Stamets is more relevent than ever. Now that we know a whole race who can commune with the mycellial network, Starfleet could deploy several other ships equipped with a sporedrive. Stamets is the only specialist able to train a whole new team of engineers and "sporedrivers".
"Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"
Quite frankly, I agree with him. Not that Discovery is amazing as its trying to use the standard romance arc which are boring AF but the pacing of the originals is a bit slow. The movies where decent though (pre 2009) although I do love the new movies too. To each their own tho I guess...
-K
There are a few problems. Strong empaths like Book can use the spore drive. I imagine the Betazoids alone would do well.
Replicating the drive might also be problematic. Even if its not, Stamets would have to be at the forefront of this.
Lastly, the denizens of the Mycellial network might not like their realm being disrupted by widespread use of the drive. Mirror Stamets would hardly be the only unscrupulous user of subspace.
I prefer things that have some plausibility to them, some grain of scientific truth to them - at least somewhat based on science. Take the energy source used for the warp engines, for example. It is, distilled down, a matter/anti-matter reaction which is something based on science. The only purpose dilithium crystals serve in warp engines is a way to focus the reaction. Now suddenly, somehow, they are rooted in subspace? Where the hell did that come from?
Dilithium has been a multidimensional crystal since the 90s if not earlier. Its part of the Hypersonic Series. Subspace is an intrinsic part of Star Trek.
None of this is rooted in actual science.
If you're going to talk Star Trek you should probably start with two things:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/ (Canon from the shows and movies)
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/ (Canon from other licensed material)
Odds a bigger Trekkie has already done all the work for you.
Season 4 predictions:
1. Most the filler will be "rebuild the Federation" stuff that probably feel very typical Trek. I look forward to it.
2. Michael and Saru will have a big team up moment when she is in trouble. Might be awkward too.
3. Book and Michael get closer and it probably makes Michael do something stupid.
4. Some new seasonal villain arises. Probably isn't happy about the Federation coming back.
5. The seasonal villain will be cool as shit but will be vanquished in some really odd / funny / confusing way at the end.
Bad is a relative term. Even if its bad, it still happened. Failing to acknowledge that is just stupid. I remember the good parts. I can still re-watch them if I chose. Making new shows is hard especially without accidentally stealing from the 100s of previous Trek episodes. I see in DSC a show that continues to improve itself.
My only real issue with DSC is that the staff still contains Star Wars people. I don't have an issue with a quality action-adventure show that's set in space but I would prefer that a Star Trek show not lean in that direction. I don't think I'm asking too much to not kill the bad guys.
Nobody is saying the bad parts didn't happen; but bad parts in the past don't justify bad parts now, either. Yes, Star Trek had its silly moments. But that's not what ST is about, and it's not what people remember fondly about ST from the past. To take the bad moments and go "look, this used to be ST, too!" when they do derpy shit now is counterproductive, if not disingenuous.
You failed to understand how things worked and complained about it. I showed you how you can look up something. Now go do your homework.
- - - Updated - - -
Multiple people have complained how Su'Kal blew up everything.
Kevin Uxbridge wiped out an entire alien species in his grief.
I consider both to be pretty good episodes of ST. So why is one "bad" and the other "good"? Even if you consider the latter to be a "bad" episode, why aren't you complaining about it with the same vigour?
I enjoyed that TNG episode as well. The thing is, it was about people you’d never heard of, and never hear of again. It’s episodic storytelling where there are rarely if ever consequences, not connected universe and ongoing storytelling. If he had, say, wiped out the Klingons or Romulans, then we’d have a comparable scenario. It’s why the supernova that wiped out Romulus gets flack, because it’s a big issue that is poorly thought out. You want to destroy Romulus as a plot point? Fine, just do it well. You want to disable warp drive so that a ship centuries out of date is relevant? Fine, just do it well. I don’t think that is too much to ask for.
I liken this to golden age comic storytelling, like when Superman sneezes and destroys a solar system. We can look back and have a laugh at it, even enjoy the simpler times, but we just should expect better in the storytelling now.
Keep in mind that I generally like discovery. I can roll with a lot of things, but I personally just feel I have to roll a bit too much with Discovery.
I am, personally. There's a bunch of ST episodes from the past where people did horrible things that make no sense when you think about it for two seconds. One would think they should have learned from that, rather than repeating the same mistakes in a new series. But apparently not everyone cares about it to the same extent. Fair enough, I suppose.