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
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 8:01 pm

sirus wrote:
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.
"I have nothing further to say to you except all of the things I'm about to say...."

:roll:
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This isn't a point, this is an oversimplification of the plot of TWOK. So yeah. I've got nothing to say.
Again... you just said something. But no... that literally is the plot of TWOK. It's not an oversimplification. It's a byline. It's exactly the plot summed up into one sentence and covers all the bases of the main crux of what drives the plot.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
I do indeed have a hard time acknowledging things that don't exist. Perhaps it's a character flaw.

But I cannot prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. But just because a bunch of people have issues with something doesn't make it bad or not canon or whatever your latest statement is.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This is not a point or an argument.
No, it was me directly mocking your declaration. I didn't find it necessary to argue it since... you don't get to decide.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
Except of course that it IS canon. Again... you don't get to decide. You can throw a fit if you want every day of the week and twice on Sundays, stomp your feet, make sweeping declarations and come off like a spoiled, entitled "fan" all you want... but the show takes place in the Prime universe and it exists. Therefore, it's canon. You don't have to like it.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
Realize that just because you're entitled to your opinion doesn't mean other people have to agree with you and don't have the right to tell you all the reasons why on a forum we both share.

I never would likely have said anything to you if not for your direct insistence that the show isn't canon and you cannot abide it.

Basically, I responded to you because you threw a tantrum and I thought it would be amusing.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Bad fan? Really? And I'm the one gatekeeping?
Yes. Yes you are. "All Change is bad!" "This is not trek!" "I will not recognize this as Canon!" As if anyone cares...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Sure. Yeah. One has a theory that makes some sense, the other is subspace fungus.
As opposed to a super special crystal that doesn't obey the laws of known physics allowing it to regulate matter/antimatter reactions?
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
The fact that you think it bares any resemblance at all to the Warp Drive of the Enterprise just because it has a potentially similar function doesn't surprise ME at all. Thing is.. I actually know what I'm talking about. They are not in ANY way similar. The Cochrane drive actually moves the starship faster than light, requiring deflector shields and other such technology to deal with shit it might fly into. The Alcubierre drive doesn't move the ship it's attached to AT ALL. It moves SPACE.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
No, they are both precisely the same amount of realistic: Which is to say... Un.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
Yeah because no technologies that exist in this world could possibly share tech with other similar things, right? I mean, the plane I was on 2 weeks ago and the space shuttle both have jet engines and use the similar liquid fuels, but I don't think I'm taking the boeing to space anytime soon.

Bad metaphor on your part, but since you don't even understand how your previous comparisons work, I'll just let it go at that.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.)
You don't HAVE a real argument because there isn't one to have. It didn't happen on screen. The Transwarp project was abandoned canonically because it didn't work and despite what you seem to think... you have zero control over what is considered canon.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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.
No if CBS calls it Star Trek... then it's Star Trek. They own Star Trek. They get to decide. That's how copyright works. Why you don't get that is beyond me...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
By that definition alone, Discovery is Star Trek. It looks like Star Trek. It sounds like Star Trek. It plays out like Star Trek.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
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?
Oh for christ's sake... :roll:
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Apply test to Orville and Discovery and ask yourself why the fans are reacting this way.
Orville is meh. Orville is the same stories we've already seen, recycled, and told with slightly more humor attached. No thanks. It's fine for what it is, but you know what it isn't?

Star Trek. It's just an homage. No more.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
And then remember Axanar.
What about Axanar? They were dumb enough to crowd fund the money to do something they should have just funded themselves if they had planned to do it. You cannot crowd fund on someone else's IP if there's no open license or contract to do so. IP law is pretty straight forward about that kind of thing.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
CBS has treated fans like crap and now they have made a series that ignores the expectations of fans.
Some fans. Discovery's reviews and ratings have been good since the outset by the vast majority of people. It's just people who can't accept the differences, like you, who are clamoring for it to go away and wanting to see it fail.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
No shit it divided the fanbase as it has. And forget just saying it's the fanatics.


It is.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This fandom is dying.
It isn't.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
It was massive only 10 years ago, even bigger in 2005 when Enterprise ended...
Are you joking? There's a reason Enterprise was cancelled. Trek WAS dying then. People didn't care anymore. ENT waited too long to become worth watching regularly. The Trek fanbase had largely written it off or walked away from it. Only diehards were even bothering. You're remembering things the way you want them to be and not the way they were...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
...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.
Thank you for finally FINALLY being honest here.

You just don't like change. CBS has the rights and they're doing it their own way, which is their right, and you don't like and you refuse to like it. And you don't like all these new fans in your space. I'm not a new fan, by the way, but I don't stand for gatekeeping.

You say you would have liked it if it looked the same as it did back int he 60s...

Okay. Maybe you would have. It would have bored 90% of everyone else. It would have looked terrible, dated and out of place on modern TV. And with the existence of Enterprise already accepted, there was no reason to return to the 60s look of everything being so bland and cardboard. And also, this wasn't the Enterprise.

But at least you're finally telling the truth: You don't like it because it wasn't what you wanted.

It has nothing to do with Discovery... it has everything to do with you.

So do us both a favor, Sirus... just stop. Do what you said you were going to do a couple posts ago and stop.

Because you look foolish. Not because there aren't people who agree with you. There are. But they are able to express their opinions in such a way that doesn't seem like someone throwing a tantrum, without the numerous spelling and grammatical errors, and don't hate the show simply to hate it and are willing to give it a chance to grow into something they can truly enjoy even if they don't right now. They aren't throwing around declarations how it isn't canon or pretending like they understand theoretical physics and speculative propulsion.

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 8:31 pm

As opposed to a super special crystal that doesn't obey the laws of known physics allowing it to regulate matter/antimatter reactions?
I gotta tell ya: Super special crystal to regulate a reaction is at least analogous to a lens of some sort.

Fungus, on the other hand, tends to represent a very different kind of trip. :tomato:

Then, again, perhaps that's what they were going for. If so, at least it's funny.

Shit ... perhaps they were channeling Lewis Carroll. :[]]
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 8:44 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:31 pm
I gotta tell ya: Super special crystal to regulate a reaction is at least analogous to a lens of some sort.
Sure, that makes logical sense. But it's still handwaving spacemagic since dilithium doesn't exist. lol
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:31 pm
Fungus, on the other hand, tends to represent a very different kind of trip. :tomato:

Then, again, perhaps that's what they were going for. If so, at least it's funny.

Shit ... perhaps they were channeling Lewis Carroll. :[]]
I mean, given that we've now seen a few signs of life INSIDE the Mycelium network, I'm sure to a point, it was intentional. Especially given Tilly's "hallucinations"... Next week's episode looks like it might even further this dynamic.

I don't think it's any more or less silly. It's just different.

Scientists have already speculated that subspace may be multidimensional and that life may be possible within it. Fungal life is as likely as any other... maybe more likely. The transport mechanism hasn't really been explained fully but I don't expect them to, really. Handwavy spacemagic, etc.

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 9:04 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm
I don't think it's any more or less silly. It's just different.
Nah. It's definitely sillier. :wink:
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 10:12 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:04 pm
Nah. It's definitely sillier. :wink:
(-o|-)

Post Reply