Despite the publication date, I wrote this before watching "Lethe" and the other recent episodes. Check out my other "Discovery" reviews. Spoilers follow (duh).
In its short time on the air (err, the web), “Discovery” has produced some nice moments, often in the episode-closing scenes, and this week's edition adds a couple to that list. Michael and Saru begin mending their relationship with an emotional exchange. Stamets shows he’s willing to sacrifice — even his own life — to maintain his integrity.
But after what I considered a high for the season in "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry," this episode represents regression, lurching from nice moment to nice moment without much connective tissue (or network of spores?) between them, at least during a bumbling first half-hour.
Once again, I’m harping on the show when, generally speaking, I quite enjoy it. While the production values have sagged a bit since the two-part pilot, that’s less a criticism of the more recent episodes than a testament to just how great that opening looked. The art direction is, a few nitpicks aside, superb, and the performances have typically been strong (Doug Jones is the early standout).
The flaws, despite the number of words I've spent enumerating them, might simply be growing pains: the choppy editing, the inconsistencies in the characterization, the plot turns that chip away at the verisimilitude. This is a show still finding itself and its voice, and we have to remember that even the best Treks stumbled in their first seasons.
The concern here is that the blemishes together make the show feel a bit aimless and that, perhaps, no one is steering the ship. The faults might be relatively easy to fix by a showrunner with a strong vision, but the narrative shortcomings give the impression that the writing is happening by committee.
10.17.2017
"Star Trek: Discovery" Review: "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry"
Despite the publication date, I wrote this before watching “Choose Your Pain.” Check out my reviews for "The Vulcan Hello"/"Battle at the Binary Stars" and "Context Is for Kings." Spoilers follow (duh).
Now this is the Trek that I remember.
Coincidentally (or not), this is also the best "Discovery" episode yet.
We have a title that would fit right in with the Original Series. We have noticeably fewer lens flares. We have some familiar themes. And finally, despite the show's darker veneer, we have some of that famous Trek idealism starting to shine through.
Now this is the Trek that I remember.
Coincidentally (or not), this is also the best "Discovery" episode yet.
We have a title that would fit right in with the Original Series. We have noticeably fewer lens flares. We have some familiar themes. And finally, despite the show's darker veneer, we have some of that famous Trek idealism starting to shine through.
10.10.2017
"Star Trek: Discovery" Review: "Context Is for Kings"
Despite the publication date, I wrote this before watching “The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry.” I hope to make this a little less scattershot than last week's edition, but spoilers still follow (duh).
Michael Burnham emerged from the disastrous Battle at the Binary Stars resigned to a life behind bars (or force fields), but only six months later, she gets a chance to publicly repent. Her old captain's death clearly still weighing on her, she apologizes to her old comrade Saru. She tells her new captain that she believed she was acting in Georgiou's best interest, even in attempting a mutiny against her.
Despite the thriller feel of much of "Context Is for Kings," those two conversations are clearly the fulcrum of the episode. We get a look deep into Michael's psyche: her emotional state (her feelings of guilt, that she needs to atone, perhaps to the point of self-flagellation) and her conscience. Even so, these scenes highlight a familiar narrative shortcoming: Just as in the two-part pilot, we find the show's writers taking shortcuts to poignancy.
Michael Burnham emerged from the disastrous Battle at the Binary Stars resigned to a life behind bars (or force fields), but only six months later, she gets a chance to publicly repent. Her old captain's death clearly still weighing on her, she apologizes to her old comrade Saru. She tells her new captain that she believed she was acting in Georgiou's best interest, even in attempting a mutiny against her.
Despite the thriller feel of much of "Context Is for Kings," those two conversations are clearly the fulcrum of the episode. We get a look deep into Michael's psyche: her emotional state (her feelings of guilt, that she needs to atone, perhaps to the point of self-flagellation) and her conscience. Even so, these scenes highlight a familiar narrative shortcoming: Just as in the two-part pilot, we find the show's writers taking shortcuts to poignancy.
10.03.2017
“Star Trek: Discovery” Review: “The Vulcan Hello”/“Battle at the Binary Stars”
Despite the publication date, I wrote this before watching “Context Is for Kings.” Spoilers follow (duh).
I went into “Star Trek: Discovery” with extreme prejudice.
Bias came easily for me. A new Trek after a lengthy hiatus offered the opportunity for a reboot that would focus on a new setting, with new conflicts to resolve — something audacious like the abandoned Bryan Singer project “Star Trek: Federation” or, for that matter, “The Next Generation.” For all that show’s faults in its early going, it should be admired for the creative chances it took. Put yourself in the producers’ shoes 30 years ago. Which villainous races do fans of the Original Series best remember? Well, one is now a Starfleet ally, and the other we’re not even going to put on screen. What alien species did we get to know best on the Original Series? Don’t expect to find one of them on the bridge.
Instead, I learned that this new show would have the warmed-over setting I should have expected — comfort food to die-hards, perhaps, or maybe a way to draw in fans of the film reboot, but not a great deal of grist for something genuinely new, nothing that would inherently challenge the audience. This decision also set up a tense relationship with franchise canon. At the very least, jumping to, say, the 2400s would have assuaged fan concerns about the level of technology being featured in relation to that shown on series set further in the future.
I went into “Star Trek: Discovery” with extreme prejudice.
Bias came easily for me. A new Trek after a lengthy hiatus offered the opportunity for a reboot that would focus on a new setting, with new conflicts to resolve — something audacious like the abandoned Bryan Singer project “Star Trek: Federation” or, for that matter, “The Next Generation.” For all that show’s faults in its early going, it should be admired for the creative chances it took. Put yourself in the producers’ shoes 30 years ago. Which villainous races do fans of the Original Series best remember? Well, one is now a Starfleet ally, and the other we’re not even going to put on screen. What alien species did we get to know best on the Original Series? Don’t expect to find one of them on the bridge.
Instead, I learned that this new show would have the warmed-over setting I should have expected — comfort food to die-hards, perhaps, or maybe a way to draw in fans of the film reboot, but not a great deal of grist for something genuinely new, nothing that would inherently challenge the audience. This decision also set up a tense relationship with franchise canon. At the very least, jumping to, say, the 2400s would have assuaged fan concerns about the level of technology being featured in relation to that shown on series set further in the future.
4.30.2014
The Freedom of Speech
Language had never been a subject of conversation between us, but even so — or, perhaps, therefore — when you asked why we had "ameliorate" when we also had "improve," I understood immediately that this was no query to meet with a quip.
The question was not of chronology, I knew — even if "improve" did seem to predate "ameliorate" by some 200 years — and, as a matter of debate, language of origin was to be ruled out as well, both words having evolved from French. The inquiry was no issue of precise definition, either, even if you did hint at that in your phrasing; no, clearly we were addressing the nature of synonyms — that is, practically speaking, why do we need multiple words that mean the same thing?
The question was not of chronology, I knew — even if "improve" did seem to predate "ameliorate" by some 200 years — and, as a matter of debate, language of origin was to be ruled out as well, both words having evolved from French. The inquiry was no issue of precise definition, either, even if you did hint at that in your phrasing; no, clearly we were addressing the nature of synonyms — that is, practically speaking, why do we need multiple words that mean the same thing?
3.07.2014
BK vs. the World: Concert Lineups
Dream concert lineups of four bands, from any point in history, with the headliner listed last (links to sample songs):
3.06.2014
Catalogue (continued again)
Jobs I might pursue if I could rewind my life:
- Neuroscientist
- Insult comic
- Graphic designer
- Cook
- Swim coach
- Political economist
- Lyricist
- Typographer
- Vexillologist
- Trophy husband
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)