So these last 2 episodes were supposed to be like "Return of the King"? As if that were a bad thing. Guess what? It's not.
Ptui on using the Lord of the Rings as some kind of negative example for this particular story of Star Trek, because Return of the King is a totally appropriate reference.
In this episode we had the equivalent of the battle of Minas Tirith, including Mumakil and Nazgul. We even had an equivalent of the distruction of the ring and the disintegration of Barad-Dur. And so this part of the story ends, we don't know if The Enterprise and Spock and Pike will be part of that story for season three, but we know that Discovery will embark on a new journey, across time and halfway across the galaxy.
Michael Burnham as Frodo though? Sorry, don't see that. But we do know that it is her turn to wear the red angel suit, what she does with it was wholly unexpected. But we had forewarning of some of this.
The Queen, "Me Hani Ika Hali Ka Po", reminded me of Sofia Boutella's "Jaylah" from Star Trek Beyond, in spirit at least. She was willing to put herself at risk to do her little part.
As a matter of fact, the entire crews of Discovery, Enterprise, and some surprise guests were all willing to go above and beyond what was required of them, which is what Starfleet is all about, and what Star Trek is all about. Star Trek has never been about catering to our comfort zones. Star Trek has always been about pushing the boundaries of our imaginations beyond what we have been comfortable with- whether we like it as fans, or not. And that is what the writers of this Red Angel Arc have gotten so right. This whole season has been what Star Trek is all about, my only sadness is that these "seasons" are way too short- 14 episodes is not enough to tell the epic scale of this tale, but they managed to get every element referenced and every loose end tied up, even the slight loose end about the spore woman that lived inside of Tilly.
Now from day one that this series started, I've seen nothing but complaints about the lead character "Michael Burnham". I am wondering if the same people are complaining that Kirk was the lead character in the original series, or that Picard was the Captain in Next Generation, or The Sisko, or Janeway, or Archer? Also: "Bulleted lists" of complaints. Ptui on "Bulleted Lists" of Complaints about this series and it's episodes- I mean really, if you hated it so much, why did you JUMP onto your computer or hand device to deliver your same bulleted list of minor irritations week after week - instead of not watching the show, like you promised to do after the first list of bulleted complaints (after "The Vulcan Hello")?
This series is about a ship called Discovery, and the main character, a "sister" of Mr. Spock that we had never heard about before (and after this episode there is a reason for this), it's also about a guy who started off as a Pale Klingon "Voq" The torch bearer, or Kuva'magh (refer to Star Trek Voyager season 7 episode 14 "Prophecy") and then was ground up into meat and sewn into a Captive Starfleet Officer named Ash Tyler, who has ended up being an important character and bridge between the Klingon empire and Discovery- and we even have a doctor that came back from the dead, who is the lover of the creator of the spore drive, not to mention Mr Saru, whose character and race has evolved significantly, and... well? we have a complicated arrangement of characters, major and minor, but it all starts off with Burnham.
But the fact is: this show is not "political" or "PC" or anything, (I think I saw some reference, in several verbatim duplicate "reviews" last week about "PO", or a "PO Character", whatever the blazes that means) - it's basically simply Star Trek, based on a show which made social statements in the 60s, which was also unprecidented, so go steal a red angel suit of your own and go back in time and complain about the original series if you want, because those kinds of complaints are irrelevant and inappropriate for this show, which is basically the same kind of show that the original series was.
In fact all through the last 54 years of Star Trek's existence, including an animated series, several feature films, four major television series, two of which were syndicated, three alternate timeline feature films, and now this show: The premise has never changed. It's not just about the future, it's about a particular KIND of future, a future where we have a united earth and people have set aside ridiculous bigotries. Where people are not motivated by money but by making themselves better and doing better things, where people can choose to follow or not follow religions without being persecuted for doing either, and where Space is being explored and we are part of a larger community that includes people from other planets, and even conflicts between those peoples have all been solved to some extent. I think that's what the "PC-ers" would call "globalism", except in Star Trek language this is called "The United Federation of Planets".
But the point being is that in 54 years the premise of Star Trek has never changed from that original premise, despite changes in production value and creature and a spaceship designs, it is still Star Trek and it still holds true to its original Mission:
"To explore Strange, New, worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
And to boldly go where no man has gone before."
And I can't wait to see where Discovery and The Red Angel bring us next year. Can we have more than 14 episodes, please?
85 out of 149 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
