Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Star Trek related discussion, information, links, etc.

Moderator: Dancyer McCoy

Forum rules
For those who haven't noticed the Forum Rules have been revised. It might be a good idea to take a look at them if you haven't read them for awhile. You'll find them in the Forum Rules forum at the top of the index page.
User avatar
Gazomg
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:11 am
Location: The Emerald Isle
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by Gazomg » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:00 am

so all the people who ever came in contact with them simply forgot they existed and told no one, and people simply forgot ?
Why would you wear a badge then if you had the authority and were clandestine...to me it makes zero sense.
do american secret agencies go around with a badge on their lapel showing everyone their are some intelligence agency ?
Image
MANIPULATIONS ON MY SITE - 2196 - FEBRUARY 11th

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am

Jace, I cannot help but feel you are missing the point. There has been, at least until now, a connecting theme in all of the Trek shows. A theme of hope, exploration, and self-discovery. Ever since the new license was issued to Bad Robot and Trek was remade in a new image, it has been different. This difference has been noticable by many long time fans who have not liked it. Discovery promised to return is to the so called "Prime Timeline" and we were led to believe this would be a return to the Trek we knew. The first season of Discovery failed to do this and thus earned the fans ire. Issues with tech, politics, canon, that comes second to the issues of theme. Star Trek has a clear theme and Discovery has a different theme, or at least season 1 had a different theme and the Klingon stuff thus far in season 2 has a different theme. Discovery is set in a dark and brutal world unlike any Trek we have seen before. Season 2 is getting better, but it is not the Trek many of us are familiar with.

And for the record, yes you can look at the 3 big Treks of the 24th century and you can tell they all take place in the same universe. Get off you high horse and stop pretending Trek has "always been different" or whatever. I wanted a return to canon, not this. Even if it is getting better, this is not what I wanted.

As for S31, no it is not Starfleet Intelligence, S31 is much deeper. And no, they are not the sort to wear their own badges, they wear whatever badge they need to wear to get the job done. It's not about ego, it's about doing what needs to be done.

As for SJW I refer to a political movement that has been gaining ground in recent years and causing no end of problems for people who disagree with them or do not belong to one of their "protected classes". Mikey is a prime example of an SJW character and debating this at this point is pointless. Either you see it, or you are willfully blind. So yes, the super smart, super capable, almost Vulcan, secret sister of a canon character Mike is a Mary Sue. I have read this character before in many crappy fanfics. Indeed, I would say many things in Discovery feel like many bad fanfics I have seen over the years, only this time we are being told it's "canon".
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:36 am

Gazomg wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:00 am
so all the people who ever came in contact with them simply forgot they existed and told no one, and people simply forgot ?
Why would you wear a badge then if you had the authority and were clandestine...to me it makes zero sense.
do american secret agencies go around with a badge on their lapel showing everyone their are some intelligence agency ?
Did you see anyone WEARING the badge? I didn't. Having a badge like that is a is a power move. It's a psychological thing. And also, it's possible that the badge has a specific purpose we haven't seen yet. You're making judgments with incomplete information based on the way you THINK things should be. Do you think clandestine agents in real life have no identifying insignia? They do. They keep it hidden unless it's needed.

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:59 am

sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Jace, I cannot help but feel you are missing the point. There has been, at least until now, a connecting theme in all of the Trek shows. A theme of hope, exploration, and self-discovery.
All of which are present in Discovery and to miss them, you'd have to go in TRYING to miss them.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Ever since the new license was issued to Bad Robot and Trek was remade in a new image, it has been different. This difference has been noticable by many long time fans who have not liked it.


Bad analogy. The Abrams movies tried to turn Trek into Summer Action movies with varying degrees of success. I enjoyed them well enough but they never really felt right to me primarily because I knew they existed in a separate timeline where things were very different and it negated everything I loved. Discovery doesn't do that.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Discovery promised to return is to the so called "Prime Timeline" and we were led to believe this would be a return to the Trek we knew.
Stop fearing change. You've had 5 series where NONE of them have resembled the previous. DS9 had a whole lot of grim-dark going on. Voyager too. Enterprise had entire seasons where they rewrote the rules and added things. People complained and in time, got over it.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
The first season of Discovery failed to do this and thus earned the fans ire. Issues with tech, politics, canon, that comes second to the issues of theme.
The word you're looking for there is "nitpicks." I call this Star Wars Fan syndrome. It's not exactly as you envisioned or exactly as you wanted it so you hate it.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Star Trek has a clear theme and Discovery has a different theme...
No. See above.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
...or at least season 1 had a different theme and the Klingon stuff thus far in season 2 has a different theme.
Still no. The Klingon stuff is no real different than it was during the other trek series. It's just more of a focus because one of our main characters is directly intertwined with it. Or was until 2 weeks ago... I'm willing to bet we see a bit less Klingon stuff at this point.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Discovery is set in a dark and brutal world unlike any Trek we have seen before.
Untrue. The Dominion war was WAY WAY Darker. It just wasn't as VISIBLE. They didn't SHOW IT. Because they didn't have the tech and the budget. Same with Year of Hell. And do we need to talk about Picard being literally TORTURED in TNG? This world is no more dark or brutal. We're just getting to actually see it because they can show it now that they don't answer to network television. It's realistic.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
Season 2 is getting better, but it is not the Trek many of us are familiar with.
So? Neither is anyone's Fan Fic here. We create new stories with new elements and new characters all the time. It doesn't need to be "familiar." It just needs to be right.

Storytelling progress MATTERS. We can't keep telling the same stories the same way. If you do that, nothing interesting happens. You run out of story to tell because it just becomes rehashed. How many times can we do an "Everyone gets stuck int he Holodeck for X Reason" story? or "Hostile Alien doesn't understand our very human selves" story. You have to learn new ways to tell stories or your writing doesn't improve and the world doesn't progress.

If they had given us another Voyager or a TNG clone, I would be BORED already. What they've done is meet a 21st century audience with 21st century storytelling, featuring on realistic problems in a more visceral take on the setting with relatable characters that feel less like these Paragons of virtue and more like real people.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
And for the record, yes you can look at the 3 big Treks of the 24th century and you can tell they all take place in the same universe. Get off you high horse and stop pretending Trek has "always been different" or whatever. I wanted a return to canon, not this. Even if it is getting better, this is not what I wanted.
Well, I'm terribly sorry but... I'm not sorry that they didn't consult you. You wanted more of the same. They wanted to do something NEW that was still Star Trek, and they are. This still takes place in the same universe and I can tell that just fine. The aesthetics are all there... just updated. Trek HAS always been different and this IS a return to canon.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
As for S31, no it is not Starfleet Intelligence, S31 is much deeper. And no, they are not the sort to wear their own badges, they wear whatever badge they need to wear to get the job done. It's not about ego, it's about doing what needs to be done.
That is your take on them. That is not canon. What is on screen is now canon and it's based on a more realistic interpretation of what a Starfleet clandestine organization would be. And it makes far more sense this way than what you're proposing. Because of COURSE they are SFIntel. We've literally seen DS9 and Enterprise BOTH interact with them, AND they've appeared in the films. You can be guaranteed they'd have shown up in VOY if they had been in the area. They are Starfleet's Dirty Little Worst Kept Secret.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
As for SJW I refer to a political movement that has been gaining ground in recent years and causing no end of problems for people who disagree with them or do not belong to one of their "protected classes".


I'm going to literally disregard everything you are about to say about this because it's completely pointless to try and talk sense to people who want bitch about the idea that everyone deserves equal rights and protections just because, for some reason, it goes against their personal beliefs. Also because this will go on about politics, as you pointed out, which is against forum rules. So moving on...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
So yes, the super smart, super capable, almost Vulcan, secret sister of a canon character Mike is a Mary Sue.
Mary Sue doesn't mean what you clearly just defined you think it means, so... whatever. "She's Smart and Super Capable!" So is everyone else on Discovery... and for that matter... in Starfleet. Being almost Vulcan and anyone's secret sister has nothing to do with being a Mary Sue. Mary Sue's don't really have faults. Burnham has plenty of them. Mary Sue's are also usually author insertion and wish fulfillment. She doesn't really qualify just because she's smart and capable.

She literally committed mutiny in the first episode, started a war, and went to prison for making a HUGE fucking mistake.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:11 am
I have read this character before in many crappy fanfics. Indeed, I would say many things in Discovery feel like many bad fanfics I have seen over the years, only this time we are being told it's "canon".
Only because you don't like it. Thankfully... it's on TV anyway and you don't have a job writing for it.

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13791
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am

JaceRidley wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:44 pm
I don't find Burnham to be a Mary Sue.

Is she immensely intelligent and talented? Yes. She has every reason to be. She was raised on Vulcan and expected to perform at near-Vulcan like levels. But from the outset of the show, she was shown to be capable of mistakes and flawed judgement. She's the opposite of a Mary Sue.
Opinion noted and respectfully, yet firmly, rejected.

"Immensely intelligent and talented" ... check. Spock as a brother ... check. Can deliver a Vulcan neck pinch ... check. Is almost immediately given an X-O's slot after actions that should have kept her out of the service forevermore ... check. Immediately adored by many of her comrades despite high crimes and misdemeanors ... check. I could add to this list ad nauseam, but ... the point has more than been made.

This woman started a war that likely killed millions, and everyone seems to have forgotten that already. That's beyond preposterous.
I feel like a lot of people don't like the show, and therefore cast their dislike of the show into her, when she isn't doing anything that other characters in the other series didn't regularly do.
Point refuted above, though phrased better than the dismissive 'what you would think' comment below.

And since I've also noted the show's good points and improvement, I don't think my dissenting view can be dismissed summarily, or even easily.
And again with the "SJW" thing... When did everyone forget about the future that Star Trek is?
Not everyone's vision of the future has to coincide with the current majority's.

I'm not, to make abundantly clear, speaking about acceptance of sexual mores that are still in this day and age controversial. That's a future in which one may, indeed, put their hopes, since in an ideal "world", all should be able to make their choices and at least attempt to live happily by them without fear. As is (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it." "Do it" is implied therein, as well.

But when, among other points, overweight girls who cannot handle the physical requirements of the service are working Starfleet cadets yet no one bats an eyelash, and when it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between the morals of Starfleet officers and their Mirror Universe counterparts ... that's a problem, Burnham's "Band-Aid on a hemorrhage" speech about what it is to be Starfleet at the climax of Season One notwithstanding.

(The above, by the way, is not "fat shaming". Mary Wiseman is an attractive and vibrant person. I genuinely like the character Tilly, in large measure because of her quirks. She just wouldn't make the cut as a Starfleet officer because she cannot meet the physical requirements [unless allowances are made while you are a cadet to reach and maintain that level of conditioning before you're commissioned. That at least would be possible, and has certain precedent even in today's militaries]).
Lastly, None of the "contemporary touches" break immersion or verisimilitude because of the variety of reasons things are different from the way they were on TOS. But I wouldn't WANT them to look like they did on TOS and even though you all think you would... You wouldn't. If they did, you'd be complaining how dated everything looks.
They absolutely do break them for me and others, so asserting they don't is by definition incorrect.

When someone tells you both what you would and wouldn't want, then follows with what you'd complain about if things were different, that person's edged over the line insofar as civil discourse is concerned.

Please respect those with whom you're having a discussion by not telling them either what they really think or, even more outrageously, what they would think. Thank you.
Whenever someone says they're "beyond good and evil", they're evil.

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am

Okay, so agree with pretty much all JM has to say, Tilly's weight being especially egegious in the recent episode when she stopped for a time to argue with nothing and then still won a foot race.

But I wish to raise another point. The fandom is split right now, and it is not a 50/50 split. It is hard to tell how split it is or where the decide truly is, but it has been split since 2009 and continues to be split. I had hoped a return to the "Prime Timeline" would mend this split, but Discovery has only made it worse. Now we seem to be able to read minds and tell what each other really mean when we critisize it. Like with Star Wars, the levels of toxin in the discourse have only risen and even when some of us are willing to say "it's getting better" we are still lambasted as "incorrect" in our view point.

I see Mike as a Mary Sue. I see the stories of season one as piss poor. I see the new Klingon redesign as a total failure. I see things this way and you telling me I should not only seeks to push me out.

This is my perspective and you seem unable or unwilling to understand it. I could say others share this perspective, but I speak for none but myself. Discovery is not Star Trek in my eyes. I have seen Star Trek, I have dreamed it and played it and watched hours upon hours upon hours of it. Every episode, every movie, every book I could get my hands on throughout my middle school years and into highschool. Star Trek was so my life I wanted a Star Trek wedding just like I saw in the movie Trekkies. I know some fans dislike that movie, but to me it was so cool to see the fans.

Now the fandom is broken and I see CBS deciding it further and now even some fans seek to pour salt on this wound.

Star Trek is family. Discovery is how someone who does not quite understand Star Trek sees Star Trek. It's theme and tone are clear off the mark. It's camera work is so different that when Jonathan Frakes directed and did some old school Trek camera work I was blown away. Discovery isn't Trek because it feels like it's being made by the "cool kids" and not us "nerds" anymore.
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:36 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
Opinion noted and respectfully, yet firmly, rejected.

"Immensely intelligent and talented" ... check. Spock as a brother ... check. Can deliver a Vulcan neck pinch ... check. Is almost immediately given an X-O's slot after actions that should have kept her out of the service forevermore ... check. Immediately adored by many of her comrades despite high crimes and misdemeanors ... check. I could add to this list ad nauseam, but ... the point has more than been made.
A few things:
  • What does the Nerve Pinch have to do with being a Mary Sue? We've seen Picard give one. Seven. Odo. Data. Archer.
  • Having Spock as a brother is not really any indicator of a Mary Sue. It's just a way to tie the series together for the concept they had laid out and use established characters to more firmly knit together the narrative. That doesn't exactly give her super powers. In fact, as we learn more about that relationship, it seems to be more of a detriment than anything else thus far...
  • She wasn't given the XO slot. She still ISN'T the XO of Discovery. She was a first officer for the Shen-Zhou. Now she's the Science Officer. Saru is the XO of Disco.
  • She was immediately ignored by her shipmates pretty much across the board, except for Tilly who is that typical bubbly "let's give everyone a chance" type person. The rest she had to prove herself to and given what Discovery has been through, her field recommission to Commander isn't exactly unprecedented.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
This woman started a war that likely killed millions, and everyone seems to have forgotten that already. That's beyond preposterous.
Now I'll admit it's been awhile since I've seen the first couple episodes but... how did Burnham start the war? She was court martialed for mutiny, dereliction of duty and assaulting a fellow officer. But she didn't *start* the war. The Klingons did that. T'kuvma planned the whole damn thing. People didn't dislike Burnham for starting a war. They thought of her as a mutineer. And she wasn't even really a successful one.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
Not everyone's vision of the future has to coincide with the current majority's.
I'll be honest, I don't entirely grasp the scope of what you mean by this and the comment that followed. But... this feels like the kind of conversation that should probably be kept away from the forum to keep in line with forum rules.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
....But when, among other points, overweight girls who cannot handle the physical requirements of the service are working Starfleet cadets yet no one bats an eyelash...
Keep in mind, once again, that Starfleet is not a military organization. Heavier people are not incapable of being supremely intelligent and capable.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
(The above, by the way, is not "fat shaming". Mary Wiseman is an attractive and vibrant person. I genuinely like the character Tilly, in large measure because of her quirks. She just wouldn't make the cut as a Starfleet officer because she cannot meet the physical requirements [unless allowances are made while you are a cadet to reach and maintain that level of conditioning before you're commissioned. That at least would be possible, and has certain precedent even in today's militaries]).
All noted, but see above.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
They absolutely do break them for me and others, so asserting they don't is by definition incorrect.
Okay but why? And what about them is immersion breaking? Keeping in mind that we saw so much in Enterprise that was almost identical to TOS but greyer, and knowing that the Constitution class was a bit of a throwback in design, seemingly now at Pike's insistence in many ways, Discovery still looks similar but with more tech. Not more *advanced* tech necessarily.. just more of it.

And be honest, would you rather have a show that looked like TOS? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:16 am
When someone tells you both what you would and wouldn't want, then follows with what you'd complain about if things were different, that person's edged over the line insofar as civil discourse is concerned.

Please respect those with whom you're having a discussion by not telling them either what they really think or, even more outrageously, what they would think. Thank you.
I can understand this criticism, but this is something I truly believe. Because if there is ONE thing that I find to be true in science fiction fans, ESPECIALLY Star Trek and Star Wars fans, it's that they're never happy with what is being done unless it's exactly like the last thing that was done. It's the classical argument of suddenly hating on a band because their sound has evolved and doesn't sound exactly like everything else they've ever done.

Star Wars fans are far worse, if I'm being honest. But Trek fans don't seem much better anymore.

I'm NOT telling you what you want. I'm telling you what you're making clear you want but I'm also telling you that if you got what you wanted... you wouldn't be happy because it still wouldn't be right in some aspect. That's the nature of "New"...

People clamored for new Trek on TV. They got it. "Well no Not like that!" But if you got the exact same series you had in the 90s.... can you explain why it is you would want to watch that? We've seen it. It's already there to go watch if you want to see it. You won't get new stories. You'll get rehashed ones. Reskinned ones.

Discovery is telling NEW stories. And I'm really excited to see where it goes...

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:21 pm

sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Okay, so agree with pretty much all JM has to say, Tilly's weight being especially egegious in the recent episode when she stopped for a time to argue with nothing and then still won a foot race.
That's called Sprinting while everyone else is doing marathon speeds.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
But I wish to raise another point. The fandom is split right now, and it is not a 50/50 split. It is hard to tell how split it is or where the decide truly is, but it has been split since 2009 and continues to be split. I had hoped a return to the "Prime Timeline" would mend this split, but Discovery has only made it worse.
That's subjective. Plus Discovery is bringing in a lot of new fans, which this fandom clearly needs if the current mindset of some of these arguments is anything to go by.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Now we seem to be able to read minds and tell what each other really mean when we critisize it. Like with Star Wars, the levels of toxin in the discourse have only risen and even when some of us are willing to say "it's getting better" we are still lambasted as "incorrect" in our view point.
I'm not telling you what you really mean. I'm telling you that if you got what you thought you wanted, you'd be bored. And even if you weren't, most others would be. And I really wouldn't use Star Wars as a reference point when that fanbase is so damn toxic that it tells the people IN the movies to go kill themselves when they had nothing to do with the story or the writing.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
I see Mike as a Mary Sue. I see the stories of season one as piss poor. I see the new Klingon redesign as a total failure. I see things this way and you telling me I should not only seeks to push me out.
You can see whatever you want. That doesn't make you right. And to be honest, the more I see people complain about it, the more glad I am they're doing it. Because people who simply refuse to adapt to these kinds of changes... who cannot accept change... who want to talk about a capable woman and call her a Mary Sue for no reason... Who don't see the point of a show like this and allow it to progress without sitting there, pouting and arms cross, stamping your feet and going "I hate this! This isn't Star Trek! How dare they do this!"

Hell.. did you ever understand Star Trek?
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
This is my perspective and you seem unable or unwilling to understand it.
I entirely understand that it is your perspective and just as you are allowed to express it, I am allowed to say that it's demonstrably nonsense.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Discovery is not Star Trek in my eyes. I have seen Star Trek, I have dreamed it and played it and watched hours upon hours upon hours of it. Every episode, every movie, every book I could get my hands on throughout my middle school years and into highschool.


And you're the only one, right? YOU get to decide?

Sirus, I have no idea how old you are, but I am about to be 37 years old in just a few short months. I have lived on Star Trek since I was 5. I introduced my son to Star Trek and he's now 17 and loves it too. I've done everything you just named on that list and more besides.

And Discovery, already, is my second favorite series behind TNG.

Just because you THINK you KNOW what Star Trek IS does not make you an AUTHORITY on what it should always be and what is or is not Star Trek. You are complaining that I am saying your points are invalid, when all you're doing is saying mine are. "Discovery is not Star Trek in my eyes. I have seen Star Trek. I have dreamed it and played it, etc...." That statement is so damn arrogant as if no one else could possibly know what Star Trek is.

Star Trek has no singular definition. Not yours. Not mine. If it did... NONE OF US would be here because Fan Fic wouldn't need to exist.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Now the fandom is broken and I see CBS deciding it further and now even some fans seek to pour salt on this wound.
"The Fandom" isn't broken. Fanatics are. There's a difference. The Fandom is fine. Fanatics are having nervous breakdowns as they rage against everything they view as "Not Star Trek!"

Well you know what? Go do a search on Google for how many people would have said that DS9 wasn't Star Trek. Because according to Roddenberry... it wouldn't have been.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Star Trek is family.
No. Star Trek is an allegory for Humanity and working together for the betterment of all. Not family. Those two things have a degree of similarity but they are not the same. The family aspect is your personal projection, and that's fine. But that isn't the point of the show.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am
Discovery is how someone who does not quite understand Star Trek sees Star Trek. It's theme and tone are clear off the mark. It's camera work is so different that when Jonathan Frakes directed and did some old school Trek camera work I was blown away. Discovery isn't Trek because it feels like it's being made by the "cool kids" and not us "nerds" anymore.
A Few things...
  • The theme and tone are literally no different. DS9 was way darker at times, as I've said elsewhere.
  • Directors have little to nothing to do with Camera work. Directors wrangle actors and scriptwork. Camera angles are cinematographers. Most of Discovery season 1 and season 2 cinematography has been the product of 2 guys. Frakes has done 2 eps of Disco so far.. one last season(Despite Yourself[the first ep in the MU] and New Eden this season). The Cinematographer in both cases was Colin Hoult who has also done 7 other episodes of the series.
  • Here's a little tip for your own self esteem... Just because you're a "nerd"... doesn't mean you can't be cool. I'm a huge nerd and I've done some amazingly cool things in my life, and I know some amazingly cool people. Star Trek isn't just for nerds any more. And it shouldn't be. Stop gatekeeping.

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm

I don't see the point of this anymore. I don't care what Gene would think. Gene hated my favorite Trek, Star Trek The Wrath of Khan. I don't lean on the Trope of thinking He was the final arbiter of Trek.

As for anything else. At this point there is no point. You define Discovery as Star Trek and I do not, I cannot. There are enough issues with it fitting into the canon and issues with it that I have tried to explain here. At this point I am just justifying my perspective and little more. TNG, DS9, and every other Trek have had to prove themselves if being Trek. In my eyes Discovery has failed to do so thus far and given the issues if season 1 I can never consider it 100% canon. It can get good, but it does not fit into the canon. I grow tired of people insisting it does despite the simple truth there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of issues with it. Some of these issues are nitpicks, but that is not a true argument against those issues. What might seem like a minor issue to you may be a deal breaker for someone else. And a million nitpicks make a bad show.

Also the spore drive is way way way dumber than warp drive. If you don't understand what a warp bubble is, then I am not the one to explain it. It is a real thing. Trek's propulsion up until this has been based in some way in real science. The spore drive is a total mess. And if anyone mentions the transwarp drive, quantum slipstream drive, or other such devices, all of them are advanced warp drives and there are those of us who believe that the transwarp drive of the USS Excelsior was a success and would become the new standard for all Fed ships and would result in the warp scale being remade to accommodate faster speeds.

So yeah, Star Trek is not this. Star Trek has changed and I have been with it through that change.
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13791
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:36 pm
What does the Nerve Pinch have to do with being a Mary Sue? We've seen Picard give one. Seven. Odo. Data. Archer.
Picard's seemed to be some sort of variant, without the instantaneous effect a Vulcan neck pinch has. Seven possesses the enhanced strength I believe is necessary to deliver it. Odo would likely have the same. Data obviously does, along with computer-like precision (which likely aided Seven as well). Archer was carrying around Surak in his head. (When I wrote Mantovanni, I took care to mention obliquely that he possessed strength in excess of human norms because of his upbringing, thus allowing him to do so. I'm not sure I ever had him employ it, though. As I recall, only once did even a Vulcan deliver one in my entire series.)

Burnham's ability to do it seemed to me, thus, a Mary Sue-like capability. I'll stand by that ... but will allow that if it's because of abilities she acquired through Vulcan tweaking that it's less an issue than it might otherwise be.
Having Spock as a brother is not really any indicator of a Mary Sue. It's just a way to tie the series together for the concept they had laid out and use established characters to more firmly knit together the narrative. That doesn't exactly give her super powers. In fact, as we learn more about that relationship, it seems to be more of a detriment than anything else thus far...
That's a matter of interpretation. I view it as a way to enhance her reputation as an extraordinary person without any work whatsoever. It's lazy writing. And I do see it as an indicator of a Mary Sue.
She wasn't given the XO slot. She still ISN'T the XO of Discovery. She was a first officer for the Shen-Zhou. Now she's the Science Officer. Saru is the XO of Disco.
Quite right. Apologies for imprecision. I believe she's science and second officer. That weakens my argument only infinitesimally, however.
She was immediately ignored by her shipmates pretty much across the board, except for Tilly who is that typical bubbly "let's give everyone a chance" type person. The rest she had to prove herself to and given what Discovery has been through, her field recommission to Commander isn't exactly unprecedented.
She was ignored for how many episodes before becoming rather chummy with any number of crew members?

Just didn't ring as believable to me.
Now I'll admit it's been awhile since I've seen the first couple episodes but... how did Burnham start the war? She was court martialed for mutiny, dereliction of duty and assaulting a fellow officer. But she didn't *start* the war. The Klingons did that. T'kuvma planned the whole damn thing. People didn't dislike Burnham for starting a war. They thought of her as a mutineer. And she wasn't even really a successful one.
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly. I've only seen the first ep once and that quite some time ago. Didn't she order an attack on the Klingon cruiser? Or did Phillippa stop her before that was executed? The series has made so little a positive impression on me that I don't have my usual encyclopedic recall of events Trek.

Assaulting your captain because she disagrees with your course of action, ordering an attack on another ship, et al., yet back in the saddle rapidly thereafter still seems more than a little rushed. On the other hand, we've seen this kind of absurdity before: James Kirk, a cadet, receives command of a starship in the denouement of Star Trek. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous.

Of course, one can argue that it wasn't a real Starfleet officer who recommissioned her, but instead a MIrror Universe captain. That's either brilliant, facile, or both. I'll be generous and go with both.
Keep in mind, once again, that Starfleet is not a military organization. Heavier people are not incapable of being supremely intelligent and capable.
Starfleet is a military organization, de facto if not declared. It fights the wars. That wins the day no matter the counter-argument. People can talk all they like about "para-military" or "primarily explorers". When the shooting starts, it's Starfleet on the front lines.

Heavier people are incapable of handling the kinds of hands-on rescue and combat sometimes required of a military (or even para-military) officer. She, in an emergency, has to be an asset and not a liability or even a victim. That requires a certain level of physical conditioning. Tilly doesn't meet that standard.

Even if it's relative to species, such organizations, even those primarily geared towards exploration, would require mental faculties, emotional strength and physical attributes all be well above that species' norms. Tilly falls short on one or, arguably, even two of these. (Honestly, though, I'd give her a pass on emotional strength. I think she's far tougher than she realizes.)
All noted, but see above.
Seen.
Okay but why? And what about them is immersion breaking?
As I've mentioned ... the "feel" of the series is off, for me. I really don't see the need to provide concrete examples when what bothers me is the holistic effect. Even that hasn't changed much in season two, though it's improved a bit.
And be honest, would you rather have a show that looked like TOS? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
"And be honest..."

Really?

I'm probably one of (if not) the most honest person(s) you know.

Honestly ... I think they chose the wrong era. You can't sandwich something between Enterprise and The Original Series with such a radically divergent tenor yet expect traditionalists to be content with it.

This should have been set post-Deep Space Nine.
I can understand this criticism, but this is something I truly believe.
In other words, "my enlightened perspective justifies my tone and content".

Nope.
I'm NOT telling you what you want. I'm telling you what you're making clear you want but I'm also telling you that if you got what you wanted... you wouldn't be happy because it still wouldn't be right in some aspect. That's the nature of "New"...
And that's also tremendously presumptuous. Assuming you can divine the subtleties of my unexpressed thoughts is ... amusing, at best.
Discovery is telling NEW stories. And I'm really excited to see where it goes...
I'm willing to withhold final judgment. But I disliked the first season as much as you liked it, and nothing written here has moved me from that position. If anything, I'm even more firmly in the "yeah, kinda sucked" camp now.

From what I've seen in season two ... hope is not lost.
Whenever someone says they're "beyond good and evil", they're evil.

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13791
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:09 pm

JaceRidley wrote:...I know some amazingly cool people.
I, of course, am one of them. 8)
Whenever someone says they're "beyond good and evil", they're evil.

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm

sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
I don't see the point of this anymore. I don't care what Gene would think. Gene hated my favorite Trek, Star Trek The Wrath of Khan. I don't lean on the Trope of thinking He was the final arbiter of Trek.
So wait... your favorite Trek is the Trek where an insane Genetically Manipulated Superhuman attempts to use a Doomsday Device to go on a homicidal revenge mission against one man...

....but Star Trek Discovery ISN'T Star Trek?

Yeah okay.

(This is not denying the fact that Wrath of Khan is a brilliant film and a great Trek story. But simply serves to make my point even MORE for me...)
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
As for anything else. At this point there is no point. You define Discovery as Star Trek and I do not, I cannot. There are enough issues with it fitting into the canon and issues with it that I have tried to explain here. At this point I am just justifying my perspective and little more.
None of these issues actually exist anywhere except in your perception.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
TNG, DS9, and every other Trek have had to prove themselves if being Trek. In my eyes Discovery has failed to do so thus far and given the issues if season 1 I can never consider it 100% canon. It can get good, but it does not fit into the canon.
"Thus spoketh the lord..."

Wow.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
I grow tired of people insisting it does despite the simple truth there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of issues with it.
Take a nap. Have a snickers. You'll feel better.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Some of these issues are nitpicks, but that is not a true argument against those issues. What might seem like a minor issue to you may be a deal breaker for someone else. And a million nitpicks make a bad show.
No, a million nitpicks make a bad fan. Because they're only nitpicks about things you personally don't like.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Also the spore drive is way way way dumber than warp drive.
No they're equally as plausible given the current lack of technology to reproduce either.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
If you don't understand what a warp bubble is, then I am not the one to explain it. It is a real thing.
.....No. No it isn't. In fact, one of the main problems scientists are currently having with lightspeed travel is the fact that they know people won't survive it. The Alcubierre drive(the closest we have to a Cochrane design) doesn't work anywhere close to Star Trek technobabble. The "bubble" mentioned in the Alcubierre drive specs is NOTHING like a Star Trek Warp Bubble just because they use similar terminology.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Trek's propulsion up until this has been based in some way in real science.
Partially. Know where I can get some real dilithium crystals, by chance?
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
The spore drive is a total mess. And if anyone mentions the transwarp drive, quantum slipstream drive, or other such devices, all of them are advanced warp drives...
Incorrect. Each of those, as well as all the others over the years, was based on ENTIRELY different technology that was all hand wave spacemagic. Just like the spore drive.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
... and there are those of us who believe that the transwarp drive of the USS Excelsior was a success and would become the new standard for all Fed ships and would result in the warp scale being remade to accommodate faster speeds.
Based on...? I mean.. it didn't happen. And none of this is real. So...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
So yeah, Star Trek is not this. Star Trek has changed and I have been with it through that change.
Star Trek is exactly this. And yes, Star Trek has changed. You just didn't change with it. You want it to be the same. It isn't and you can't seem to adapt or face that. It's not on Trek or CBS or Paramount to cater just to you. ):(

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:09 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Picard's seemed to be some sort of variant, without the instantaneous effect a Vulcan neck pinch has. Seven possesses the enhanced strength I believe is necessary to deliver it. Odo would likely have the same. Data obviously does, along with computer-like precision (which likely aided Seven as well). Archer was carrying around Surak in his head. (When I wrote Mantovanni, I took care to mention obliquely that he possessed strength in excess of human norms because of his upbringing, thus allowing him to do so. I'm not sure I ever had him employ it, though. As I recall, only once did even a Vulcan deliver one in my entire series.)

Burnham's ability to do it seemed to me, thus, a Mary Sue-like capability. I'll stand by that ... but will allow that if it's because of abilities she acquired through Vulcan tweaking that it's less an issue than it might otherwise be.
She's bonded with Sarek through mind melds, which, by the way, is why Picard and Archer can do it. Plus she was trained on Vulcan. If she COULDN'T do it, I'd actually be more surprised.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Having Spock as a brother is not really any indicator of a Mary Sue...
That's a matter of interpretation. I view it as a way to enhance her reputation as an extraordinary person without any work whatsoever. It's lazy writing. And I do see it as an indicator of a Mary Sue.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Because I look at it more as a way to tie Discovery to the central Trek Prime family of shows since none of the other characters cross over into this time period. And I like the idea of an adopted stepsister better than like Chekov's uncle or something. Plus, I like the character and her backstory.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
She wasn't given the XO slot. She still ISN'T the XO of Discovery. She was a first officer for the Shen-Zhou. Now she's the Science Officer. Saru is the XO of Disco.
Quite right. Apologies for imprecision. I believe she's science and second officer. That weakens my argument only infinitesimally, however.
Third, technically. The Security chief(currently an NPC(Though potentially that new Enterprise Transfer?), formerly Ash Tyler) would be second in command. Though, as a Commander and former XO, she has the experience and really should be.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
She was ignored for how many episodes before becoming rather chummy with any number of crew members?

Just didn't ring as believable to me.
Really, the only crew even NOW she seems "Chummy" with are Tilly, Stammets and Saru. And getting to a point with Pike. The Enterprise Crew was downright Chilly to her when they met. They haven't shown her interact with too many others. The rest of the bridge crew don't often have much to say and seem to be fine NOW. But she also just saved all their lives by helping end a war.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly. I've only seen the first ep once and that quite some time ago. Didn't she order an attack on the Klingon cruiser? Or did Phillippa stop her before that was executed? The series has made so little a positive impression on me that I don't have my usual encyclopedic recall of events Trek.
She did. They never fired.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Assaulting your captain because she disagrees with your course of action, ordering an attack on another ship, et al., yet back in the saddle rapidly thereafter still seems more than a little rushed. On the other hand, we've seen this kind of absurdity before: James Kirk, a cadet, receives command of a starship in the denouement of Star Trek. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous.
It's both. They're both implausible. But every Trek series has that. Like a 16 year old Helmsman on the bridge of the Flagship of the federation. Or a different officer, fresh out prison, suddenly made a bridge officer out of necessity. Like in Voyager. There is a LOT of precedent for this. It's not unique to Disco.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Of course, one can argue that it wasn't a real Starfleet officer who recommissioned her, but instead a MIrror Universe captain. That's either brilliant, facile, or both. I'll be generous and go with both.
I LOVED that twist. I admit, I didn't see it coming and I am at that point in writing now where I see almost EVERYTHING coming. It was wonderful and I loved the reveal. It may be both... but it still hits on brilliant and she proves him right. And when you find out WHY he did it, it's even better.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Starfleet is a military organization, de facto if not declared. It fights the wars. That wins the day no matter the counter-argument. People can talk all they like about "para-military" or "primarily explorers". When the shooting starts, it's Starfleet on the front lines.

Heavier people are incapable of handling the kinds of hands-on rescue and combat sometimes required of a military (or even para-military) officer. She, in an emergency, has to be an asset and not a liability or even a victim. That requires a certain level of physical conditioning. Tilly doesn't meet that standard.
I don't, personally, think she's outside of that. Is she the peak of physical conditioning? No. But then, I could say the same about Colm Meaney. And if you want to go back a bit, think about Captain Montgomery Scott. Being a little overweight doesn't seem to be any big deal to the federation even in the 24th century. So... I mean... it's a nitpick I don't think is really worth worrying about. And then there's also the question of the fact that it's being judged by peak human capabilities...? compared to say... Tellarite?
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Even if it's relative to species, such organizations, even those primarily geared towards exploration, would require mental faculties, emotional strength and physical attributes all be well above that species' norms. Tilly falls short on one or, arguably, even two of these. (Honestly, though, I'd give her a pass on emotional strength. I think she's far tougher than she realizes.)
Yeah, but she's also supposed to be quite young. She'll grow into that in time.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
I'm probably one of (if not) the most honest person(s) you know.
I won't argue with that.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Honestly ... I think they chose the wrong era. You can't sandwich something between Enterprise and The Original Series with such a radically divergent tenor yet expect traditionalists to be content with it.
I didn't think it would work either, and yet, I'm enjoying the hell out of it. But then what's so great about being a traditionalist? If any of us were REALLY traditionalists, we'd hate everything after TOS. We don't. It just wasn't what we originally wanted so we're predisposed to disliking it and some of us didn't go in with an open mind.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
This should have been set post-Deep Space Nine.
I mean, I won't argue with that either. That's what I was hoping for too. I wanted to see the next age.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
I can understand this criticism, but this is something I truly believe.
In other words, "my enlightened perspective justifies my tone and content".
I never claimed to be enlightened. But I'm also not stuck in the mud, either.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
I'm NOT telling you what you want. I'm telling you what you're making clear you want but I'm also telling you that if you got what you wanted... you wouldn't be happy because it still wouldn't be right in some aspect. That's the nature of "New"...
And that's also tremendously presumptuous. Assuming you can divine the subtleties of my unexpressed thoughts is ... amusing, at best.
I live to entertain. But also that was directed at Sirus, which you're aware of.
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:05 pm
I'm willing to withhold final judgment. But I disliked the first season as much as you liked it, and nothing written here has moved me from that position. If anything, I'm even more firmly in the "yeah, kinda sucked" camp now.

From what I've seen in season two ... hope is not lost.
At least you're willing to do that much. You aren't over there saying "NO! THIS WILL NEVER BE CANON!" and stomping your feet which is what I'm seeing from some angles... :roll:

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13791
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:42 pm

JaceRidley wrote:She's bonded with Sarek through mind melds, which, by the way, is why Picard and Archer can do it. Plus she was trained on Vulcan. If she COULDN'T do it, I'd actually be more surprised.
This is one of the reasons it always annoyed me that Data could do it. It implies either that there's no psychic element to it, or that sufficient physical strength can override its necessity.
...I like the character and her backstory.
I probably don't like it as much because I did it long before Discovery did ... and I certainly don't acknowledge that they did it better.
It's both. They're both implausible. But every Trek series has that. Like a 16 year old Helmsman on the bridge of the Flagship of the federation. Or a different officer, fresh out prison, suddenly made a bridge officer out of necessity. Like in Voyager. There is a LOT of precedent for this. It's not unique to Disco.
I'd say the last two, Kirk and Burnham, pushed beyond the bounds of plausibility. In this case, it's a matter of degree.
I don't, personally, think she's outside of that. Is she the peak of physical conditioning? No. But then, I could say the same about Colm Meaney. And if you want to go back a bit, think about Captain Montgomery Scott. Being a little overweight doesn't seem to be any big deal to the federation even in the 24th century. So... I mean... it's a nitpick I don't think is really worth worrying about. And then there's also the question of the fact that it's being judged by peak human capabilities...? compared to say... Tellarite?
A full captain near the edge of retirement isn't going to be subject to the same standards as a fresh-faced ciccia. (That's an Italian word meaning "cute and chubby", which Wiseman/Tilly fills on both scores.) And O'Brien, as I recall, wasn't stocky, just ... lumpy, but decently conditioned.

And a Tellarite would have radically different standards for physical fitness than a human. The requirements can't be universal across the board or nonexistent. Neither would make any sense. It has to be relative to species.

It's not remotely a nitpick, especially for veterans who find such idiocy destroys verisimilitude.

But, as I said, I'll grant a partial pass: She's a cadet.
I never claimed to be enlightened. But I'm also not stuck in the mud, either.

At least you're willing to do that much. You aren't over there saying "NO! THIS WILL NEVER BE CANON!" and stomping your feet which is what I'm seeing from some angles... :roll:
I'm no longer self aware enough to know if I'm flying, floating, wallowing, or buried and immobile.

It's canon whether I fuckin' like it or not. I don't decide about canon, just my own personal continuity.

Insofar as that's concerned ... as Michael Ironsides' Jester said in Top Gun, "I don't know ... I just don't know."

I actually think much of modern sci-fi in particular and perhaps life in general has passed me by. I have the mores and morals of a man from a bygone age. I have little regard for or place in a world that to some is unfolding, but I often see as unraveling. I'm old, heavy, tired, lonely, poor and evidently now for the most part invisible and irrelevant.

Perhaps Star Trek's optimism is now lost on me.
Whenever someone says they're "beyond good and evil", they're evil.

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm

Well, there went the argument. I have no response to you anymore. You didn't say anything in your last post in response to me Jace other than to be belligerent. So, yeah. This argument is pretty much done. But because I'm a glutten for punishment and have a keyboard and am not just on my cell, let's do this.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
I don't see the point of this anymore. I don't care what Gene would think. Gene hated my favorite Trek, Star Trek The Wrath of Khan. I don't lean on the Trope of thinking He was the final arbiter of Trek.
So wait... your favorite Trek is the Trek where an insane Genetically Manipulated Superhuman attempts to use a Doomsday Device to go on a homicidal revenge mission against one man...

....but Star Trek Discovery ISN'T Star Trek?

Yeah okay.

(This is not denying the fact that Wrath of Khan is a brilliant film and a great Trek story. But simply serves to make my point even MORE for me...)
This isn't a point, this is an oversimplification of the plot of TWOK. So yeah. I've got nothing to say.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
As for anything else. At this point there is no point. You define Discovery as Star Trek and I do not, I cannot. There are enough issues with it fitting into the canon and issues with it that I have tried to explain here. At this point I am just justifying my perspective and little more.
None of these issues actually exist anywhere except in your perception.
Your inability to acknowledge them does not change their existence. You have not proven them to not exist and I can provide a miriade of evidence they not only do exist but that a number of fans see them as well.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
TNG, DS9, and every other Trek have had to prove themselves if being Trek. In my eyes Discovery has failed to do so thus far and given the issues if season 1 I can never consider it 100% canon. It can get good, but it does not fit into the canon.
"Thus spoketh the lord..."

Wow.
This is not a point or an argument. Discovery does not fit into the timeline and thus cannot be considered canon. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT do, so they are canon. End of story.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
I grow tired of people insisting it does despite the simple truth there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of issues with it.
Take a nap. Have a snickers. You'll feel better.
Realize there are people with legitimate reasons to dislike a show and do not have to fall in line just because it bears the name of a certain franchise. Then I won't have to deal with it anymore.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Some of these issues are nitpicks, but that is not a true argument against those issues. What might seem like a minor issue to you may be a deal breaker for someone else. And a million nitpicks make a bad show.
No, a million nitpicks make a bad fan. Because they're only nitpicks about things you personally don't like.
Bad fan? Really? And I'm the one gatekeeping?
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Also the spore drive is way way way dumber than warp drive.
No they're equally as plausible given the current lack of technology to reproduce either.
Sure. Yeah. One has a theory that makes some sense, the other is subspace fungus.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
If you don't understand what a warp bubble is, then I am not the one to explain it. It is a real thing.
.....No. No it isn't. In fact, one of the main problems scientists are currently having with lightspeed travel is the fact that they know people won't survive it. The Alcubierre drive(the closest we have to a Cochrane design) doesn't work anywhere close to Star Trek technobabble. The "bubble" mentioned in the Alcubierre drive specs is NOTHING like a Star Trek Warp Bubble just because they use similar terminology.
The fact that you know of the drive but don't know of how it directly compares to the warp drive of Star trek both confuses and amuses me.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
Trek's propulsion up until this has been based in some way in real science.
Partially. Know where I can get some real dilithium crystals, by chance?
It's right next to the unobtainium in my closet with the vibranium and adamantium.

I said based in some way real science, not 100% real science. It's all fake, but warp drive is more realistic than spore drive.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
The spore drive is a total mess. And if anyone mentions the transwarp drive, quantum slipstream drive, or other such devices, all of them are advanced warp drives...
Incorrect. Each of those, as well as all the others over the years, was based on ENTIRELY different technology that was all hand wave spacemagic. Just like the spore drive.
Wep, that's why most are powered by a matter/antimatter reactor and still use a warp bubble. Yep, because they are all different technology and share nothing in common.
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
... and there are those of us who believe that the transwarp drive of the USS Excelsior was a success and would become the new standard for all Fed ships and would result in the warp scale being remade to accommodate faster speeds.
Based on...? I mean.. it didn't happen. And none of this is real. So...
It's spacemagic, I'm handwaving it away.

Maybe it uses spores...

(Not my real argument, but at this point you aren't gonna get that from me.)
JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm
So yeah, Star Trek is not this. Star Trek has changed and I have been with it through that change.
Star Trek is exactly this. And yes, Star Trek has changed. You just didn't change with it. You want it to be the same. It isn't and you can't seem to adapt or face that. It's not on Trek or CBS or Paramount to cater just to you. ):(
You can call this Star Trek in the same way you can call a dog a cat, but it does not make it true. CBS can call it Star Trek, but that means only so much. What matters is the feeling. What matters is what it does.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

If it doesn't look like Star Trek, sound like Star Trek, or have the same type of stories as Star Trek, is it Star Trek?
Apply test to Orville and Discovery and ask yourself why the fans are reacting this way. And then remember Axanar. CBS has treated fans like crap and now they have made a series that ignores the expectations of fans. No shit it divided the fanbase as it has. And forget just saying it's the fanatics. This fandom is dying. It was massive only 10 years ago, even bigger in 2005 when Enterprise ended, and that doesn't even go into the size of it when TNG, DS9, and VOY were on the air. Trek used to be more than this. And now it has been mismanaged to hell and Discovery is the latest symptom of this. I have never bothered to pretend to like anything made by CBS for Trek and I won't start now. I don't like Discovery because I don't like the way it treats canon and I really don't like the way some new fans talk to us older fans who have a problem. Yes, yes I would have liked it if it looked exactly like it did in the 60s. I freaking adored Star Trek Continues and they worked their butts off to make it look just right. I loved Prelude to Axanar because they gave a crap about getting the look of the era right. If Discovery couldn't do that era right, they shouldn't have done that era.
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

Post Reply