But it wasn't. If the tardigrade hadn't fallen into the Glenn's lap and Discovery hadn't taken it they would still be bunny hopping nowhere.
'Discovery' lacked discovery
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
I think something happens to Discovery. I have a hard time believing this is the last we see of the Spore Drive, yet it can't still be around in TOS and there can't be other ships with it.
I can't see the show ending with the ship being a failure. So I think the something that happens to Discovery is it ends up in a different place and a different time. Call it a gut feeling on my part. We've already seen that Spore Drive can displace the ship through time and space. Subsequent seasons will escalate what was done previously if this show is like others that have wanted to up their game.
I don't think we've discovered where Discovery wants to take us yet. Call it a leap of faith, but I think "you ain't seen nothing yet."
This is just the beginning.
And when Fleming discovered penicillin, he wasn't trying to. Something dropped in his lap and he realised its value. That's how discoveries often go.
I hope you're right.
I feel the same way.
Bryan Fuller Explains Why the New Show is Called Star Trek: Discovery
“This ship is called the Discovery for a few reasons,” said Fuller. “Not the least of which is Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the Discovery on 2001: A Space Odyssey, NASA’s vessel the Discovery, and also the sense of discovery.” He also drew a connection between the meaning of the word to fans, adding that part of the title comes from “what the word ‘discovery’ means to Star Trek audiences who have been promised a future by Gene Roddenberry where we come together as a planet and seek new worlds and new alien races to explore and understand and collaborate with.”
Bryan Fuller Explains Why the New Show is Called Star Trek: Discovery
“This ship is called the Discovery for a few reasons,” said Fuller. “Not the least of which is Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the Discovery on 2001: A Space Odyssey, NASA’s vessel the Discovery, and also the sense of discovery.” He also drew a connection between the meaning of the word to fans, adding that part of the title comes from “what the word ‘discovery’ means to Star Trek audiences who have been promised a future by Gene Roddenberry where we come together as a planet and seek new worlds and new alien races to explore and understand and collaborate with.”
You purposely only quoted one sentence out of everything else I said in both of my earlier posts. Look at the rest of it.
And that future will not come without pain and sacrifice. I still think discovery fits just fine largely because Star Trek has been as much about the "human adventure" as it is the space adventure.Bryan Fuller Explains Why the New Show is Called Star Trek: Discovery
“This ship is called the Discovery for a few reasons,” said Fuller. “Not the least of which is Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the Discovery on 2001: A Space Odyssey, NASA’s vessel the Discovery, and also the sense of discovery.” He also drew a connection between the meaning of the word to fans, adding that part of the title comes from “what the word ‘discovery’ means to Star Trek audiences who have been promised a future by Gene Roddenberry where we come together as a planet and seek new worlds and new alien races to explore and understand and collaborate with.”
At least, that guy Gene Rodden...something, thought so.
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing that. I'm surprised there is a resistance to recognising the meaning of discovery with this iteration's title and the primary star vessel.Bryan Fuller Explains Why the New Show is Called Star Trek: Discovery
“This ship is called the Discovery for a few reasons,” said Fuller. “Not the least of which is Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the Discovery on 2001: A Space Odyssey, NASA’s vessel the Discovery, and also the sense of discovery.” He also drew a connection between the meaning of the word to fans, adding that part of the title comes from “what the word ‘discovery’ means to Star Trek audiences who have been promised a future by Gene Roddenberry where we come together as a planet and seek new worlds and new alien races to explore and understand and collaborate with.”
There is always next season
Actually, it's all fake.Thank you for sharing that. I'm surprised there is a resistance to recognising the meaning of discovery with this iteration's title and the primary star vessel.
There is always next season
You made an assumption about "just discovering aliens" that was contrary to the explanation by Bryan Fuller. I was addressing that part.
There is always next season
Well, you guys might dislike what they did, considering Bryan Fuller's explanation, but I found their reason for the Discovery's war theme.
Discovery is going to war
"First and foremost, the defining factor of Roddenberry’s vision is the optimistic view of the future. He envisioned a world where all species, all races came together to not only make our world better, but to make every world better. I think that is something that can never be lost in Trek. Once you lose that, you lose the essence of what Star Trek is.
That being said…we live in very different times. Every day we look at the news and it is hard. It is hard to see what we see. I think now more than ever Trek is needed as a reminder of what we can be and the best of who we can be. Star Trek has always been a mirror to the time it reflected and right now the idea that – the question is how do you preserve and protect what Starfleet is in the weight of challenge like war and the things that have to be done in war is a very interesting and dramatic problem. And it feels like a very topical one given the world where where we live now."
—Alex Kurtzman
That being said…we live in very different times. Every day we look at the news and it is hard. It is hard to see what we see. I think now more than ever Trek is needed as a reminder of what we can be and the best of who we can be. Star Trek has always been a mirror to the time it reflected and right now the idea that – the question is how do you preserve and protect what Starfleet is in the weight of challenge like war and the things that have to be done in war is a very interesting and dramatic problem. And it feels like a very topical one given the world where where we live now."
—Alex Kurtzman
According to the above, expect any type of discoveries that you believe qualify as such or prefer the show to focus on—seeking-out, accidentally-stumbling-upon or of-opportunity—to happen within the war theme, unless it does not span all seasons.
I'm suffering Lorca withdrawal
There is some speculation on the internet that it may not be a question of "will Lorca be back" but a question of "will Lorca be back as a regular or a guest." But it is only a speculation.
"Isn't just" is what I said. That means discovering new civilizations is included. Among other things.
What I expect is self-discovery, not just aliens and civilizations.
They discovered what Kelpian tastes like.....
It probably doesn't. The "Klingon War" theme was, IIRC, Bryan Fuller's idea. They have now imposed a rather heavy-handed conclusion to that story arc so now they're retooling for a totally different background.
Bring Back Prime Lorca!
Which is the exact same approach the exact same guy utterly fucked up with in Into Darkness, and has now equally ruined the inaugural season of our new Trek show with. These guys just have NO. Fucking. Clue. On how to pull off a believable war story. Not even to mention the moral and ethical dilemmas war might bring.
Mostly, because they don't grasp the pure concept of war. For them, it's always WWII in space. With capital ships firing at each other, clear cut front lines, and an enemy that has no redeeming qualitiy and whose members are all goons to be gunned down.
They can't seem to grasp the concept of an asymmetric war. Of one that is not "winnable". Where the enemy civilians are worth protecting at the same time they might colled with the enemy regime, out of pure necessity, self-preservation and propaganda. Where the enemy fraction can't be stopped by turning it's leader, or having a treaty. But THAT is where the interesting stuff is. WWII in space is Star Wars. And much better at that.
I have to disagree. I generally agree they lack a full conceptualization of the larger implications of a war, but the idea that Into Darkness or DISCO have missed a believable war story in space. I don't buy that. I found Marcus highly believable, and the same thing with Burnham.
The larger problem, and perhaps were you and I might agree, is that the larger picture is more difficult to paint out. So, the personal war story they seem to have a better grasp, vs. the larger political implications.
Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't a war story. In fact, the pivotal plot points of "STID" were explicitly concerned with "the ethical and moral dilemmas war might bring." Spock, Scotty and even Kirk EXPLICITLY pointed this out in discussion of their issue with the mission to Kronos, in recognizing that the mission was immoral and illegal. Kirk's closing monolog nails this point to the wall when he talks about the need to put aside thoughts of revenge when someone harms you. And Khan himself paints the dichotomy of Starfleet's mission vs. Starfleet's duty to defend the Federation in pointing out that Marcus needed Khan for his "savagery," which Marcus echoes by trying to justify all of his underhanded shit with the words "War is coming!"
As with Discovery, your post leaves me wondering if you ever actually watched that movie...
... or ANY EPISODE OF STAR TREK.
When has war ever NOT been depicted as "World War II in space"? The entire Dominion War was basically that. They did an obligatory Guadalcanal story with "The Siege of AR-558" and then had Kira, Garak and Damar team up with the Cardassian Underground.
Two different Star Trek episodes had the Enterprise crew going into battle against ACTUAL NAZIS. "Stormfront" was literally World War-II in space!
It's not interesting at all. 100 years of military history tells us that if you find yourself engaged in that kind of asymmetric war, it's because you've seriously fucked up somewhere; you've either sent your military into a place they're not welcome and have no business being, or you've started a fight with someone a LOT stronger than you and now you're clinging desperately to a slim chance of not-exactly-defeat. To the extent that war is EVER a worthwhile endeavor, asymmetric warfare is never anything more than a military and political time-suck that fails to accomplish anything except a significant boost in arms sales.
I think DS9 did a better job with the Dominion War than Discovery did with the Klingon War. Or, for that matter, than Enterprise did with the Xindi. But they faced a fundamental difficult issue - war is boring to watch from the general's seat.
What makes war stories interesting is the human element. Seeing a group of soldiers become friends and comrades. Discovering the different relationships that the soldiers left behind at home. Perhaps a brief glimpse into the internal world of the "enemy" which shows that they are just as much a person, and caught up in this giant mess as everyone else. Following the story of a family under siege, or surviving in an occupied territory.
In contrast, the general's room is just a bunch of men talking strategy - telling, not showing. It's all infodump. Even if what we are told hints at the great importance of what's at stake, because of how human psychology works, it doesn't have the same emotional impact. It's why people in America largely ignored the refugee crisis in Europe, for example,until there was a picture of one drowned boy washed up on a Turkish beach. 10,000 dead are a statistic which make our eyes glaze over, but one small boy, gone forever, is a tragedy.
With a bit of work, Discovery could have avoided this. They could have lowered the stakes and told Burnham's redemption arc during the Klingon War without making her and the Discovery directly responsible for most of the successful battles and the overall victory. But like DS9, Discovery was unable to resist the siren call of "epicness" even though ultimately it is the emotionally hollow route to take.
Wouldn't that emotional connection depend on the personal investment in the characters?
Similar threads
- Locked
