7 ms·

I saw a few clips of ST:Discovery and nearly had an apoplexy. When the ship spins (rolls) on its longitudinal axis and disappears (using the "spore drive"...)

I saw a few clips of ST:Discovery and nearly had an apoplexy. When the ship spins (rolls) on its longitudinal axis and disappears (using the "spore drive"...) I pretty much lost my mind for a moment. Then it reappears with a flash that illuminates the nebula in the background. There are no clouds in space. Nebulas are big, really big. It would be light-years away. But the ship's photo-backwash lights it up like a flash bulb! I know Star Trek isn't hard sci-fi, but that's pathetic. And the "spore drive"!? Who thought that up? (I know about mycorrhiza and all that, I'm not ignorant) The universe is pervaded by invisible intangible cosmic fungus? That somehow enables FTL teleportation? And keeps people alive in limbo after they die? That might be Lovecraft but it's not Roddenberry. And they named the "astromycologist" character after the real guy!? (Paul Stamets) Did they ask him? That's just so weird. To me it feels like it's made to mock Star Trek fans. Watching it (just for about ~4 minutes) made me feel like the network and producers are just mocking me. (And not in a good way. I love Galaxy Quest, because it's obviously made with love and, yes, respect for the show(s) it mocks. When Sigourney Weaver loses it and starts ranting about how it's a dumb episode, nobody would design a space ship with giant crushers and fire spouts... Yeah, it's awesome!) Discovery is more cartoonish than the actual cartoon. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series ) I gotta agree that The Orville carries the torch forward far far better than these new Star Trek shows & movies.

throwanem 7y ago
So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? DS9 is "not Roddenberry", too, what with its most universally acclaimed episode being about Sisko deliberately subverting his own principles and those of the Federation to suborn all manner of criminality, not excluding several murders, in order to deceive a neutral party into entering the war as a Federation ally. Is DS9 awful, too? To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that?
- carapace 7y ago
  > So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? No, I like space opera too. I'm upset that ST has become Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Space. (Don't get the wrong idea, I like Buffy too.) > Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? You'll have to clue me in to what specifically you're referring to, I re-watched it last year but I don't want to guess at what you mean. > DS9 is "not Roddenberry" I agree. DS9 was, in part, created specifically to explore "not Roddenberry" directions in the ST universe. There's a book, I can't find it at the moment, and I don't remember the title, but it's all excerpts from interviews with cast and crew. That's it. It's amazing. Anyhow, I bring it up because, reading it, it became clear what, for me anyway, is the crucial defining aspect of ST that differentiates it from other sci-fi franchises: In ST, people in the future have gotten over their bullshit. They are emotionally mature, guided by reason and rationality and their higher values. That's the key difference (from say, Star Wars or Farscape or Firefly...) People in the future pretty much have their shit together. Now this is something that some of the writers don't get. You find them complaining in their own words that Gene won't let them write an episode involving interpersonal drama between bridge crew. (Apparently this is really hard for some writers. No judgement intended.) It wasn't until after he died that Berman/Braga started to relax that. Now to me, this is wrong (for ST) for two reasons: First, it makes sense to me that these folks who fly around the galaxy in machines that can destroy worlds would have to be level-headed to use them w/o destroying themselves. Second, and more importantly, that's a huge part of what made ST so endearing and appealing in the first place: the deep and abiding love that Kirk/Spock/McCoy (most obviously) and the rest of the crew (less obviously) feel for each other. I mean, when Spock tells McCoy that he would also wish him to be present at his Pon farr, oh man, my eyes well up with tears. When it comes down to it, the characters in the "real" ST (if I may) treat each other like members of a healthy family do, and that's wonderful to see (in any context, not just space operatic sci-fi.) That's also the source of the "moral" superiority of Star Fleet: they actually are good guys. (And Vulcans don't lie.) You erode that and you've got Spaceballs. > To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that? I've only seen ~4 minutes so I can't speak to the good things about the show, feeling mocked was my subjective response (I don't think the ST:D folks sat down and twirled their mustaches while contemplating how much they despise ST fans, hey?) It was things like how the Klingons are space orcs; the Romulan guy looks like space Legolas the elf. The people wearing hoodies (why does everyone in space wear hoodies these days?) The gay guys are the only ones married? Why does the female lead have a masculine name? It seems like they're trying to tick the diversity boxes without actually rattling anybody's cages (and I say that as a SJW, pro-diversity.) The rolling spaceship is ridiculous, the flash illuminating the nebula was just idiotic. The whole thing feels superficial and lazy despite obviously being the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of skilled, talented people. Maybe they're just pandering to the tastes of a younger audience (with whom I am out of touch.) Let me see if I can sum it up... Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones seem similar, yeah? But LotR is about Good vs. Evil whereas GoT is about aristocrats being really really shitty to each other. They are both entertaining, but I wouldn't let my kids watch the latter. Cheers!
logfromblammo 7y ago
The spore drive is a correctly-formatted and notarized petition to Juffo-Wup. The flash does not originate at Discovery and propagate outward as light, but begins before the ship appears, from a diffuse source, constructively interferes at Discovery's normal-spacetime discontinuity, and generates a holographic illusion between the observer and the nebula that just appears to be a flashbulb reflection. Every Star Trek problem may be resolved by sufficient application of technobabble (a.k.a. [TECH] in the script). It's space opera. Apply the MST3K rule. (It's just a show; I should really just relax.) The space-mushroom dimension is the same as the gate network from Stargate SG-1, or the wormhole-traversal tech and Leviathan starburst from Farscape. It's the plot conceit that allows the cast to instantly move from one set to another without any of the boring and unremarkable travel time. The exact nature of the instant-transport is dependent on the dramatic series plot arcs that the show-runners came up with in case they ever got past the pilot episode. The cool CGI visual effect used to signal to the viewer that sci-fi is happening now is flawed. Not everyone can pull off the Stargate-opening vortex. Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia. In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets. Klingons can be more than just a racial stereotype to be used as a script proxy for 1960s Russia (and the language has already been constructed, so might as well use it).
- carapace 7y ago
  Bless you!
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. This may be the core disagreement, I (and I'm guessing GP) don't like this decision. Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia. "An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets"[0], and done regularly, this makes the show just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi. (I do like how Klingons were fleshed out as a species in DIS, though; it's my favorite aspect of the show.) There's plenty of sci-fi shows and movies. Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism. I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore. -- [0] - To the extent that Sisko once facilitated murder to keep a secret hidden, this infamous DS9 episode works precisely because it's a one-off situation that's in a stark contrast with the overall behavior of the character and setting of the show.

throwanem 7y ago

So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? DS9 is "not Roddenberry", too, what with its most universally acclaimed episode being about Sisko deliberately subverting his own principles and those of the Federation to suborn all manner of criminality, not excluding several murders, in order to deceive a neutral party into entering the war as a Federation ally. Is DS9 awful, too? To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that?

carapace 7y ago
> So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? No, I like space opera too. I'm upset that ST has become Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Space. (Don't get the wrong idea, I like Buffy too.) > Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? You'll have to clue me in to what specifically you're referring to, I re-watched it last year but I don't want to guess at what you mean. > DS9 is "not Roddenberry" I agree. DS9 was, in part, created specifically to explore "not Roddenberry" directions in the ST universe. There's a book, I can't find it at the moment, and I don't remember the title, but it's all excerpts from interviews with cast and crew. That's it. It's amazing. Anyhow, I bring it up because, reading it, it became clear what, for me anyway, is the crucial defining aspect of ST that differentiates it from other sci-fi franchises: In ST, people in the future have gotten over their bullshit. They are emotionally mature, guided by reason and rationality and their higher values. That's the key difference (from say, Star Wars or Farscape or Firefly...) People in the future pretty much have their shit together. Now this is something that some of the writers don't get. You find them complaining in their own words that Gene won't let them write an episode involving interpersonal drama between bridge crew. (Apparently this is really hard for some writers. No judgement intended.) It wasn't until after he died that Berman/Braga started to relax that. Now to me, this is wrong (for ST) for two reasons: First, it makes sense to me that these folks who fly around the galaxy in machines that can destroy worlds would have to be level-headed to use them w/o destroying themselves. Second, and more importantly, that's a huge part of what made ST so endearing and appealing in the first place: the deep and abiding love that Kirk/Spock/McCoy (most obviously) and the rest of the crew (less obviously) feel for each other. I mean, when Spock tells McCoy that he would also wish him to be present at his Pon farr, oh man, my eyes well up with tears. When it comes down to it, the characters in the "real" ST (if I may) treat each other like members of a healthy family do, and that's wonderful to see (in any context, not just space operatic sci-fi.) That's also the source of the "moral" superiority of Star Fleet: they actually are good guys. (And Vulcans don't lie.) You erode that and you've got Spaceballs. > To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that? I've only seen ~4 minutes so I can't speak to the good things about the show, feeling mocked was my subjective response (I don't think the ST:D folks sat down and twirled their mustaches while contemplating how much they despise ST fans, hey?) It was things like how the Klingons are space orcs; the Romulan guy looks like space Legolas the elf. The people wearing hoodies (why does everyone in space wear hoodies these days?) The gay guys are the only ones married? Why does the female lead have a masculine name? It seems like they're trying to tick the diversity boxes without actually rattling anybody's cages (and I say that as a SJW, pro-diversity.) The rolling spaceship is ridiculous, the flash illuminating the nebula was just idiotic. The whole thing feels superficial and lazy despite obviously being the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of skilled, talented people. Maybe they're just pandering to the tastes of a younger audience (with whom I am out of touch.) Let me see if I can sum it up... Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones seem similar, yeah? But LotR is about Good vs. Evil whereas GoT is about aristocrats being really really shitty to each other. They are both entertaining, but I wouldn't let my kids watch the latter. Cheers!

logfromblammo 7y ago

The spore drive is a correctly-formatted and notarized petition to Juffo-Wup. The flash does not originate at Discovery and propagate outward as light, but begins before the ship appears, from a diffuse source, constructively interferes at Discovery's normal-spacetime discontinuity, and generates a holographic illusion between the observer and the nebula that just appears to be a flashbulb reflection. Every Star Trek problem may be resolved by sufficient application of technobabble (a.k.a. [TECH] in the script). It's space opera. Apply the MST3K rule. (It's just a show; I should really just relax.) The space-mushroom dimension is the same as the gate network from Stargate SG-1, or the wormhole-traversal tech and Leviathan starburst from Farscape. It's the plot conceit that allows the cast to instantly move from one set to another without any of the boring and unremarkable travel time. The exact nature of the instant-transport is dependent on the dramatic series plot arcs that the show-runners came up with in case they ever got past the pilot episode. The cool CGI visual effect used to signal to the viewer that sci-fi is happening now is flawed. Not everyone can pull off the Stargate-opening vortex. Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia. In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets. Klingons can be more than just a racial stereotype to be used as a script proxy for 1960s Russia (and the language has already been constructed, so might as well use it).

carapace 7y ago
Bless you!
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. This may be the core disagreement, I (and I'm guessing GP) don't like this decision. Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia. "An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets"[0], and done regularly, this makes the show just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi. (I do like how Klingons were fleshed out as a species in DIS, though; it's my favorite aspect of the show.) There's plenty of sci-fi shows and movies. Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism. I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore. -- [0] - To the extent that Sisko once facilitated murder to keep a secret hidden, this infamous DS9 episode works precisely because it's a one-off situation that's in a stark contrast with the overall behavior of the character and setting of the show.