Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022) - Season 1 (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

I enjoyed the episode, and the season, tremendously. Anson Mount is so good, and he finally got an episode where he commanded every scene. Ethan Peck is also excellent as Spock, in what have to be impossible expectations to meet. It’s not fair to judge Paul Wesley as Kirk after only one episode, but I thought he did admirably. Again, the expectations have to be impossible.

I hope the new season brings much more of Rebecca Romijn. I feel like we barely saw her this season, except for the one where we learned of her past. I’ve long wanted to know more about Number One.

I reiterate what I’ve said before: This is the best Star Trek has been since the best days of DS9.

 

[SamT]

The James T. Kirk casting is so uninspired. How could people who had cast Pike, cast Kirk like that. He has no charisma or anything necessary for a major character. I hope they don't make a future series with him.

 

[DaveF]

These last two episodes were both very strong and enjoyable. And yet, also perplexing and vergeing on being anti-Trek.

This finale: I liked it. And yet, it didn’t wholly land. It never gave me a clear understanding of what Pike did differently to disrupt the timeline. Only that Spock dies, and he’s got a lot of TV episodes and movies left to do, so that’s no good.

As best I can tell, Pike‘s failing is pursuing peace. He should instead be more like Kirk and kill Romulans.

That’s a really anti-Trek attitude.

 

[DaveF]

I’m seeing confusion on what happens to Capt Pike and the future he’s trying to avoid, but can’t.

It’s his future as a comedian. As documented in Futurama.

 

[SamT]

I didn't even realize they did a time travel. I mean I knew it happened, they kept saying it but I didn't see it with my own eyes. I have no idea what happened, when it happened and all that! For me this was the worst episode of the season.

 

[Greg.K]

As best I can tell, Pike‘s failing is pursuing peace. He should instead be more like Kirk and kill Romulans.

And of course, knowing that his plan failed, he could just choose to go with Kirk's plan in the future.

But somehow any version other than Pike sticking with his original fate somehow leads to Spock suffering it instead, for reasons.

 

[Sam Favate]

Really good interview with Anson Mount on the finale and the next season. It sounds like he hopes they will be at this a long time.

Anson Mount Sets a High Bar

On 'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds,' he's Starfleet's biggest-hearted captain. But here on Earth, he's a thoughtful and down-to-earth "country boy."

www.esquire.com

And here's a piece on season 2, with a look at a new set:

The STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS Creative Team Unveils a New Enterprise Set and Teases Character Plans for Season 2

The STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS creative team unveils a new Enterprise set, shares insight into "A Quality of Mercy," and teases what's to come in Season 2

blog.trekcore.com

 

[Josh Dial]

These last two episodes were both very strong and enjoyable. And yet, also perplexing and vergeing on being anti-Trek.

This finale: I liked it. And yet, it didn’t wholly land. It never gave me a clear understanding of what Pike did differently to disrupt the timeline. Only that Spock dies, and he’s got a lot of TV episodes and movies left to do, so that’s no good.

As best I can tell, Pike‘s failing is pursuing peace. He should instead be more like Kirk and kill Romulans.

That’s a really anti-Trek attitude.

I don't think that's quite the morale of the tale.

In Balance of Terror, Kirk didn't want war. He didn't seek it out. but he was presented with a set of facts and, being the Captain in the moment, decided on a particular course of action (he even says something for the message to Starfleet/Earth about his choice being on him alone).

Kirk knew the ultimately goal: maintain the peace. But in his view the facts outweighed the ultimate goal.

And that's the tension being explored: should you let the facts before you override the preexisting goal? If the facts tell you to break the treaty, but the preexisting goal says to maintain the treaty, what do you do?

Kirk says follow the facts.

Pike, for his part, always had one eye on the ultimate goal of peace and maintaining the treaty. Everything he did was in dogged pursuit of that goal.

Pike says follow the goals.

Kirk is more willing than Pike to let the "facts on the ground" win the day over the Federation's ideals, foundational goals, and written rules. Pike is more willing than Kirk to let the Federation's principals win the day over the facts.

The Romulan commander is an interesting foil because in each version of the story, he says, "you and I are of a kind" and laments that "in a different reality I could have called you friend." That tells us, the audience, that Pike's approach (pursue the goals) and Kirk's approach (follow the facts) are both valid.

The tension is actually a very Star Trek thing.

 

[Hanson]

I just couldn't shake the idea that the actor playing James T Kirk was a dead ringer for Jim Carrey. I kept expecting him to blurt out, "AAAALL-RIGHTY THEN" or "S-S-S-SMOKINNNN"

And I also thought it was anti-Trek for the lesson to be "aggression and shows of strength wins"

 

[TJPC]

What is to stop Pike from taking the vision of the future as a learning experience, and after saving the cadets and himself, not make the same mistakes that lead to the Federation/Romulan war? Does he remember the experiences?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

What is to stop Pike from taking the vision of the future as a learning experience, and after saving the cadets and himself, not make the same mistakes that lead to the Federation/Romulan war? Does he remember the experiences?

Probably nothing. But what about the next thing? And the thing after that? Kirk and Spock have a destiny together, one that will also shape Spock's life after Kirk's sacrifice on the Enterprise-B.

By accepting his fate, Pike is opting not to step on any butterflies.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Paul Wesley is just kinda thin for JT Kirk, like pencil-neck thin, it's just weird to see this younger JT Kirk, maybe he bulks up a bit by the time 7 years will have passed for TOS.

And I don't really have much history on Sam Kirk, so are we supposed to care about his character due to him being related to JT Kirk and being in StarFleet?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It never gave me a clear understanding of what Pike did differently to disrupt the timeline. Only that Spock dies, and he’s got a lot of TV episodes and movies left to do, so that’s no good.

As best I can tell, Pike‘s failing is pursuing peace. He should instead be more like Kirk and kill Romulans.

That’s a really anti-Trek attitude.

If you go back and watch the original TOS episode “Balance of Terror,” you’ll see the exact difference between what Kirk did and Pike did.

It’s not simply that Pike pursued peace but that he did do at the wrong moment, and because of his unwillingness to consider how his actions would be received by Romulans, took an action that, by Romulan culture, gave footing for the Romulans to begin the war that they very much wanted to start in the first place. Kirk does sympathize with him at the end, telling him that he “tried for something better,” but he also points out that Pike didn’t consider the possibility that this could be a scenario that required a tactical response.

Consider what the Romulan ship did: it crossed into Federation space and launched unprovoked attacks on three defenseless space stations, each home to hundreds if not thousands of souls. They didn’t just drive into the wrong lane; they committed a blatant act of war against a defenseless group.

Pike was warned by Spock and the rest of the senior crew, as well as Kirk, that if he showed weakness, or what the Romulans perceived as weakness, that the Romulans would take that as an invitation to invade. By not understanding the Romulans, in attempting to create a peace, he gives them that invitation.

When Kirk handled this same situation, he didn’t seek out war or violence either. But he also didn’t give any ground. He pursued the Romulan vessel from Federation space, into the Neutral Zone, and back into Romulan territory. He crippled their ship and removed their capability of launching further attacks. Then, and only then, did he offer the possibility of discussing a peace, inclusive of an offer to rescue the Romulans from their now-crippled vessel with an offer to return them to safety. The Romulans declined and chose to self-destruct rather than consider a non-violent alternative. Kirk didn’t seek out the destruction of the Romulan ship or the death of its crew. It’s not what he wanted. He offered them a chance at life, a real, genuine offer, and they turned him down.

Kirk’s goal in his version of the events as seen in the original TOS wasn’t to kill Romulans, but he also innately understood that he was dealing with a different culture with a different mindset from the Federation, and that whether or not he sought a battle, he was already in one. Pike did not. Kirk understood that letting the Romulan aggression go unchallenged would only provoke more Romulan aggression. Pike did not. Kirk avoided a war by suggesting that this aggression would not be tolerated. Pike invited one by suggesting it would.

Its a “tolerance paradox”. The only thing tolerance can’t tolerate is intolerance, because intolerance will destroy tolerance every time.

It’s also World War II. The TOS episode “Balance of Terror” was inspired by WWII submarine battles. Now if you look at the history there, the U.S. did pretty much everything imaginable to avoid a war, arguably beyond the point where non-intervention was justifiable. But once Pearl Harbor happened, there was no more avoiding it. Did FDR *want* to kill Japanese people? I don’t think anyone would describe it that way. But there was also no choice but to respond to that action.

That’s essentially the type of scenario faced here.

It’s an important lesson, that as much as we may wish it, not every scenario has a simple solution. It’s also a lesson about understanding your adversaries and understanding how differences in culture can lead to something that’s effective in one scenario not being effective in another. And probably also a lesson about there being a right time and right place for certain actions.

As to how all of this leads to a terrible future - the war that shouldn’t have happened, for one. Beyond that, in the Prime Trek Universe we’ve seen no fewer than three paradigm shifting events that would have happened regardless of any changes Pike makes to the timeline for which Spock’s existence makes a key difference:

-V’Ger’s attack on the Federation and all other life forms on its way to extinguish Earth, in the Motion Picture. Only Spock figures out what V’Ger is and trying to achieve, and therefore how to deal with it. If Spock isn’t there, V’Ger destroys Earth.

-The alien probe’s attack on Earth and destruction of all ships on its way to Earth in Star Trek IV. Only Spock surmises that it’s speaking whale, and without Spock picking up that they need to find some whales to answer the message, that’s an extinction level event there that no one can stop.

-Spock bringing about the eventual reconciliation between Vulcans and Romulans (starting in TNG) and as a result of that newfound connection, being driven towards stopping a supernova from wiping out half the Galaxy (Star Trek ‘09 movie).

These are all “end of the world” type scenarios that were set in motion by powers outside of Spock’s control that the Federation would have faced no matter what. But Spock being present in those cases changes the outcome. Pike is a good man and a noble captain. Spock is a once in generations paradigm shifting game changer.

 

[Sam Favate]

I just couldn't shake the idea that the actor playing James T Kirk was a dead ringer for Jim Carrey.

I have to say I found the likeness a bit distracting too. The actor is a bit too wiry; I think that's the issue.

 

[DaveF]

I enjoyed watching the episode: good performances and it ties into the throughline of Pike’s looming doom. But this is where my enthusiasm wanes:

If you go back and watch the original TOS episode “Balance of Terror,” you’ll see the exact difference between what Kirk did and Pike did.

Requiring me to remember crucial details of an episode of Star Trek that I maybe watched 40 years ago as a kid to explain the new episode’s story is a significant failure by the showrunners.

A good episode. But flawed: inadequately written for anyone but the most hardcore Trek fans.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Requiring me to remember crucial details of an episode of Star Trek that I maybe watched 40 years ago as a kid to explain the new episode’s story is a significant failure by the showrunners.

A good episode. But flawed: inadequately written for anyone but the most hardcore Trek fans.

It’s interesting that you say that, because I view this show with my wife who doesn’t have that same history with the show. I’m reasonably certain she’s never seen Balance Of Terror, and if she ever did, she certainly didn’t remember it. And yet, she had a very different reaction to the episode than you did - she immediately understood the point that the show was trying to make, and inferred what decisions Kirk had made in TOS based on Kirk’s dialogue in this episode. The alternate Kirk does state, all along the way, which choices he would have made (which are in fact the choices he made in TOS).

So personally speaking, I don’t see it as a failure because I saw it working for someone who didn’t have that history at all. I don’t think it’s necessary to actually see Kirk do all the things he said he would have done to follow it.

I do agree that it’s a tough line to straddle as to which portions of the fanbase to appease at any given time, and my argument here would be that Strange New Worlds has a different mandate from some of the other new shows. It wasn’t a show Paramount ever planned on making; it was willed into existence by fans who wanted to see a throwback to old school Trek, and I think as a result of that it’s fair to expect that it’ll have more references than the other shows will. The original series has to be one of, if not the, most widely syndicated and repeated show of all time. I think it’s okay that they do some inside baseball every now and then. I think it’s okay for them to engage with and reward viewers who do revisit the older shows more frequently. Not every show is going to hit every audience member the same way, of course, but I think it’s reasonable that if there are five different series running concurrently that one of them caters more to old school fans than to casual and new viewers.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What is to stop Pike from taking the vision of the future as a learning experience, and after saving the cadets and himself, not make the same mistakes that lead to the Federation/Romulan war? Does he remember the experiences?

Alternate Future Pike tells him that thanks to the Klingon monks on Boreth, and their time crystals, he’s seen that any attempt to change the future results in the premature death of Spock, and Spock’s death is a cataclysmic event that brings forth “end of the world” scenarios every time. It’s not simply a matter going back, trying again, and changing different things - any version of Pike trying to change his fate results in the death of Spock and calamity for the Galaxy.

It goes back to the commitment Pike made at Boreth in Discovery season 2 - by accepting that time crystal to stop the end of the Galaxy then, he committed to the path that he’s on.

This season, his character arc has been about accepting that fate, and it’s a natural instinct to try to be more clever and to wiggle his way out of the situation. It was a noble endeavor to try so not just for himself but for the cadets that he was unable to save in that accident. But there’s no version of this that works out if he does so. There’s no version where Pike avoids his fate and the universe is better off because of it.

That’s a lot to carry. To know that the final chapter of your life is one of unbearable pain. To know that other people will perish in that same accident and that there’s nothing he can do to stop it. But he’s now learned firsthand the truth of Spock’s “good of the many” axiom - Pike’s sacrifice and the sacrifice of the cadets he can’t save leads to a better future than would exist if Pike tries to get out of it.

From a storytelling perspective, I think this is a great writing choice because it puts an end to this storyline in a way that allows the audience to not “what if” every moment Pike is onscreen, while giving us the character growth of a man accepting what he can’t change.

 

[Josh Dial]

Paul Wesley is just kinda thin for JT Kirk, like pencil-neck thin, it's just weird to see this younger JT Kirk, maybe he bulks up a bit by the time 7 years will have passed for TOS.

Everyone seems to eat really good on Pike's Enterprise (due mostly to Pike himself, it seems). Perhaps someone picks up the cooking slack when Kirk joins as captain and he puts on some bacon-fueled weight.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Supposedly when Shatner first got the Kirk part, he was a starving actor, but as the first season of filming the show progressed, he ate much better, i.e. more food, and he started packing on the pounds by the end of the season, thus filling out his uniform more...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Requiring me to remember crucial details of an episode of Star Trek that I maybe watched 40 years ago as a kid to explain the new episode’s story is a significant failure by the showrunners.

I don't really think it does. Certainly, there's a lot in the episode meant to enhance the enjoyment of the hardcore fans who are very familiar with "Balance of Terror".

But even the people who've never seen the original series should have all of the information they need within this episode: The decisions made by Pike in the captain's chair seven years hence plunge the Federation into war with the Romulans, and result in crippling injuries and/or death for Spock. But if Pike accepts his fate and cedes the captain's chair to another, war with the Romulans will be averted and Spock will go on to do incredible things.

And I don't really have much history on Sam Kirk, so are we supposed to care about his character due to him being related to JT Kirk and being in StarFleet?

I don't think the show's seeking a lot of audience investment in the character. Sam Kirk was introduced in the pilot to give us the bait and switch of thinking we're getting one Kirk, and getting the other instead. Since then, his role has been to be a generic science officer to round out away missions and maybe be a little less noble and heroic than our series regulars.