6 ms·

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 beg

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
  ENT was pretty dark, too, you know. If we're not going to talk about "In the Pale Moonlight"'s argument that violating an ideal in a small way might be justifiable, if not respectable, to preserve it in the large, then can we talk about how Archer, in "Dear Doctor", refused to hand over the cure Phlox had developed for the Valakian plague, thus consigning an entire species to extinction, because the then-inchoate Prime Directive ideal meant more to him than saving the lives of millions of fellow sentients? Sure, the show portrays this as an uncomplicatedly virtuous choice, without the nuance that Michael Taylor brought to "In the Pale Moonlight". But I don't see why I need to take that portrayal at face value, when the supposed virtue in question is that of refusing to save millions of lives. I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality. Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I give ENT a pass because it my mind it works as "humanity halfway from now to TNG-era UFP". Taking baby steps both outwards and inwards. It was dark, particularly across the Xindi angle, but not that dark relative to everything else. I mean, it's like TNG was #EEE, ENT went down to #AAA, but everyone else (including post-ENT Trek) seems to be made at #555 or below. There's a gap, and I'd love if someone was making more idealistic shows these days. > where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I used to, then I rewatched the whole series as an adult and it changed my mind a bit. But then, I probably used the wrong word. I don't see the Federation as a perfect, flawless utopia. Just a vision of a world as close to utopian as you can get without breaking your suspension of disbelief. A world that works much better than the real one, and not just because of matter replicators and near-infinite energy availability. A word where the baseline for humans is much higher than it is now. And maybe it's unrealistic, it's too out-there, but every time I watch it I feel inspired to do better, be better. It's not something I usually get from other shows; they're all too focused on. > than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality That's fair, but again - while I love talking about this, I think our media culture spends too much time talking about all the ways ideals fail and high standards don't work, and too little time about what good ideals or values could be and how to make them work. There's a certain positivity about TNG-era Star Trek that I feel, that I try to refer to, but continuously fail to express in words. EDIT: And I forgot one thing: the curiosity of space, the exploration angle. I know that a lot of astronomy in Star Trek is bunk, and a lot of what was accurate at the time of filming didn't age well, but there was a way in which TOS and TNG made people curious about space. I got similar vibes from a few StarGate: SG-1 episodes as well. I don't see any of that in modern shows - just as if familiarity with real and sci-fi astronomy was table stakes these days. It works for me, but I wonder how the young audience, not exposed to TOS/TNG, responds to modern shows.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> 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. Every Star Trek series does that. TOS and TNG tend to portray the focal crew as perfectly ethical taken together (though not always individually), but often as being in antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation for precisely that reason. It's true that many of those struggles reflect bureaucratic indifference, incompetence, and narrow-mindedness more than active malevolence (excluding when it is due to outside influence/infiltration), but that's pretty much true of Picard (the series) as well.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I think what I liked about the TNG-era Star Trek was that, as often that there was an "antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation", they also as often get along. The Federation was a government that worked. That was the baseline assumption. The show demonstrated it, the characters believed it. They were proud of being a part of it, and not just because of some ill-conceived patriotism. Related to that is the baseline assumption of competence. Characters in Star Trek, especially ones from the Federation, were always assumed to be extremely competent and good at working together; everyone valued excellence. Sure, they were exceptions, but they were that - exceptions, around which a story or a joke could be built. I miss that world of excellence in other shows.

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
ENT was pretty dark, too, you know. If we're not going to talk about "In the Pale Moonlight"'s argument that violating an ideal in a small way might be justifiable, if not respectable, to preserve it in the large, then can we talk about how Archer, in "Dear Doctor", refused to hand over the cure Phlox had developed for the Valakian plague, thus consigning an entire species to extinction, because the then-inchoate Prime Directive ideal meant more to him than saving the lives of millions of fellow sentients? Sure, the show portrays this as an uncomplicatedly virtuous choice, without the nuance that Michael Taylor brought to "In the Pale Moonlight". But I don't see why I need to take that portrayal at face value, when the supposed virtue in question is that of refusing to save millions of lives. I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality. Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I give ENT a pass because it my mind it works as "humanity halfway from now to TNG-era UFP". Taking baby steps both outwards and inwards. It was dark, particularly across the Xindi angle, but not that dark relative to everything else. I mean, it's like TNG was #EEE, ENT went down to #AAA, but everyone else (including post-ENT Trek) seems to be made at #555 or below. There's a gap, and I'd love if someone was making more idealistic shows these days. > where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I used to, then I rewatched the whole series as an adult and it changed my mind a bit. But then, I probably used the wrong word. I don't see the Federation as a perfect, flawless utopia. Just a vision of a world as close to utopian as you can get without breaking your suspension of disbelief. A world that works much better than the real one, and not just because of matter replicators and near-infinite energy availability. A word where the baseline for humans is much higher than it is now. And maybe it's unrealistic, it's too out-there, but every time I watch it I feel inspired to do better, be better. It's not something I usually get from other shows; they're all too focused on. > than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality That's fair, but again - while I love talking about this, I think our media culture spends too much time talking about all the ways ideals fail and high standards don't work, and too little time about what good ideals or values could be and how to make them work. There's a certain positivity about TNG-era Star Trek that I feel, that I try to refer to, but continuously fail to express in words. EDIT: And I forgot one thing: the curiosity of space, the exploration angle. I know that a lot of astronomy in Star Trek is bunk, and a lot of what was accurate at the time of filming didn't age well, but there was a way in which TOS and TNG made people curious about space. I got similar vibes from a few StarGate: SG-1 episodes as well. I don't see any of that in modern shows - just as if familiarity with real and sci-fi astronomy was table stakes these days. It works for me, but I wonder how the young audience, not exposed to TOS/TNG, responds to modern shows.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> 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. Every Star Trek series does that. TOS and TNG tend to portray the focal crew as perfectly ethical taken together (though not always individually), but often as being in antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation for precisely that reason. It's true that many of those struggles reflect bureaucratic indifference, incompetence, and narrow-mindedness more than active malevolence (excluding when it is due to outside influence/infiltration), but that's pretty much true of Picard (the series) as well.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I think what I liked about the TNG-era Star Trek was that, as often that there was an "antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation", they also as often get along. The Federation was a government that worked. That was the baseline assumption. The show demonstrated it, the characters believed it. They were proud of being a part of it, and not just because of some ill-conceived patriotism. Related to that is the baseline assumption of competence. Characters in Star Trek, especially ones from the Federation, were always assumed to be extremely competent and good at working together; everyone valued excellence. Sure, they were exceptions, but they were that - exceptions, around which a story or a joke could be built. I miss that world of excellence in other shows.