touch.

I actually thought it would have been cooler if they'd re-filmed those shots with the current cast and SFX, but nonetheless, a nice touch. And the plot is clearly kicking into high gear now.

[Xenon_Slayer]

Okay. I watched episode 9 last night and while it wasn't bad, a it featured several things which kind of bug me about this show.

First of all, it's the character development of the "secondary" characters. Star Trek has always had a few side characters who are introduced in an episode and then utilised and fleshed out later, a typical 'recurring character'. They build up over time and eventually may be as well known and loved as a main character. They would never be used as an emotial bludgeon in the story unless they were actually of value to the audiance.

Spoiler

Show

This is my problem with how they handled Commander Airiam in the latest episode, or rather, how they handled these very visible and present side-characters in the 1 and a half season run they've had so far. After all this time, I would at least like to know "what species is this character?", "Is she an android with no emotions or an enhanced humanoid?". Sure, we got some of these answers during moments of this episode, but why resort to shoe-horning it in for the final episode we're going to see this character? Why did we not get any of this before? Yes, the seasons are shorter than the Star Trek we're used to and that means they have to pick and choose who to develop, but then don't have story beats to make us care about a character we barely even know.

That's not to say that I didn't care by the end of the episode. If anything, I was hoping for some deus ex machina so we could see more character development of Airiam, but alas, it seems that they forgot that they have a magical teleportation device to scoop people out of the cold void of space. (I assume their transporters were still operational as they beamed in minutes earlier).

That would be another thing which is somewhat annoying. Technology which is either conveniently there for story purposes or suddenly missing without anyone batting an eyelid. The thermal data apparently transmitted during viewscreen transmissions not only cleared up their immediate situation, but also cleared up the issue with Spock. And I totally get that Star Trek is the king of coming up with technobabble, but that just came across as a bit forced.

All that said, I am enjoying the show. I just feel that it's cutting too many narative corners while having to deal with short seasons and trying to present 'serious' stories.

[Usenko]

I think you're right - the big problem they have is trying to deal with a subtly different new medium (streaming video). It offers opportunities you didn't have before (e.g. you'll have a significant number of audience members who will binge watch the entire series in a few sittings, making it possible to treat the show like a long movie in instalments rather than discrete episodes), but it also gives you difficulties (in that there's much less time available to the filmmakers to build their world and develop characters).

[Morkonan]

I think you're right - the big problem they have is trying to deal with a subtly different new medium (streaming video). It offers opportunities you didn't have before (e.g. you'll have a significant number of audience members who will binge watch the entire series in a few sittings, making it possible to treat the show like a long movie in instalments rather than discrete episodes), but it also gives you difficulties (in that there's much less time available to the filmmakers to build their world and develop characters).

^--- This is A Big Deal ™.

With streaming and video-on-demand services, producers are paying a bit more attention to a show's "streamability." Not saying it's necessarily the case above, since I don't watch the series. But, I'm sure that is a consideration they're not ignoring.

In ST:ToS, we never met Scotty's parents. Heck, we didn't know a great deal about most of the characters. Some had some back-story brought in for episodes and it was "refreshing." In TNG, they practically gang-raped the private history of the entire crew, digging up everything and regurgitating it onto the screen, just in case they could get some more fan loyalty based on their interest in that character. They expanded on that, really "getting into it" with Troi or Worf being the usual gimmick. Troi really only because Majel Barrett did such a good job and Worf because.. "Klingon Ugg, Me Smash, But Me Thinking Klingon, Not Always Smashing Klingon... Worf only pawn in game of life."

All that wasn't really that terrible back then. It was "different" from the Star Trek we all knew. But, now? It's tiring... It makes things "not happen." They have to stop the "action" to move to a quiet place so the audience can consume and digest a character's backstory and why it's necessary for what's being told on the screen, which is usually BS that's just there to "develop the character."

Fifty-eleven light-years of character development goes nowhere.

"All docking clamps released, Captain. Spacedock signals we are clear for departure."
"Station-keeping, Pilot! We have yet to discuss Ensign Pulver's tragic backstory of disaster and abandonment that explains his strange Gnome Fetish."

But, you'll sit through a few of those episodes if you can watch them without having to get up from the couch. And, maybe you'll get hooked on Pulver's Gnome Fetish?

[Ketraar]

Streaming is not the issue at all, the writing is. STD is a convoluted shallow series that puts huge effort in visuals and hardly any in writing. Then its inconsistent to what they want the characters to be, they started off Michael as a discount Spock but neither the actor nor the writers new what made Spock iconic. Just the fact that they didn't realize that the acronym of the series would be that of a sexually transmitted disease, tells you everything about how thought out the whole thing is (not). Even though the second series is much less bad than the 1st its still bad and if one removes the nostalgia factor out, one realizes how poor the series is.

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

Gee Ketraar, tell us what you really think! You're sugar coating it for our benefit, I can tell!

I'm never terribly good at discerning whether a show is well written or not, or if the effects are good (as opposed to just flashy), or if the storyline makes sense, or the characters are realistic.

I CAN tell you that this is the first Star Trek series that both my daughters and myself (and now my wife!) have been able to get into. Star Trek used to be my own guilty pleasure. Now it is something I share with my family, and that's worth gold to me.

I can also tell you that it's cracking good fun to watch together.

[Bishop149]

@Xenon_Slayer

I agree entirely, one of the things I have really liked about S2 is the shift in focus away from 1 or 2 central characters on to more of the ensemble cast.
They have a way to go before it starts feeling like a Star Trek show rather than the "Micheal Burnham show" but they are moving in the right direction.
Star trek (ToS possibly aside) has always been a show about the crew, with the camera shifting focus between the characters episode to episode. It has never really had a definite "lead" although the Captains have tended to get a little more focus that anyone else by virtue of their position. The "star" of a Star Trek show, if it has one, has arguably always the ship upon which the crew serve.

I've recently been re-watching pretty much all of Star Trek (just Enterprise left to go!) and the difference really is stark, 3-4 episodes into any other ST series I have a really good grasp of about ~10 characters and have started to develop attachments to most of them.
A whole series in to Discovery and I know same level of detail about maybe 3 characters, I am attached to 1, lukewarm on another and actively dislike the last one (who happens to be cast as the damn lead).

So. . . .

Spoiler

Show

I was pleased when it became apparent that we were getting a very character focused Airiam episode, there are clearly unanswered question there, not least "What is she?" We know canonically she can't be an android, etc etc.
And yes it was incredibly disappointing when they did a bit of that exposition immediately before killing her off. I was surprised and TBH was expecting her to be rescued at the last minute with the transporter. Can someone explain why they didn't do that? Just beam her to brig. . . . seems super obvious. I mean traditionally ST at least pulls the whole "ZOMG! The technology that could solve this instantly is broken for [reasons]!" trick.

I think there is a format issue here although I don't think it has much to do with the streaming platform.
Most modern shows have a strong emphasis on plot arc . . . a strong through-line that links the episodes together. They also like big reveals, every episode must introduce or end on a shocking revelation that substantively changes things.
Star trek to date was not that show. It was a character focused and driven and if there was any overall series arc . . . . well, there was rarely just the one, they always played second fiddle and certainly didn't get substantially progressed every damn episode*.
Discovery is Star Trek show made to the more modern model . . . . as a fan of the more classic series I don't much like it but new viewers might disagree.

*Any exception to this may be the Xindi arc of Enterprise, a step in a similar direction to Discovery in terms of story telling and yeah I didn't like that either.

Edit: Damn reading that back I sure sound really down on the show! Worth adding therefore that for this list of things I don't like there is also a reasonable list of things I DO like, more than enough to keep me watching.

[Ketraar]

I CAN tell you that this is the first Star Trek series that both my daughters and myself (and now my wife!) have been able to get into. Star Trek used to be my own guilty pleasure. Now it is something I share with my family, and that's worth gold to me.

I can also tell you that it's cracking good fun to watch together.

Sure I'm not the one that will try and convince you not to like the show, if it appeals to you for whatever reason, than thats ok. I like series like The Rookie (granted mostly for Nathan) and its not very good either. Still, if people slap the name of Star Trek on it other than to try an cash in on the label, than they need to step up the writing. No issue with having a more "modern" approach to to the structure, where episodes are written for a central plot rather then go the serialized structure. But if we look at it, then please explain to me what that plot is and if you recall what the one from last season was and how that caries over to season 2 at all, other than having 3 characters from it that clearly suffer from amnesia as they behave often in complete contrast to their character.

I'm a scifi junkie and as such will watch it just because there is just not enough scifi at all, but it bothers me that they took on a series with a pool like Star Trek and manage to make it mediocre at best, while great stuff like Firefly is canceled. Wasted potential is what gets me worked up, it feels fake and none of the characters except for maybe 2 (Pike and Georgiou) are credible as they keep act inconsistently and do stuff out of character. Its like the writes are taking turns and none is reading the others notes and none of the actors have the ability or power to do something about it.

That they keep inventing new magic tech out of the blue I can live with even if it bothers me a bit, there is just so much magic I can tolerate in scifi.

MFG

Ketraar

[pjknibbs]

I agree with Xenon_Slayer. We needed a lot more development of that character for me to care what happened to her.

Spoiler

Show

Tasha Yar got a lot more development in her brief time on TNG than Airiam got in Discovery, and thus is hit much harder when she got killed in "Skin of Evil".

Overall, it felt like they were trying to go for a big emotional ending without actually "paying" for it.

[Morkonan]

...But if we look at it, then please explain to me what that plot is and if you recall what the one from last season was and how that caries over to season 2 at all, other than having 3 characters from it that clearly suffer from amnesia as they behave often in complete contrast to their character...

"And, it was so cool and that character was so awesome and this other thing..."
"So, what was the story about?"
"I don't remember."

^-- This is the sort of conversation I can't stand having. I don't mind anyone loving any sort of show or movie or series, but if they don't know what the story was actually "about" then there wasn't any "story" no matter how hard someone says they tried to make one. For instance, it's about half of the big "Disney-type Movies" released these days. Disney is masterful at producing very simple, powerful, straightforward stories that are feature-complete... until the next fad catches on and they have crank out something to ride a wave. Then, it's "I don't remember wtf happened, but that one character sure was funny."

... Wasted potential is what gets me worked up, it feels fake and none of the characters except for maybe 2 (Pike and...

Pike? Any relationship to Captain Christopher Pike? Please say "No."

[pjknibbs]

Pike? Any relationship to Captain Christopher Pike? Please say "No."

Er, it's the same guy? This is what he got up to after Talos IV and before he was reduced to a burned husk who communicated via a flashing light. And I think the guy playing him absolutely nails it, he's by far the best thing about this season IMHO.

[Morkonan]

Pike? Any relationship to Captain Christopher Pike? Please say "No."

Er, it's the same guy? This is what he got up to after Talos IV and before he was reduced to a burned husk who communicated via a flashing light. And I think the guy playing him absolutely nails it, he's by far the best thing about this season IMHO.

Interesting.

In ST:ToS, he was treated like a combination between a Saint and War Hero. There was "reverence" paired with his name. Sure, the name of "Kirk" ended up carrying weight to, but just as many people who praised him probably cursed him.

IOW - Pike is supposed to be a figure that is bigger, more revered, more specialer than just about anyone else associated with Starfleet.

Aaaand, that's a big bite to chew...

"OK, this is it. This is "the scene" that makes the character. You'll do fine, just go with it and feel the character. That's why you got the job and we know you can pull this off brilliantly. What we're going for is a historic figure, a hero, someone with more name recognition than God and a cleaner pedigree. Should be easy. Roll film..."

o.0

[Usenko]

They do a brilliant job of matching him with the original Pike.

He boards a Discovery where the crew are a little shell-shocked from finding out that their previous captain was not who they thought he was. And the first thing he does is to address the elephant in the room by putting his credentials onto the main viewer and inviting the crew to inspect it, drawing their attention to his foibles (e.g. the courses he failed at the academy!). I wanted to find that, because it really made you like the guy from the first moment. However, the scene here (just a minute or two) was also a pretty defining moment, as well as being quite fun.

[pjknibbs]

We also had a moment in the episode just gone where the Admiral told Pike that the reason he and the Enterprise were kept out of the war with the Klingons was so that a person like him, who epitomises Starfleet and its values, wouldn't get killed.

[Morkonan]

We also had a moment in the episode just gone where the Admiral told Pike that the reason he and the Enterprise were kept out of the war with the Klingons was so that a person like him, who epitomises Starfleet and its values, wouldn't get killed.

Hmm... Did you get the impression that Starfleet was looking to "craft a hero" or rather just protect one?

...I wanted to find that, because it really made you like the guy from the first moment. However, the scene here (just a minute or two) was also a pretty defining moment, as well as being quite fun.

Nice "Brady Bunch Intro."

By the way, that's a pretty big "cast." Ten, including Pike and the character that first announced current status, who I assume is a regular too? (Got a close-up. ) The idea being that "moar chracters means more storiez." Which... isn't always correct. I have no reason to criticize it, just that it could be difficult to keep focus in some situations.

What happens, for instance, in the "hunt for a story for next week" when one of the many crewmembers is to have a miscarriage? (male/female/other) OK, fine, they have a miscarriage and the rest of the cast reacts. Well, they can't all "react" since it's only a 40 or so minute show. So, only a few have deep reactions and internal monologues and tear-filled scenes. And, the others? They drop off flowers and express condolences and then the fans get the impression that those characters are unfeeling, heartless, bartards when compared to the few other characters focused on for that episode. OR, they just separate a small number of the crew so they can focus just on their reactions, instead... Maybe the others are away on a training mission or it all takes place in an Away Mission or during a stop for R&R or Refitting? And, that's what typically happens when characters in larger casts have particularly emotional episodes. Unless they make it multi-episode bit where they can take the time for such niceties. It would be interesting to see if these stories end up using that "separation" mechanic a lot. ie: Away Teams, Special Missions, Holodeck Malfunctions, etc..

Of course, I couldn't remember who the heck these people were. So, I'm "Pike." But, Pike remembered them immediately. Kind of a cheesy, almost inhuman and uncanny ability to recognize the individuality of a voice and a station... But, that's why he's who he is and I am not. (And, why they had him do that - "Pike is better than you at being cool and commanding.")

PS - Take a look:

IMDB:ST Discovery - Full Credits Sixteen cast members in 10+ episodes so far[/url]. Each of those maybe established enough to explore in a story? (I wouldn't know.)

[Bishop149]

By the way, that's a pretty big "cast." Ten, including Pike and the character that first announced current status, who I assume is a regular too? (Got a close-up. ) The idea being that "moar chracters means more storiez." Which... isn't always correct. I have no reason to criticize it, just that it could be difficult to keep focus in some situations.

I don't think ten is excessive, its about par for the course for a ST show. . . just off the top of my head

TNG (8)
Picard, Riker, La Forge, Data, Worf, Crusher, Troy, Rho (I infinitely preferred her to Wesley, I wished she they'd kept her)

DS9 (11)
Sisko, Dax, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Odo, Worf, Jake, Quark, Nog, Garrack . . . . I could keep going, DS9 had a ridiculous number of recurring characters

Voyager (9)
Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Kim, Tuvok, Nelix Torres, The Doctor, Seven/Kes (They literally swapped these two out)

Enterprise (7)
Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Hoshi, Mayweather, Flox

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.
That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

But, that's why he's who he is and I am not. (And, why they had him do that - "Pike is better than you at being cool and commanding.")

Damn right, it was an excellent way to introduce the Pike as an absolutely 1st rate commanding officer.
Hes a pretty damn near perfect balance of competence, authority and personability . . . . . and no I have never met anyone remotely like him in real life.

I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn between Pike and Tilly. . . . I can very much see Pike as the kind of captain Tilly may have the potential to become if she can master her nerves and become secure in her self-confidence.

[Ketraar]

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.
That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

Oversight is putting it rather mildly, considering that any weight put into the choices and effects is pretty much meaningless if you just have drones as crew, why would we care about any of them anyway, they might as well be holograms. Then there is the other part of bad writing, its the inconsistency. Writers cant make up their mind where they want to go and then go for it. I cant shake the feeling that writers are just adding tropes to characters but dont want to hurt anyones feelings. So they want a female lead but make her a schizophrenic robot that keeps contradicting itself on who it is or wants to be. You have a nerd as the "scotty" who is both genius but idiotic at the same time. Then the ultra smart eccentric "biologist" that know everything when needed, but has his character development solely to be the gay dude.

I could go on and on, but I think I made my point and more would be me just ranting some more. The only other thing I'll mention again that in addition to any decent writing wrt to characters, the whole plot is stupid and needlessly convoluted. On top of it, there are no lasting consequences to anything. Georgiou died in S01E01 to then just come back again, then the doctor dies and gets revived miraculously later on and people just moved on like nothing, I'm going to predict that Lorka will be back no too long and even a way will be found to revive Airiam with some magic gimmick with the red angel or something.

In Firefly I had a basic jist of the crew in episode one and come to love any of them after just a few episodes, that is how you write characters and have them add small tidbits over time, but mostly you keep them CONSISTENT for at least a few actions and choices and not flip on a dime for nothing. Anyway, I'll shut up now...

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

On top of it, there are no lasting consequences to anything. Georgiou died in S01E01 to then just come back again, then the doctor dies and gets revived miraculously later on and people just moved on like nothing, I'm going to predict that Lorka will be back no too long and even a way will be found to revive Airiam with some magic gimmick with the red angel or something.

Interesting. That's not how I read it, not at all.

The very reverse in fact.

The two situations are extremely different, but I would say that NEITHER fits the "no lasting consequences" idea. Spoilering just to be sure:

Spoiler

Show

Georgiou died in S01E01. Totally died. Dead as doornail, never to be revived. Eaten by Klingons (ghoulish touch). The alternate Georgiou was brought back from the Mirror Universe - but she's an entirely different character. SOME of the Discovery crew members think she's the same person, but I don't think she fools a lot of them. In fact, she's basically the opposite of her Prime counterpart. I suggest that Michelle Yeoh is rather enjoying herself, actually - Mirror Georgiou is so deliciously evil that she'd be twirling a moustache if she were male, and I know from experience that chewing the scenery as a card-carrying villain is enormous fun.

Culver LOOKED like he was going to be brought back and it would all be happily ever after, but they have played it much more interestingly than that. Instead the writers have explored the common fantasy of anyone who's ever lost someone they cared about - "If only he/she were back with me." But the thing is, when you suffer a bereavement you don't just stay static. Even in the deepest throes of grief, you move on. And whilst Stamets is definitely making an effort to take up where he left off with Culver, it's becoming painfully clear that neither man is who he was when Culver died. They may eventually reconcile, but if they do they may well be creating a brand new relationship from scratch.

No, I would say that the consequences of bringing a dead character back from the dead are very much in evidence in Culver, and although the two share an actor there's not a lot of similarity between prime and mirror Georgiou.

[Ketraar]

I understand you reasoning and as I said, Georgiou is one of the few characters that are credible and yes Yeoh is doing it great. The question then is how do you know to compare the characters at all? My whole point is that you cant because there was no character, even the Doctor is the same, you didnt KNOW him before so how can you have any consideration to the difference on behavior without inferring it? Yes I understand what they are TRYING to do, but they seem to not understand how to set it up and just go for ideas as they rise.

I mentioned the rookie as being bad and me still liking it, well I retract that, its actually good as per the last episode and STD could go and take some notes on the writing from it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I don't think ten is excessive, its about par for the course for a ST show. . . just off the top of my head.

You've done me a great service with that list of main characters. I'll have to go back and do some analysis... But, it has made me think how I view some of these series. The biggest bit would to see how much "screen time" characters get out of each and then drill down to actually, for realz, find out "who the main characters are." For instance, once Seven-of-Nine was added to the cast, Voyager practically became the "Seven-of-Nine" show... Not that I'm complaining.

TNG (8)
Picard, Riker, La Forge, Data, Worf, Crusher, Troy, Rho (I infinitely preferred her to Wesley, I wished she they'd kept her)

A good character, but too strong. She was literally a "ball of fire" on the screen and a scene-stealer, through no fault of her own - She's got "it." She's got a screen presence that demands attention. I don't know if she cultivates it or just got magic pixie-dust sprinkled on her when she was born or what. She also played one of my favorite television Sci-Fi characters of all time, ever - Admiral Cain in "Battlestar Galactica." Definite "command presence" capability, no doubt about it.

DS9 (11)
Sisko, Dax, Kira, O'Brien, Bashir, Odo, Worf, Jake, Quark, Nog, Garrack . . . . I could keep going, DS9 had a ridiculous number of recurring characters

Keeping with the sort of "Fort Apache" or "Trading Post in Space" theme. Kind of like a hotel where there's an opportunity for a new adventure with every new guest.

Voyager (9)
Janeway, Chakotay, Paris, Kim, Tuvok, Nelix Torres, The Doctor, Seven/Kes (They literally swapped these two out)

Small cast, intimate stories of survival of a crew lost and alone, making theirlong way home through dangerous territory... EXCEPT THEY'VE GOTTA BE IN THE MOST POPULATED QUADRANT IN THE GALAXY AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HEADING IN ONE DIRECTION AND THEY KEEP MEETING THE SAME FRIGGIN PEOPLE!

Enterprise (7)
Archer, T'Pol, Trip, Reed, Hoshi, Mayweather, Flox

Comparison contrast time - The smallest list, arguably with much more intimate stories of not only "strangers in a strange land" but "learning how to live and work together." Ended up suffering, but not quite as much, from "Voyager Syndrome." I actually enjoyed the show more than most. Favorite actor in the series, Billingsley - "Phlox". Another actor who can summon the camera quite a bit. A lot of "energy" in his acting.

So, what sorts of stories are "good" for small, intimate, casts? At least "dramatic" stories? Larger casts? There's one story that no Star Trek franchise has EVER successfully pulled off - "The Epic." Every time they're widely separated the story sucks. And, when they do a "scope of time" it sucks, always, because they must needs resort to "time travel" 'cause explaining why they're all five-hundred years old now would be difficult...

The difference, is that the scene Usenko posted is the first time any attention is paid even to the NAMES of most of Discovery's bridge crew characters. And it's in the SECOND series! I just started re-watching Enterprise and by the end of the first 2 episodes you have a good idea who everyone is and 6/7 have had some character development already.

That's interesting... Do you think it was planned that way? Do you think they may have been planning for Pike to be the character that literally and figuratively "brings the crew together?" From your description, that's blatantly what is happening in that scene. Some of the characters smile as if they're "finally being recognized for the first time." And, Pike is the instrument by which that feeling is being delivered. Maybe he's also being contrasted with a former strong-lead character? (I haven't seen the series, sorry.)

That scene from Discovery in addition to being a good scene in it's own right I'm pretty sure was also the show basically trying to acknowledge and begin to correct this narrative oversight.

If it is as you describe, I'd say it was what I described as above. Was the former lead/captain/whatever a bit standoffish and/or hyper-professional? Authoritarian? Clearly and firmly planted in their "rank?" Maybe secretly worried about their own capability to command? The Captain Pike character just threw all that out the window in a few seconds...

Damn right, it was an excellent way to introduce the Pike as an absolutely 1st rate commanding officer.
Hes a pretty damn near perfect balance of competence, authority and personability . . . . . and no I have never met anyone remotely like him in real life.

That's because anyone who's really like that "in real life" always has a "fatal flaw" that ends up with them in prison or dead...

Captain Ronald Speirs, "Band of Brothers" -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8

https://wikiofbrothers.fandom.com/wiki/ ... ald_Speirs

Nobody is allowed to be perfect. Speirs is "too perfect." He's also possibly a psychopath... He is shown gunning down a group of German PoWs after giving them cigarettes. Why? He just felt like murdering a bunch of PoWs, I guess. No emotion, no anger, just kept the trigger pressed until they went away to forever-gone-land.. But, the act is maintained by other characters as a "rumor" since none of them were there to witness it. Did it really happen? It seems so - The audience saw it. But, was it a real event or not? Were they just messing with our heads or did "super-soldier" demonstrate the reason he can be so calm, cool, and collected is because he's friggin' nuts? Aaand, now we can be comfortable knowing that Speirs is, thankfully, not "perfect."

Pike will probably turn out to have hemorrhoids. Or, maybe an incurable, but easily survivable with treatment, heart condition or PTSD from being tortured on several different occasions or have a bad relationship with some of his family members... Kinda like another "Captain" we all know.

This is one of the worst scenes ever written for TNG characters - Picard's Rant. It has nothing at all to do with Picard's rant speech, it's the fact that the other character is talking to children in the audience and explaining everything, ever, about what Picard is/was feeling... It's godawful and ruins the scene. It's painful to watch her open up with "and you were almost enjoying it" lines... As IF the audience didn't get that from Stewart's performance. "Oh, golly, we're all mindless toasters here and had no idea that might be what he was thinking, even though you pounded it into our little toaster brains for half the darn movie already..."

^--- This is what Star Trek should never, ever, do. If they can't give the audience a glimpse of a character's internal life without running down a list of darn descriptions hurled by a hollow walk-on character then they do not need to be putting stuff on film and treating the audience like morons.

IF the previous commander ever once mentions the contrast between her insecurity and Pike's leadership, it'll be the same darn thing all over again. If she ever has a "heart to heart" and starts whining about how much better Pike is at what used to be her job (if it was) then they should just stop production and go make commercials for toilet-paper using "Happy Bears" or some crap like that... I'm not joking. This is why I don't like some of the Start Trek series and spinoffs - They treat the audience like they're morons by 'splaining everything when it has already been "explained" on the scree in front of our own faces.

"Better make sure the audience knows that Picard is on a revenge kick."
"But, didn't we already show that?"
"Yeah, but they're a bunch of morons, so we better spell it out..."

I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn between Pike and Tilly. . . . I can very much see Pike as the kind of captain Tilly may have the potential to become if she can master her nerves and become secure in her self-confidence.

Been writing as I read, so am pleased to have guessed she may be a character with some issues with her confidence. Pike, at least from that scene, is a perfect contrast for that and in just a few minutes "fixes" what the previous occupier of that chair couldn't "fix."

..In Firefly I had a basic jist of the crew in episode one and come to love any of them after just a few episodes, that is how you write characters and have them add small tidbits over time, but mostly you keep them CONSISTENT for at least a few actions and choices and not flip on a dime for nothing. Anyway, I'll shut up now...

No, this is interesting.

I never saw the Firefly series. I saw the movie they did, but didn't really "get" most of it since I had no previous connection to the characters/series. Still, it wasn't a bad movie and that says something, at least.

But, fans seem to be falling all over themselves in praise and desperately want a revival. That happened for ST:ToS and was ulimately successful, leading to a multi-bajillion-monies IP that gets automagically shuttled around the world anytime they fart out new material. Star Trek, the I.P., happened because something, somewhere, connected with fans after the very first, relatively short, iteration of the series/setting/theme.

You realize that if people could bottle that and sell it then they would control the Spice that controls the Universe, right?

So, you're not alone and a lot of very vocal fans out there thirsting for the blood of producers and corporate honchos have something passionate fueling them and I, for one, want to know WTF it is.

"How about we do a sci-fi series with a crew of characters with social adjustment disorders that favor criminal behavior and they drive a space-truck around a star-system full of disfunctional people with anger-management issues?"

"PERFECT!"

"Oh, and space-cannibals!"

"WE NEED TO PAY YOU MORE!"