OT: Star Trek Discovery

124678

Comments

  • RawArtRawArt Posts: 5,352

    I remember all the complaints when Battlestar got remade...and it was one of the better sci-fi's of recent history.

    I am glad that they are not sticking to what was done in the past.....why dumb down effects, sets, costumes and storylines just to keep things in line with something that is already 50years old. All those things have inproved greatly since then.....so go with it. Make the best show you can with what can be done now!

     

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,153
    RawArt said:

    I remember all the complaints when Battlestar got remade...and it was one of the better sci-fi's of recent history.

    I am glad that they are not sticking to what was done in the past.....why dumb down effects, sets, costumes and storylines just to keep things in line with something that is already 50years old. All those things have inproved greatly since then.....so go with it. Make the best show you can with what can be done now!

     

    I thought they did a really good job with Enterprise, in making it look like more dated Trek technology, but obviously more modern than the 60's show.  They were pretty consistent through TNG, DS9, and Voyager.

    Except for the old-school looking phaser, they just threw that idea out the window. laugh

  • RawArt said:

    I remember all the complaints when Battlestar got remade...and it was one of the better sci-fi's of recent history.

    I am glad that they are not sticking to what was done in the past.....why dumb down effects, sets, costumes and storylines just to keep things in line with something that is already 50years old. All those things have inproved greatly since then.....so go with it. Make the best show you can with what can be done now!

     

    I was pretty skeptical about BSG. I mean, a school teacher? Really? The guy from Miami Vice as Adama? Please.

    Yeah. I was wrong about that one. I figured the turn off effect of not sticking to what had already been done in Star Trek would end up cost All Access subscriptions. Wrong about that, too.

    Maybe this thing will end up with legs. Still not sure. I mean they spent 80 minutes establishing USS Shenzhou and then destroyed her. She'll be back in flashbacks, based on the article. Discovery and Shenzhou reuse sets, and the article I saw made a point of repeating that it take a week to swap those sets from being Discovery to Shenzhou, so that implies they did it more than once. Anyway, it's only this week that we get to meet Discovery, and her crew. There's only like 9 episodes, so we're coming on 33% of the show, and we've not even been to the titular ship or met the core cast.

    And then there's Harry Mudd.

  • i think they pretty much destroyed that franchise once Roddenberry was no longer apart of the production, sort of how Star Wars started to decline minute disney got their hands on it, they make good animation and family type films but SciFi disney not one i see having much if any experiece in that type of strories. almost like stephen king suddendly beginning to  write children's books

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    King has written at least two children's books.

    specialization is for insects 

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401
    ermullens said:

    i think they pretty much destroyed that franchise once Roddenberry was no longer apart of the production, sort of how Star Wars started to decline minute disney got their hands on it, they make good animation and family type films but SciFi disney not one i see having much if any experiece in that type of strories. almost like stephen king suddendly beginning to  write children's books

    I couldn't disagree with you more.  I loved the new Desney Star Wars movies and so do my kids.  Ops, we spoke Star Wars in a Star Trek thread....YIKES!

  • TimbalesTimbales Posts: 1,812
    tkdrobert said:

    Well to be fair, TOS was 1960s.  The 1st movie changed things pretty dramically.  They need to adapt to a new, younger viewership.   Star Trek will die if they don't hook in younger viewers.  The story is what really matters.

    IMO, if they wanted to do full redesigns they should have just advanced the timeline another 100 - 150 years after Voyager. Casual fans wouldn't care.

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401
    Timbales said:
    tkdrobert said:

    Well to be fair, TOS was 1960s.  The 1st movie changed things pretty dramically.  They need to adapt to a new, younger viewership.   Star Trek will die if they don't hook in younger viewers.  The story is what really matters.

    IMO, if they wanted to do full redesigns they should have just advanced the timeline another 100 - 150 years after Voyager. Casual fans wouldn't care.

    I agree.

  • MardookMardook Posts: 291
    edited September 2017

    I found it rather underwhelming which was incredibly disappointing. Here are a some things that the two parter has thus been praised for by entertainment news articles, blogs and the like.

    1. Strong female leads: The promotion and reviews from various entertainment entities act like this is all new, its not. DS9 and Voyager had strong female characters.

    2. Diversity: This ties in with the above.

    3. Another war story: DS9 covered this in its later seasons.

    4. Klingons: The Next Generation really developed the Klingons through much of its tenure, Worf also continued onto DS9.

    5. Darker elements: DS9 touched on a few darker notions (terrorism, war, planet occupation, slavery, etc) but it didn't need to resort to gore, sex and language to be effective. This new series is being touted as Game of Thrones in space. I wonder if Discovery's producers realize that GOT is on it way out and kind of going out in a lesser version of itself.

    These two episodes really highlight to me why CBS has failed as the shepherd of Star Trek so far

    1. Michael Burhnam: She is unstable; (case in point - her scene with Georgiou and later the crew after incapacitating the Captain). She is instantly unlikable for her inept actions, she is arrogant with a grandiose sense of entitlement.

    2. Klingons: I was open to the idea that these Klingons might be a rogue sect. Nope, they are a revisionist take and they are over-designed. They are ornately costumed as is their ship, they look functionally inoperable in agility and movement. They are supposed to be deadly and dangerous and yet Burhnam has no problem launching herself at one of them outside their fancy digs and causing him to impale himself with his own weapon. Whatever sense of awesomeness and badassery that warrior was supposed to invoke went out the airlock in that split second.

    3. Vulcans: the actor playing Sarek is just not commanding enough. I don't feel a sense of age in his delivery and I just don't buy anything he has to say. By the way, the Vulcans in this series are essentially the JJ Abrams variety... I think we can all agree that they were jerks and when their planet got sucked into a blackhole it deservely did the galaxy a favour.

    4. Iconography and established concepts: The Vulcan Katra is essentially the soul of a dead Vulcan that can be saved, here though... its some kind of interspacial instagram messaging service that even humans can use. The concept of honour does not seem to apply to these Klingons, they ram their ship at the admiral's ship while cloaked. Obviously, cowardly attacks like that might be common... only time will tell.

    5. Plot: They mentioned in the two part episode that the Klingons have not been encountered in over a hundred years yet Burhnam's parents were killed by them a few years ago. When this was, no one really knows except for Sarek who apprently never bothered to tell anyone. At least from what we have seen so far.

    Now don't get me wrong, the series is visually impressive... the production is great, the scale of the world building is something I've always dreamt of seeing in the other series. Here though, its an afterthought. We're on that planet for a few minutes before we're thrown into the next plot which was moderately intriguing until it wasn't.

    Now, the series may improve in the next few episodes and I am willing to overlook some of this... but I just don't feel it. This feels just as hollow as the JJ Abrams Star Trek. Classic concepts are thrown around like they are supposed to make the series instantly acceptable.

    I genuinly feel that once of the veneer of newness wears out and non-Trek fans get bored and move on to the next big thing. At that point, this series will barely have anyone looking at it.

    In addition to this, the creators have built in a fail safe system in that if it fails... they can blame all the sexist, racist and homophobic commenters for the series failure.

    I hope I have not offended anyone.

    I just love Star Trek but to me...  this isn't Star Trek, the words are used, the ships look semi-familiar and the names of species are present. The big Trek films failed and this TV Trek will start of similarly, big, bold and brash... until it bores and meanders.

    I'll keep watching and see if it does improve and answer some of those questions that came up. If and when it does redeem itself, I will gladly return and eat my own words here.

    To think, all of the fan discord could have been avoided if they just set the series after Voyager or maybe on a ship travelling between galaxies. : P

     

    Post edited by Mardook on
  • RawArt said:

    I remember all the complaints when Battlestar got remade...and it was one of the better sci-fi's of recent history.

    I am glad that they are not sticking to what was done in the past.....why dumb down effects, sets, costumes and storylines just to keep things in line with something that is already 50years old. All those things have inproved greatly since then.....so go with it. Make the best show you can with what can be done now!

     

    I'm with you Raw !!!

  • tkdrobert said:
    ermullens said:

    i think they pretty much destroyed that franchise once Roddenberry was no longer apart of the production, sort of how Star Wars started to decline minute disney got their hands on it, they make good animation and family type films but SciFi disney not one i see having much if any experiece in that type of strories. almost like stephen king suddendly beginning to  write children's books

    I couldn't disagree with you more.  I loved the new Desney Star Wars movies and so do my kids.  Ops, we spoke Star Wars in a Star Trek thread....YIKES!

    I loved them too. Sure they had some huge discrepancies from the existing universe but I like reimaginings and those kind of wrong details just always happen so I can't complain.

  • BobvanBobvan Posts: 2,612
    RawArt said:

    I remember all the complaints when Battlestar got remade...and it was one of the better sci-fi's of recent history.

    I am glad that they are not sticking to what was done in the past.....why dumb down effects, sets, costumes and storylines just to keep things in line with something that is already 50years old. All those things have inproved greatly since then.....so go with it. Make the best show you can with what can be done now!

     

    I'm with you Raw !!!

    The new battlestar rocked it's spin off well not so much..

  • PDSmithPDSmith Posts: 706
    edited September 2017

    My cut, on the show it was too much JJ-verse no matter how much they wanted to downplay it.

    but my biggest complaint on the who show was, I wanted to look at the inside of the Klingon ship but I was forced to read the show. 

    If I wanted to read Star Trek...I would have picked up a book not watched it.  

    that right there was shot in the foot for me to enjoy its actors trapped in a thick rubber masks and thick mouth piece, it may have looked good and appeared like it just came from FACEOFF, but it ruined the every moment they were on the screen with me, my wife, and from what my co-workers agreed with; haveing to hear them was too much. We don't want our tv shows to be a live action Anime 25% of the time.

    As retired military, the first officer would have NEVER been granted that postion without extensive chain of command training, even on a 'small boy'. It makes great TV sure but would never fly in a real life circumstance. Serve on small ships, then the next ship, then the next...to gain the thing she never had....EXPERIENCE.

    Post edited by PDSmith on
  • McGyverMcGyver Posts: 5,928
    edited September 2017

    CBS and Paramount killed AXANAR for this?! 

    Yeah... I kinda wondered about that too... Though I've only seen the Discovery trailers (which looked interesting) I wondered what fan sentiments would be once I found out about Discovery would probably be exclusive to "All Access" (though at the time I wasn't aware that U.S. Netflix customers would be screwed with "No Access")...

    Axanar looked very promising, and I can see where the guy orchestrating it kinda threaded into murky waters, but from what I saw from a trek fan perspective, when reading a bunch of forums (while trying to figure out what was going on with Axanar), was that CBS bought themselves nothing but ill will... But these days the idea regarding fans is that they  are chumps who are cash cows, and you can do anything to them and they'll still kiss your butt and call it ice cream... 

    Regardless of of whether it made sense to exploit the fans or if CBS was using Discovery to bolster "All Access", it just seems like a big money grab from any angle and a middle finger to fans...

    And that's one of the things that has soured the appeal of Trek to me over time... Trek represents a idealistic future, but the franchise seems to be far from that now.

    Its funny in a way, back when Star Trek was new, NBC didn't understand what they had, nor who the fans were, and I think CBS still doesn't have a clue today.

    Post edited by McGyver on
  • Well, it wasn't a money grab.

    CBS and Viacom used to be the same company. They aren't now.

    CBS has, forever, owned the core rights to Star Trek. Paramount owns the movie rights and IP. When CBS split off Viacom, Viacom took Paramount.

    Quite litterally, the JJ verse and the Prime verse are owned by different corporate entities.

    CBS wanted to launch All Access in January, but couldn't because the flagship product, Discovery, was nowhere near ready. Now, the fact that it took two years to stand up the show isn't that suprising, so I wondered why they wanted to do it so fast, and launch 9 months ago. I mean, yes, it could have been done, but the extra time isn't that weird for TV productions. It turns out that January 2017 wasn't significant for any other reason than CBS made a deal with Viacom that it would distribute no new Star Trek until January 2017.

    This is news to me, but in light of it, I retract my "They should just make it JJ." That would involve money for lawyers that is best used making stories. 

    Logically, if it was just a money grab, CBS would have nipped the producers' ambitions in the bud to make sure Discovery premeried 9 months ago. They want your money, but the wanted to make sure they offered the best product they could for that money. (Probably because they sank about 100 million into it start, and not so much any kind of intergrity, but all entertainment is at least that much a grab for money.)

  • DaWaterRatDaWaterRat Posts: 2,882

    http://kryptonradio.com/2017/09/26/star-treks-future-doubt-cbs/

    Interesting article speculating on why CBS did what they did.  Food for thought in any case.

     

    Regarding the uniforms and tech - to a certain extent (and I admit I never really watched Enterprise) I feel that the Discovery uniforms are a logical progression from those uniforms.  I don't mind that they're not going to the TOS look, myself.  I remember thinking that TOS looked kinda dated when I watched it in syndication in the late 70's.  (I still enjoyed it, mind you, just thought it was dated)

  • ghastlycomicghastlycomic Posts: 2,528
    edited October 2017

    I felt the initial two episodes were a solid meh.

    Visually it failed on every level. Sets, uniforms, and ship designs were not period appropriate. At this point in the timeline the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is already 10 years old. Start Fleet's design is in its modernist stage. Everything is clean lines and streamlined and the technology is very uncluttered and modern looking. The ships we have seen so far in Discovery are very blocky with a lot of greebles covering the surface. I know they wanted to make the ships look primitive but they've gone too far in that direction. The ships looked more primitive than the NX-01 Enterprise, with thier clunky nacelles and ugly greebled surfaces.  The uniforms are almost period appropriate because we see something very similar worn on away missions in The Cage. The problem is at this star date each ship has it's own unique assignment patch. The Enterprise Delta isn't adopted as the standard Star Fleet insignia until 2278. I'm surprised they passed up such a prime opportunity to market different assignment patches to fans as the Shenzhou and Discovery should each have their own unique assignment patch. The ship sets were also too clunky and greeble cluttered and not the sleek functional styling that Star Fleet employed at this time period. You can say it's because the Shenzhou was a much older ship than the Enterprise but it still should have had some upgrades. Then there's the new purple fish-like Klingons. Ugh! Horrible, gaudy design.

    But more so than the designs the show failed visually cinematically. The camera was a constantly swooping, tilting, panning, zooming mess of lens flare. It went beyond simply being distracting to being downright laughable. It was like watching 1966 Batman tv show on steriods.

    Here's a handy guide to show you what angle you need to mount your television on your wall if you want to enjoy Star Trek Discovery.

    The acting was of the finest Scotch Pine. I understand why Spock's never-before-mentioned adopted sister would be wooden, but what was everyone else's excuse?

    Of course the one thing that really knocked me for a loop was the decision to desecrate a corpse as a star fleet tactic. That was certainly unsettling.

    As for the timeline. I had read an article that CBS is using Star Trek: Prime as a marketing term only and that it is not meant to imply Discovery takes place in the same timeline as ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and writers are not only allowed to disregard established canon but they're actually encouraged to do so. Discovery takes place in a timeline that is neither the television timeline nor the Abrams universe timeline. This is being done since merchandise from what fans called the "Prime Timeline" outself 9 to 1 what fans call the "Kelvin Timeline". So from a marketing point, if not a story point, they're going to use Star Trek: Prime to capitalize on this. This is why Discovery is going to have an android crew member Lt. Airiam even though TNG established Data was the first android in Star Fleet. Data was from the Television timeline. Lt. Airiam is from the Star Trek: Prime timeline where anything can happen.

     

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,760
    edited September 2017
    ermullens said:

    i think they pretty much destroyed that franchise once Roddenberry was no longer apart of the production, sort of how Star Wars started to decline minute disney got their hands on it, they make good animation and family type films but SciFi disney not one i see having much if any experiece in that type of strories. almost like stephen king suddendly beginning to  write children's books

    I'm going to strongly disagree with you on your Roddenberry statement.
    Roddenberry nearly destroyed the franchise with the Motion Picture, and if he had his way Star Trek II would have been the nail in the coffin for the franchise (He was seriously planning for ST2 to be a time travel movie where they go back in time and stop the Klingons from preventing the Kenedy assassination).
    Star Trek The Next Generation started getting good when Roddenberry was pushed out of the captains chair and forced to take a back seat.  When he was in charge we where getting recycled stories that where either meant for Star Trek Phase 2, or just remakes of old stories from the original series. (Season 1 is so hard to watch compared to the rest of the series.)

    Dissagree if you like.  I grew up with Next Generation and the original crew movies, and we owned most of the original series eppisodes.  I love all three and I'm happy that Star Trek grew past Roddenberry's original vision.  

     

    And.... NO.  Star Wars started downhill as soon as Lucas decided to make eppisodes 1-3 and inform all of the original fans that the version of the original trillogy that we know and love is garbage and should be forgotten.  (he claims that the original theatrical cuts of eppisode 4-6 are just rough cuts)  George Lucas is the Star Wars killer (Seriously who in they right mind would do that to classic movies?)!
    BTW, Star Wars Rebels (Sereis produced by Disney and shown on the Disney Channel is awesome)

    Post edited by JamesJAB on
  • DaWaterRatDaWaterRat Posts: 2,882
    JamesJAB said:
    ermullens said:

    i think they pretty much destroyed that franchise once Roddenberry was no longer apart of the production, sort of how Star Wars started to decline minute disney got their hands on it, they make good animation and family type films but SciFi disney not one i see having much if any experiece in that type of strories. almost like stephen king suddendly beginning to  write children's books

    I'm going to strongly disagree with you on your Roddenberry statement.
    Roddenberry nearly destroyed the franchise with the Motion Picture, and if he had his way Star Trek II would have been the nail in the coffin for the franchise (He was seriously planning for ST2 to be a time travel movie where they go back in time and stop the Klingons from preventing the Kenedy assassination).
    Star Trek The Next Generation started getting good when Roddenberry was pushed out of the captains chair and forced to take a back seat.  When he was in charge we where getting recycled stories that where either meant for Star Trek Phase 2, or just remakes of old stories from the original series. (Season 1 is so hard to watch compared to the rest of the series.)

    Dissagree if you like.  I grew up with Next Generation and the original crew movies, and we owned most of the original series eppisodes.  I love all three and I'm happy that Star Trek grew past Roddenberry's original vision.  

    To be fair, there was a writer's strike in there, so a fair number of recycled scripts are because they couldn't get new ones.

  • ghastlycomicghastlycomic Posts: 2,528
    edited October 2017

    Since my American friends don't get to watch Discovery on TV like we do in Canada I will share with you details from Episode 3.

    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::
    ::SPOILERS::

    It should have been Episode 1 with Episode 1 and 2 shown as a prequel at a later date.

    Captain Paul Newman Eyes: Come join Discovery, we have cookies. Also, I'm cunning af and you're all just play things in my grand scheme.

    Cadet Adorkable: I'm gonna be the Wesley Crusher of this show but I'm so cute you won't mind.

    Lt. Sassy-pants: It's taking every ounce of restraint I have not to end every sentence with Z-snaps.

    Tosha Worf: I'm a bad ass, you can tell because I don't emote.

    Commander Proto Data: I haven't done anything but break continuity so far.

    Commander Coward: Still scared of everything.

    As for the show: Here's a lot of technology that's more futuristic than anything we've ever seen on Star Trek before but somebody thought "Breath Scans" as a security feature was a good idea.

    It was a better episode than 1 and 2, but still doesn't feel like Star Trek. It might be a good military space opera if they had just made it its own franchise instead of stick Star Trek on it.

    As for what the mission of STD is: They're trying to harvest the awesome power of Midichlorians. (not even joking here)

    Easter Egg: Keep your eyes out for the Gorn.

    Post edited by ghastlycomic on
  • ghastlycomicghastlycomic Posts: 2,528

    Also does any other country get STD for free, or is this just a perk of being Canadian? I was surprised after rewatching episodes 1 and 2 today it was followed by 3. I guess SPACE must have made a deal with CBS.

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    No one going to touch the STD CBS has?

    no one?

    (taps his cards) Right

  • ghastlycomicghastlycomic Posts: 2,528

    Better not to touch CBS's STD until you go to sickbay for a shot.

  • TraceSLTraceSL Posts: 513

    My issues with the show:

    CBS ALL ACCESS

    Number One's backstory is that of Worf with minor changes.

    Kingons - not just their appearance but having cloaking device.

    Communications and Holograms - okay, some I can forgive but not tech of the times - communications should take days if not weeks as established in ST:TOS, what this does is take a captian that is on the edge of space and who's word is law and making it a phone home and getting the parents permission. 

    Poor scripts - plot driven conversations to make characters seem smart or dumb to promote plot. 

    Not an Andorian or Tellurite on the bridge crew. 

     

     

     

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,579

    At least we get it here, unlike the Orville...

  • ghastlycomicghastlycomic Posts: 2,528
    TraceSL said:
     

    Poor scripts - plot driven conversations to make characters seem smart or dumb to promote plot. 

    Oh episode 3 had some real doozies when it came to conversation.

    Prisoner Xena: (Indicating guy guarding door holding a BFG) "I've never seen anyone wearing a black Star Fleet insignia before" (She says to the woman who has also been wearing a black Star Fleet insignia the entire time.

    Cadet Adorkable: "Michael? But you're a woman. I've never heard of a woman named Michael before, except... OMG! You're her!"

    Seriously I highly doubt by the 23rd century a woman named Michael will be all that odd. I would not be surprised to find out there are currently women named Michael. Most unisex names started out as male only names. The names Logan, Sasha, and even Sissy were once male only names.

    As for the Black Badges. I am going to literally scream at the TV if they turn out to be Section 31. It was bad enough that DS9 had a sinister, shadowy secret organization whose uniforms just screamed out "Hey! I'm a member of a sinister, shadowy secret organization".  Any Section 31 agents on the Discovery should be doing their best to blend in with every other crew member.

    I was also certain that when Cadet Adorkable said she had a condition that made it impossible for her to have a roommate she was going to say it was autism so I was surprised when it was revealed that even though we're seeing tech more advanced than anything we have previously seen on any incarnation of Star Trek that they still haven't found a cure of an allergy to polyester.

    But one thing I will give them a pass on for now is the ridiculous "hope you don't have to get to this section in a hurry because there are only 4 access points per ring" ringed saucer section since I assume the impractical ringed saucer design is specific to their mission to mine midichlorians. Although apparently that site-to-site intership transport that was extremely dangerous and only ever used in an emergency in the TOS era is a TNG era "ain't no thang" issue in the STD universe.

  • RawArtRawArt Posts: 5,352
    edited October 2017

    Why are people nit-picking over things compared to older era shows?...that just drains the fun out of anything.

    I watched it last night and thought "Damn..this is going to be a fun ride". A ship designed to preform top secret and questionable science experiments (which will likely go very wrong), A captian who has a weird collection of Alien taxidermy and skeletons (including a gorn), and now a giant mutant monster..oh..and a tribble, the show is set during a war with an enemy who we already know as being powerful and war-like......and then you got all the individual characters on the ship who have very unique personalities and will make for interesting interactions.

    This all has the makings for some real good storys...and so far did not dissapoint

     

    Post edited by RawArt on
  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,458

    "Why are people nit-picking over things compared to older era
    shows?...that just drains the fun out of anything".

    +1

    Here in late 2017, I personally have zero interest in seeing anachronistic ship designs
    that astheticly appear to predate the Enterprise of TOS ,for the sake of "continuity"

  • RawArtRawArt Posts: 5,352

    Ya know.....I have been thinking about the complaints I have heard in various places how ST (or at least the federation) is supposed to be a peaceful universe...and it kinda dawned on me...

    The enterprise in its many TV iterations is the flagship of the federation, as such it is supposed to tow the company line of all peace love and harmony that the federation want the universe to believe. But...just because that is the company line, doesnt mean it is actual fact everywhere. I know I live in one of the safest cities in Canada, as such I know it is pretty idealic and peaceful here. But that doesnt mean there are no crack-houses, nut jobs with guns, and such things very nearby...I am a realist, I know there is.

    So while Kirk and Picard wave the flag of peace and harmony, there are still no doubt darker elements of crackpot scientists and secret organizations creating planet destroying weapons and such.

    So in that light, while Kirk and them in their little bubble of a ship may show a peaceful future...that doesnt mean there is no dark side to it.

    ....just sayin

     

  • jestmartjestmart Posts: 4,449

    Michael Learned, the mom from The Waltons.

Sign In or Register to comment.