No. Because, one side didn't consider it valuable and the other side didn't want to risk going in to enemy territory.
Horrible writing...
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
Horrible writing...
Ah, yes! How could we have forgotten all those times the Confederation and the Union stopped their entire war efforts for the sole purpose of funneling resources to the capture of some experimental CSA Submarine laying on the bottom of a harbor somewhere...
Last edited:
Ah, yes. Great analogy.
Because a 23rd century deep-space exploratory and defense service (composed of hundreds of planetary governments and with hundreds/thousands of faster-than-light starships) has the same capabilities and resources as the 1860 Union and Confederate navies!
I think it was Winston Churchill who said "History is written by bad writers."
Funny, the first time that analogy was made here was by ralfy, and IIRC your first contribution to this thread was trying to defend it. I guess it looked like a valid analogy back when you thought history agreed with your idea of how Starfleet should behave, but it doesn't... So now you've decided history is irrelevant and just Starfleet should behave this way, because it's the 23rd century and you get to decide what that means. Even if it contradicts the writing not only on DSC but every other Trek series. All of them were bad writers.Ah, yes. Great analogy.
Because a 23rd century deep-space exploratory and defense service (composed of hundreds of planetary governments and with hundreds/thousands of faster-than-light starships) has the same capabilities and resources as the 1860 Union and Confederate navies!
You missed the point of the analogy, I see...Ah, yes. Great analogy.
Because a 23rd century deep-space exploratory and defense service (composed of hundreds of planetary governments and with hundreds/thousands of faster-than-light starships) has the same capabilities and resources as the 1860 Union and Confederate navies!
As impressive as T'Kuvma's cloaking device was in battle, the fact that T'Kuvma was killed and his ship left stranded in the battle undermines the perception of the cloaking device being particularly valuable. In the same way the Hunley's extremely limited success was undermined by the submarine not actually surviving its first and only combat mission, T'Kuvma's death and his ship's disappearance from the war leads the rest of the Klingons to think that his little invisibility trick is just a clever gimmick that probably isn't all that useful. Kol seems to think otherwise, probably after spending six months getting his ass kicked with conventional tactics and thinking that the cloaking device, in the hands of a more experienced battlefield commander, might just give him the edge he needs.
In this case, past is prologue: even after the Hunley's successful attack, it was still another 30 years before the U.S. Navy started to really look into the practical applications of submarine warfare. if anything, Kol's adoption of the cloaking device is a rare moment of Klingon ingenuity.
It was a lame and irrelevant analogy.
Basic principle of fiction: just because you can cite an example of something happening "in real life" is no excuse for putting it in a story where it doesn't make sense.
It made sense to meIt was a lame and irrelevant analogy.
Basic principle of fiction: just because you can cite an example of something happening "in real life" is no excuse for putting it in a story where it doesn't make sense.
Frankly I don’t remember me defending (or even reading) that analogy. But if I remember correctly it was you who defended O_Kav’s post that 1,000ft F-T-L starships are as common in the Star Trek Universe as cars are common in the real world. But now Starfleet has the same capability and resources to search charted space as the makeshift CSA navy had to search the seabed?! I guess it looked like a valid analogy back then, but now that it suddenly doesn't suit your arguments...
Ah yes, the old argument: "So what if DSC has bad writing? So did '60s and '90s Star Trek!"
Hmm... I see. Do you know any real life Interstellar Civilizations to draw analogies to the UFP ? Maybe you should ask Alex Jones.
Inspiration from History is Space Opera 101, bud. That's why writers get inspiration from Naval Battles to write Space Battles. We don't have any other type of source to inspire ourselves from. I thought that was common knowledge.
Besides, how would you know if it makes sense or not ? You don't even watch Discovery. If you actually bothered to watch all the episodes, you would know that in the last one the cloaked ship is easily destroyed by the Federation due to its fragile experimental nature. Just like early submarines were.
Last edited:
Yes. Having consistent standards in criticizing a show makes sense.
Yes. Because these a 'sets'. Because the Shenzhou was needed for L'Rell and Voq later on. So the writers just had it there ready for them, even though it should have been scuttled. Same with Sarcophagus just a set piece.
Yes, God forbid things should happen in TV the way they happen in real life. That wouldn't make sense at all!It was a lame and irrelevant analogy.
Basic principle of fiction: just because you can cite an example of something happening "in real life" is no excuse for putting it in a story where it doesn't make sense.
Besides, how would you know if it makes sense or not ? You don't even watch Discovery. If you actually bothered to watch all the episodes, you would know that in the last one the cloaked ship is easily destroyed by the Federation due to its fragile experimental nature. Just like early submarines were.
I watch DSC and I would characterize the battle against the cloaked ship anything but easy.
Once again the needs of the "cool" set piece outweighing the needs of good storytelling and narrative logic.
What the hell are you talking about ? The episodes that @Crazy Eddie mentioned like The Doomsday Machine and BoBW are among the best scripts ever written for Star Trek...
My opinion on comparisons is consistent. I don't give a shit about them to be honest. I like to look at the story screened, deal with what is at hand. Besides we have been told that apart from Enterprise, Discovery is first in the timeline rendering most of the Trek examples irrelevant as they haven't happened yet. However I understand the smoke and mirrors approach of trying to explain away something poorly written in Discovery when people bring up old Trek. It's not actually dealing with explaining Discovery as such.
You keep saying that, but you still haven't given us a reason why it SHOULD have been scuttled, only asserting that in hindsight it would have really inconvenienced Voq (for about 12 hours) if they had.
What the hell are you talking about? Was I quoting/responding to Crazy Eddie there?
