(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[Ivanstone]

Yes, it is certainly about the lack of explosions. Otherwise, there's nothing to be diplomatic about. Need more exploding planets.

Really now? Do you mean Star Wars? Because Star Trek has always been the hardest sci-fi show on the block.

Well, I'm quite aware that there are different levels of content and its consumers

That is not English.

I think you just need to go watch a different Sci-Fi show then. You should go watch the Transformers movie. Its probably closer to what you want.

Star Wars is fantasy. Star Trek is soft Sci-Fi. The Expanse is medium Sci-Fi. Seriously, there's no rational explanation for the Bajoran Prophets.

Somehow Flat Earthers watch Star Trek.

It certainly is. Its also certainly a statement that maybe you just need to learn to be more accepting of others. I would've hoped you would've learned that after watching Star Trek.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really care about this whole LGBTQWTF thing going on, but Blu del Barrio.. She has the most punchable face I've ever seen in any show, period. She managed to take over that position from Burnham.

You should go watch Dirty Harry. Andrew Robinson has a really, really punchable face. I wonder what happened to that guy?

Blu del Barrio's biggest problem is that they're not half the actor Asia Kate Dillon is.

[Elim Garak]

Star Wars is fantasy. Star Trek is soft Sci-Fi. The Expanse is medium Sci-Fi. Seriously, there's no rational explanation for the Bajoran Prophets.

You should go watch DS9 then because there's a rational explanation for Bajoran Prophets. The entire series is about that.
I don't want to say it's aliens but it's aliens.
Similar to Q but more introverted. I understand non-linear time shenanigans might be hard to grasp but that's sci-fi for you. Not as hard as Tardigrades Mushroom travel though, thank god they traveled to the future and Borg didn't have their borg hands on it. Too bad for Voyager though.

I didn't say Star Trek is hard sci-fi. I said it's the hardest.

Expanse is too close to the present and it's only hard sci-fi because of that (it's perception) especially when the evolution of human technology is concerned. We don't see anything magical (besides aliens). Almost every bit of technology exists today. Just less advanced. Had it been in the far future like most of Star Trek - it would've been as hard as Star Trek.

[Ivanstone]

You should go watch DS9 then because there's a rational explanation for Bajoran Prophets. The entire series is about that.
I don't want to say it's aliens but it's aliens.
Similar to Q but more introverted. I understand non-linear time shenanigans might be hard to grasp but that's sci-fi for you. Not as hard as Tardigrades Mushroom travel though, thank god they traveled to the future and Borg didn't have their borg hands on it. Too bad for Voyager though.

I didn't say Star Trek is hard sci-fi. I said it's the hardest.

Expanse is too close to the present and it's only hard sci-fi because of that (it's perception) especially when the evolution of human technology is concerned. We don't see anything magical (besides aliens). Almost every bit of technology exists today. Just less advanced. Had it been in the far future like most of Star Trek - it would've been as hard as Star Trek.

There isn't a rational explanation for the Prophets. Or Charlie Evans. Or Kevin Uxbridge. Or the Q Continuum. Or any of the other myriad of aliens with fantastical powers. What separates Trek from Star Wars treats these fantasies as if they had a rational explanation to them. That doesn't mean they're rational.

The Expanse takes place after the year 2307. TOS takes place in 2265. Its less close to the present and it still contains technologies that are unavailable like fusion power. It doesn't use fantastical crystals like dilithium or incredibly advanced technology like gravitational and inertial control.

[Elim Garak]

There isn't a rational explanation for the Prophets. Or Charlie Evans. Or Kevin Uxbridge. Or the Q Continuum. Or any of the other myriad of aliens with fantastical powers. What separates Trek from Star Wars treats these fantasies as if they had a rational explanation to them. That doesn't mean they're rational.

There are. You just choose to deny them rationality. I don't even care why. It's entirely irrelevant what you think about it. Unless you want to make a point that Discovery does it better - then we will stop this discussion right here right then.
Star Wars is a fantasy because it's not about science or technology. The space and technology are just decorations. You could easily replace them with medieval technology sprinkled with wizards and magic and nothing would change in Star Wars but decorations.
Expanse is not about that either. it's just down to earth.

The Expanse takes place after the year 2307. TOS takes place in 2265. Its less close to the present and it still contains technologies that are unavailable like fusion power. It doesn't use fantastical crystals like dilithium or incredibly advanced technology like gravitational and inertial control.

It doesn't matter what year it is in the shows. The different creative eras were differently optimistic regarding the future. When TOS was created they were more optimistic. When expanse was created (the books) they were less optimistic because the author knew better than TOS creators. So it's a meaningless point to make. Like you don't get what my point is or something?
And we have theories about gravitational and inertial control - we know it's possible to eliminate inertia by creating a gravitational bubble inside which the ship will be and it will be unaffected by outside gravity and thus experience no inertia. We just don't have the technology, materials, and know-how to do it.
And crystals as an energy source is also not magic, google "Piezoelectric"
Seems like you need to brush up on your science.

[Ivanstone]

There are. You just choose to deny them rationality. I don't even care why. It's entirely irrelevant what you think about it. Unless you want to make a point that Discovery does it better - then we will stop this discussion right here right then.
Star Wars is a fantasy because it's not about science or technology. The space and technology are just decorations. You could easily replace them with medieval technology sprinkled with wizards and magic and nothing would change in Star Wars but decorations.
Expanse is not about that either. it's just down to earth.

It doesn't matter what year it is in the shows. The different creative eras were differently optimistic regarding the future. When TOS was created they were more optimistic. When expanse was created (the books) they were less optimistic because the author knew better than TOS creators. So it's a meaningless point to make. Like you don't get what my point is or something?
And we have theories about gravitational and inertial control - we know it's possible to eliminate inertia by creating a gravitational bubble inside which the ship will be and it will be unaffected by outside gravity and thus experience no inertia. We just don't have the technology, materials, and know-how to do it.
And crystals as an energy source is also not magic, google "Piezoelectric"
Seems like you need to brush up on your science.

Closing your eyes and wishing real hard won't make them rational. They have no more rationality than Thor the God of Thunder. If Fungal Beings (fantastical) are living within subspace (a fantastic place) we should be nice to them (ie diplomatic). If someone with a strange ability (more powerful than you, less powerful than the Q Continuum) might blow up more stuff in the universe maybe you should talk them out of it. Stamets and Saru aren't any different than Spock or Sisko in that regard. Yet somehow DSC is magically worse because its somehow more woke than the rest of Trek (it really isn't).

Trek was wildly optimistic about future technology, politics, sociology and economics. However, its still less grounded in its own science and they frequently encountered things that were very fantastic.

We also don't understand what causes gravity. Its effects are well characterized but having an actual device that can create it? In 200 years we'll be still relying on acceleration and centrifugal force for "gravity".

Better yet google "dilithium". A piezoelectric effect can happen from dilithium but that's not why its used.

[Asrialol]

I think you just need to go watch a different Sci-Fi show then. You should go watch the Transformers movie. Its probably closer to what you want.

Star Wars is fantasy. Star Trek is soft Sci-Fi. The Expanse is medium Sci-Fi. Seriously, there's no rational explanation for the Bajoran Prophets.

Somehow Flat Earthers watch Star Trek.

It certainly is. Its also certainly a statement that maybe you just need to learn to be more accepting of others. I would've hoped you would've learned that after watching Star Trek.

- - - Updated - - -



You should go watch Dirty Harry. Andrew Robinson has a really, really punchable face. I wonder what happened to that guy?

Blu del Barrio's biggest problem is that they're not half the actor Asia Kate Dillon is.

Truuuuue. Not even remotely close - Asia is absolutely amazing in Billions, one of my favorite parts of the show, in fact.

[Hammerfest]

Matt Walsh, of the Daily Wire, reacts to Stacy Abrams' appearance on Star Trek: Discovery...

[Ara Myrr]

Matt Walsh, of the Daily Wire, reacts to Stacy Abrams' appearance on Star Trek: Discovery...

Since we're posting trash media, here's another opinion piece from Gizmodo:

https://gizmodo.com/star-trek-discov...ned-1848674408

This bit in particular stands out:

We learned early in Discovery’s third season that Earth itself was one such planet to secede from the Federation, drawing inwards and quickly transforming into a harshly isolationist, self-preserving, and militarized society known as United Earth

You'd think the US conservative crowd would be happy with that, they're finally represented

[Ivanstone]

Matt Walsh, of the Daily Wire, reacts to Stacy Abrams' appearance on Star Trek: Discovery...

How about you react instead? Sock puppets are for cowards.

[Elim Garak]

Is it me or this series turned into "People (mostly women) talking (mostly whispering) about emotions and stuff" and that friendship and love is magic?

[Skulltaker]

Is it me or this series turned into "People (mostly women) talking (mostly whispering) about emotions and stuff" and that friendship and love is magic?

Mixed in with heavily serialized battles and 'complex' characters and 'mindblowing' twists that are supposed to make you question the human condition and every aspect of your reality, but utterly fails to do so because you're laughing your butt off at the cheap attempts to stir emotions and non-sensical plot points that make the time when Janeway and Paris turned into salamanders look like Shakespeare.

Picard Season 2 - so far - is worth a watch. Still a few things that don't make sense and incredibly heavy-handed social commentary, but at least the 'mystery' feels a little like I'm actually watching a Star Trek show.

So when is Orville Season 3 being released?

[Mace]

Mixed in with heavily serialized battles and 'complex' characters and 'mindblowing' twists that are supposed to make you question the human condition and every aspect of your reality, but utterly fails to do so because you're laughing your butt off at the cheap attempts to stir emotions and non-sensical plot points that make the time when Janeway and Paris turned into salamanders look like Shakespeare.

Picard Season 2 - so far - is worth a watch. Still a few things that don't make sense and incredibly heavy-handed social commentary, but at least the 'mystery' feels a little like I'm actually watching a Star Trek show.

So when is Orville Season 3 being released?

I'm struggling to watch Picard season 2 - the social commenatry is too much, and the messaging is cringeworthy - it's too heavy handed, it doesn't feel like anything new - at least Picard season 1 felt new.

[Tyris Flare]

Picard is unwatchable even if there was no "social commentary." It's a great example of the production crew blaming reactionaries when the problem is that their show is garbage. JJ Abrams brain worms infesting and destroying everything.

Any Star Wars fan who was frustrated by the movies needs to appreciate how much worse Star Trek and it's beloved characters have been treated.

[Biomega]

Star Trek is dead, I guess.

I'm happy rewatching the high points of TNG and DS9 over and over. Some isolated VOY. Heck, even ENT seems pretty good to me at this point.

But DIS and PIC are just too much for my old bones. I remember a different time. A different Trek. I can't handle this.

[draugril]

You know what? I'll give this season a pass. This was a Star Trek story. It would have been a mediocre two-parter in TNG... but it wouldn't be out of place as such. That being said... everything with Tarka and Book was forced. They only served to inject typical conflict into a story that didn't need it. They didn't need the bit about Earth and Vulcan being "next" either (and at the same time somehow???) for the purposes of artificial stakes. They don't trust their audience enough to let the stakes be self-evident. But I disgress... as I said, I do give this season a pass. The main point of conflict wasn't a "bad guy." It was communication and understanding, or a lack thereof. The conflict was solved with science and diplomacy. This is pure Trek, and I have to commend Discovery for finally finding a kernel of what drew me into the franchise in the first place.

And for what it's worth... I'm an absolutely vanilla-flavoured generic human in terms of identity politics, but I don't mind that stuff in my Star Trek. That's what Star Trek has always done and always should do. It's a progressive franchise, by design. Even if I don't understand the importance, personally, I do know that this kind of representation is incredibly important to some people and can literally inspire them to change their life and that of those around them for the better. So I'm all for it.

[Biomega]

I'm an absolutely vanilla-flavoured generic human in terms of identity politics, but I don't mind that stuff in my Star Trek. That's what Star Trek has always done and always should do.

I can speak only for myself of course, but I want to be absolutely 100% clear about this.

I have ZERO problems with the subject matter. I completely agree that Trek has always had this and should have this.

What I have problems with is SHITTY AND HEAVY-HANDED WRITING. On any subject matter.

And this goes beyond Trek, by the way. I've about had it up to here with people who think that having the writing equivalent of a guy with a bullhorn yelling <INSERT ISSUE HERE> somehow magically transforms everything into something worth watching. That's not how it works.

[draugril]

I can speak only for myself of course, but I want to be absolutely 100% clear about this.

I have ZERO problems with the subject matter. I completely agree that Trek has always had this and should have this.

What I have problems with is SHITTY AND HEAVY-HANDED WRITING. On any subject matter.

And this goes beyond Trek, by the way. I've about had it up to here with people who think that having the writing equivalent of a guy with a bullhorn yelling <INSERT ISSUE HERE> somehow magically transforms everything into something worth watching. That's not how it works.

This is true. But that bit of writing isn't aimed at me, so I won't pass judgement. And all the forced melodrama and tears, I can do without... and the Michael Burnham worship... she is very nearly the literal apotheosis of the Mary Sue trope, right down to the originating franchise.

But again... I'm giving it a pass based on that kernel of true Trek found within with the species 10-C dealings. I thoroughly enjoyed that. There is a lot I am consciously and willfully overlooking to give it that pass.

Edit: And yes, they seem to think that simply pointing out an issue is some sort of commentary on that issue, rather than actually exploring that issue with a narrative. There's a ton of episodes where action happens, and a socially relevant thing exists in tandem, but they don't do any of the actual narrative legwork to comment on that thing.

[Myradin]

I actually rather liked Discovery season 4. Yes it has some, shall we say, 'discovery-isms', but overall the core of the story is a trek story and overall was an interesting ride. I liked Book and Tarka's handling.
Discovery is improving.

Is it me or this series turned into "People (mostly women) talking (mostly whispering) about emotions and stuff" and that friendship and love is magic?

Yes this is my main problem with season 4. Things will be going mostly okay but then we'll spend 10-20 min every episode talking about feelings.

The doctor was particularly jarring as it felt like his only role all season was to be stressed. I thought he was going to be important in the end as the aliens talk via emotions, but no he was apparently just stressed and thats all they gave him to talk about all season.

As for picard, other than his random s1 'friends' tagging along for no reason, I'm rather enjoying it.

[Aurondarklord]

Giving a whole new meaning to the term "Abrams Trek".

[Biomega]

And yes, they seem to think that simply pointing out an issue is some sort of commentary on that issue, rather than actually exploring that issue with a narrative.

Because that's HARD.

Not only is it difficulty to write this well, but it's also difficult for audiences to properly parse. A show aimed at attracting a big audience often stays away from writing that's that sophisticated, because they're afraid people won't "get it". Which I personally think is an insult to viewer intelligence and a spiral into dumbing-down of content, but then again I'm not a media exec with millions of dollars on the line. So what do I know.