You're viewing a single thread.
People who whine about the silliness of some of the concepts in Discovery (spore drive, space-tardigrades) have never seen TOS.
While I do generally enjoy discovery, I do think It's still pretty flawed. Not because of the spore stuff, but because of the way that they have to deal with so many "danger to the entire galaxy/universe/multiverse" type events back to back. Like, doing a few is fine, I generally enjoyed the xindi arc in Enterprise for example, but having so many starts to feel very forced after awhile.
I especially find that bit with the spore energy extractor in the mirror universe that could kill all life in the multiverse if not stopped jarring, because, if you have a potentially limitlessness number of alternative timelines, and the massive expanse of space, to develop that tech in, the odds that nobody else ever built one of these drops to essentially zero, except that the existence of the plot at all implies nobody else ever has.
Not because of the spore stuff, but because of the way that they have to deal with so many “danger to the entire galaxy/universe/multiverse” type events back to back. Like, doing a few is fine, I generally enjoyed the xindi arc in Enterprise for example, but having so many starts to feel very forced after awhile.
I totally agree. When the stakes are over the top it makes the universe feel small. When everything depends on one crew at all times it feels hard to believe there is a larger world they exist in in which to immerse my imagination. Discovery has fantastic characters, acting, directing, costumes, sets - I would love to see all these great features thrive without leaning on artificial plot tension. The main goal of any show is to make you care about what happens. Ideally you care because you feel a personal connection to the characters. But making the stakes huge, and including frequent ticking-clock scenarios is easier. The thing is I do care about these characters! The artifice is unnecessary!
But it got better the longer the show went on! I appreciate how every season the stakes got smaller, and more believable, and the pacing got less frantic especially in the last two seasons.
spoilers: de-escalating stakes each season
- season 1: The entire Klingon war, and btw the existence of every possible universe is threatened.
- season 2: All life is about to be wiped out, but only in one universe.
- season 3: Is the Federation over? It's not clear if the dilithium crisis extends to other galaxies, but the stakes seem to be scoped to geopolitics in one quadrant.
- season 4: Several planets are in danger. Still bigger stakes than I'd prefer, but there is much improvement over season 1.
It would be very funny if they had kept the trend and de-escalation, and Season 7 is just that lunch is threatened because one of the duotronic circuits in the food synthesiser computer banks broke, and people haven't used duotronics in centuries.
I especially find that bit with the spore energy extractor in the mirror universe that could kill all life in the multiverse if not stopped jarring, because, if you have a potentially limitlessness number of alternative timelines, and the massive expanse of space, to develop that tech in, the odds that nobody else ever built one of these drops to essentially zero, except that the existence of the plot at all implies nobody else ever has.
Agreed. It'd have been perfectly fine to scale it down to have the extractor messing up the nearby mycelial network/subspace enough that the spore hub drive would become inoperable, and they'd lose the only method they had to get home.
If anything, that might be more compelling, since you could easily squeeze in a character conflict with some people wanting to leave, damn the consequences, or make preparations for a long term stay in the mirror universe if they got stuck.
In some way, its probably similar to Lazarus' machine. He managed to build something capable of obliterating two universes. It didn't seem that difficult, or that much more advanced than the Enterprise, you'd think someone else would have built something similar, and accidentally destroyed the universe in so doing.
That's how I felt reading the Batman new 52 run. It was just constant city-wide crises with escalating stakes. Just foil a bank robbery or something now and then ffs.
Not because of the spore stuff, but because of the way that they have to deal with so many “danger to the entire galaxy/universe/multiverse” type events back to back
I find this complaint to be fairly flawed. It's like saying that it's exhausting to have to deal with a space station on DS9 all the time. That's just... the show. Discovery, the ship, was built to be a fast reaction vessel to respond to immediate and imminent threats. Why is it such a surprise that they do exactly that? It's like complaining that a special forces team is constantly dealing with dangerous missions. It's their job.
Every show has their own tone and flavor. Discovery's is the major threats. That's really all there is to it on that front. It's not wishwashy or bad writing. It's just the literal gimmick of the show.
Not liking it is fine but that specific complaint never really struck true for me.
odds that nobody else ever built one of these drops to essentially zero, except that the existence of the plot at all implies nobody else ever has.
It doesn't drop to essentially zero. Not all timelines are identical. Each has their own differences. Just because a Charon-type mycelial core was made elsewhere doesn't mean that those people didn't notice that issue or curtail it in their own universe. Question, do you have the same complaint about the finale of Lower Decks then? That's not dissimilar.
Edit: Downvote an opinion you disagree with while refusing to engage. Go replicate a spine, would you?
I'm not really sure what you're saying in the first part here. Not liking a show's gimmick is a completely acceptable reason to not like the show. You agreed that it was acceptable to dislike the gimmick but you don't like people citing the gimmick as the reason they didn't like the show?
I’m not really sure what you’re saying in the first part here. Not liking a show’s gimmick is a completely acceptable reason to not like the show.
I'm probably being autistic again and not wording this as well as I can hear it in my head.
You agreed that it was acceptable to dislike the gimmick
Correct
but you don’t like people citing the gimmick as the reason they didn’t like the show?
It's more that I don't like it when people slam the gimmick as being nonsensical in the lore. If people don't like the constant world ending events, thats totally fine. But I dislike it when the complaint comes rooted from not understanding something that is inevitably going to happen in that world.
Like to try and elaborate on the special forces analogy, it's more like this.
If you don't like special forces shows, totally understandable. But if you're saying that the special forces show is unreasonable because that stuff is never needed or would never happen? That's where my problem lies. It doesn't come from disliking the gimmick but questioning the gimmick.
Like you can not like Section 31 all you want but some sort of shady ass intelligence agency was going to happen eventually inside of the Federation, one way or another. Same thing with the idea of a Trek show that does focus on the major events while other series get to focus on either minor events or major events of a different variety, like diplomatic incidents or what have you.
I wonder... What world you say if they gave Discovery the Battletech TAS treatment?
To explain, the tabletop wargame Battletech got an animated series in the early 90s. The series, while well-versed in the game's setting and lore, played fast and loose with both and had, well, early 90s cartoon writing.
As a result, it wasn't received well. However, it is canonical – as an in-universe propaganda show aimed at children, complete with inaccuracies and bad writing. The show's antagonist even ended up suing over his portrayal.
Now I imagine that Discovery is referenced in a future Trek show but the dialogue mentions that there's a horrifically inaccurate in-universe holoseries about the ship and most people have entirely wrong ideas about it. We deliberately never learn whether Discovery-the-show is the accurate version or not.
I think that might work as a nod towards both the fans and the haters of the show but if like to hear what you'd think.
I think that might work as a nod towards both the fans and the haters of the show but if like to hear what you’d think.
I think that the haters have no say in this. If we started listening to the haters of everything, we'd never get anything done. Moreover, Trek is about diversity. About inclusion. Hope. Standing together. Fighting misinformation. Not giving in to negative feelings. Not letting those negative feelings rule or define you. Not caving to the negative feelings of others but being strong and steadfast. There's no reason why Star Trek would, or should, ever kowtow to haters. They simply do not matter when it comes to creativity and especially when it comes to Star Trek. They hated TNG. They hated DS9. They hated Voyager. They're gonna keep hating everything comes out that isn't exactly how they want it. Fuck them. They have no worth. They spend their time taking things apart in the least constructive way possible while just screaming. Zero conversational value and zero value when it comes to trying to build something. They only tear it down. Nothing is ever going to be for everyone but Star Trek is about spreading enough diversity around that everyone gets to enjoy something. I refuse to allow those people to sully the basics and fundamentals of the Federation because they don't like a television show.
But.
That being said.
It still doesn't work lore-wise because the Discovery was marked as destroyed in a classified format. Starfleet would shut down any in-universe show about something classified. While the Spore Drive never survived, knowledge that it was a classified ship did, as well as a couple of the things it did, such as its jaunt to the mirror universe.
Eh, good point about the secrecy. You'd have to really twist the lore into a pretzel in order to accommodate that and that ain't worth it for what's essentially a throwaway gag.
As for bowing to haters, I definitely wouldn't do that. I'd acknowledge that there is some controversy with a tongue-in-cheek reference but I wouldn't take a side. That's the fans' job – and let's be honest here, everyone who debates the canonicity of DSC is a Star Trek fan, just maybe not one of that particular show. People who hate Trek in general will not engage in debates about relative worth; to them, all of the shows suck.
everyone who debates the canonicity of DSC is a Star Trek fan, just maybe not one of that particular show.
You'd think. But we've seen a lot here as the mod level and there are quite a few people who clearly aren't fans of Star Trek with how they'll whine about how there is a gay character or a trans character or a woman first officer/captain/admiral. Those people clearly missed the point of Star Trek.
Fair enough. I forgot that some people will happily inject themselves into any social group solely to complain about stuff.
Sadly, there are always hooligans looking for a fight. Sometimes it's to push a political agenda and someone's it's just because they love to fight.
It's not just that. It's people who claim to be Star Trek fans but actively ignore everything Star Trek stands for. Those aren't people who injected themselves in to complain, they're just deluded. You see it with every new series. People come out of the woodwork to complain about diversity or inclusion. Easy to forget now, but Voyager and DS9 both got insane amounts of flak for having a female and a black Captain, respectively. These are people who can quote Star Trek until they're blue in the face but will never let what they're quoting marinate.
You made me realize that Discovery was probably the worst ship Saru could have possibly been assigned to.
Because of his senses? They'd be far more useful in sensing ambushes and deception than be a liability.
It's been a while since I saw season 1, but wasn't his early behavior characterized by a desire to avoid stress? Discovery definitely benefited from his skills and senses though.
Nah, not quite. His character was built like a prey animal so he has heightened stress in general. If he was actively trying to avoid stress then he wouldn't have taken on the job of First Officer, wouldn't have stayed with Starfleet after the Battle of the Binary Stars, etc. He's the first of his kind that they've made first contact with so he's a fairly bold individual. The short trek elaborates more on that as it takes place when he's on Kaminar and contacting Georgiou.
He doesn't actively seek out stress but he doesn't run from it either.
His main thing was that he had a heightened sense of death and danger due to his being a 'prey species'. Just acted like a spooked horse most of the time. At least until his Vahari anyway.
Damn, ok I need to watch s1 again 😆
I don't blame you for skipping through it. Honestly, I usually do too. I'll stick to a few key episodes that are important or that I like but 95% of Star Trek shows have a weaker first season.
I can also see why you thought that. He is constantly nervous in the first season and first half of the second. It makes sense that you'd come to the conclusion he tries to avoid stress. I just happen to have most of Discovery memorized at this point. Half for love of it / half from years of watching scenes and reading episodes to refute some of the more insane criticisms that I hear people make.
I've not seen much of lower decks tbh. I've tried watching it a couple times, trying different episodes in case its just a case of it taking a few to get in stride, but I've just not liked it the same as other trek shows, the characters just seem annoying and everything happens too fast.
or TAS
They berate an exam table ffs
TAS? Never happened.
Don't mind me. I'm just thinking about the time Voyager had to battle a plague of giant viruses.
TBH Voyager is the orginal "bad trek"
TOS was, well TOS, TNG had a rough start but was always viable, DS9 started with consolidated lore and respected it, albeit being of course darker than the others, VOY... had bad writing. Wackyness in itself is not a huge issue though.
DIS gets hate because it feels like they wanted to write a specific series and just used the Star Trek setting for it, instead of wanting to make a Star Trek series.
I thought we all agreed that canon doesn’t start until the Wrath of Khan.
