1) Stamets is so delightfully weird when he's not being a dick.
2) I like how we continue to see Sarek as a flawed character--and confirm that Michael is older than Spock/"left home" first.
3) I'm really starting to like Lorca--he is way more than the warmongerer he's been presented as/ he's incredibly damaged and in a believable way.
4) Still totally shippin' Lorca/Tyler and Burnham/Tilley. Yup yup.
( SPOILERS )
2) In an ideal world, the season finale will be Michael time traveling to save Georgiou.
3) I really can't help but notice the sheer numbers of ladies and POC aboard the ship. It makes me so happy!
4) Scott's quote of the night....not quite relevant to the episode but still said while watching, "I'd be such a great Vulcan warlord!!"
( SPOILERS )
2) The comment I keep seeing is that "This doesn't feel like Star Trek to me." Which....is subjective, but more than anything, the vibe of this episode was a cross between that one TNG ep about the junior officers just going about their days and doing missions with only part of the information available, and latter-day DS9. The emphasis on information--and who has it--appears to be a major theme.
ETA: I just had a thought while I was in the shower (as you do) about Enterprise, Reboot, and Discovery all being Millennial Star Trek: the main themes of all three are about the collisions between the ideals of Starfleet and how they change/are challenged by terrorism and wartime. I need to think on this some more.
( SPOILERS )
Spoilery: ( SPOILERS )A closing grump: The one change I would have made to the show would be for the first two episodes to be aired a single movie-length episode--because that's how it functioned. Only the first one was shown on television, and a lot of (admittedly old white, who would never have liked it anyway) people tuned out. The thing is, all of the work that goes into the first episode in building characters who have interesting relationships with one another...that pays off in a dark way. (The only thing I can think of that's similar is the HYDRA reveal in the first season of Agents of SHIELD.) And it makes a lot of people's complaints obsolete, but then, they were probably never going to watch it for any reason but to bitch about it anyway. "Fans," I swear!
Probably more of a thought experiment, but...I'm wondering what an Outlanderey Kirk/McCoy AU would look like. Bones time-travels 200 years to the past where he meets Jim Kirk--who is definitely not Scottish or kilted--who he falls in love with (and okay if he abandons Jocelyn, but what about Joanna?!) and has to marry For Reasons, and they try to stop....something (WW3?). Doctoring, profanity, and sex ensue.
But think about it: It's about a reactionary, xenophobic old man that hates the new world he lives in and wants to destroy it, and how he is opposed by a diverse group of young people whose lives were forever changed because of terrorist acts--and who, rather than succumbing to fear, say things like "Unity is our strength" and "It's better to die saving lives than live with taking them."
Oh, and who call Beastie Boys "classical music." :}
...and then had to make lyrics and give myself an earworm. Welp.
Hey there, T'hy'la
If I have to have it stuck in my head, you do too.
The main thrust for those who aren’t keen on our LGBT Sulu, seems to come down to two things. Firstly, why Sulu? It’s a good point, I mean it could have been anybody: Kirk is a pansexual fun seeker; who knows why Bones got divorced? Nobody said Spock and Uhura were exclusive; Chekov is just permanently horny and let’s face it, there’s more to Scotty and Keenser than meets the eye.
The fact is, we chose Sulu because of George, there was something sweet and poetic about it. Introducing a new gay character had its own set of problems, as I mentioned before, the sexuality of that character would have to be addressed immediately and pointedly and the new characters in Star Trek Beyond have enough on their plate, without stopping to give us the intimate details of their personal lives. We were concerned it might seem clumsy, tokenistic or worse, too little too late, raising and exasperated, “finally!” from those who’ve been waiting for representation for the last 50 years.
So why persist when George Takei wasn’t keen? The thinking behind embracing an existing character was that it felt as though it retroactively put right something that had long been wrong. By the time, we mentioned it to GT, the idea had taken shape, it felt good, interesting and worthy of thought and conversation.
We were disappointed that George didn’t see it that way but, truth be told, Sulu Prime seemed to be missing a very important point. With galaxies of respect to the great man, this is not his Sulu. John Cho does not play a young George Takei, nor does he play the same character George Takei played in the original series. He is a different Sulu.
So I went to DePaul University's Celebration of Star Trek symposium this weekend, which was lovely: It was one day and basically half academic conference and half con. So, you know, there were serious panels about stuff and also cosplay and a vending area.
I spoke on two panels, both about Trek fandom; the first on Trek fan history and the second on Reboot fandom. Anyhow in the fan history one I mentioned slash and then another presenter was focused exclusively on the history of K/S, and during Q&A a student said very seriously, "I don't understand slash. Why do people do it? I find it disturbing. Like, is it meant to be funny or what?" To which my immediate response was "No, it's just that women like to get our rocks off too. ... sorry not sorry."
( The Drowned and the Saved )