USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[fireproof78]

So the spore drive is as irrelevant as all of those concepts then? Just because Star Trek did something wrong in the past it doesn’t mean it should keep doing it.

How is it wrong? There are many, many, stories with far reaching implications that are one shots. I'm not saying it shouldn't change, but calling it "wrong" is hardly constructive, because it places many Star Trek episodes in that bucket.

Also, the spore drive fits insofar as it is part of the current Star Trek story. Likely, it will be made defunct in some way and really doesn't need to be considered a continuity violation since the story isn't done yet.

 

[Tuskin38]

DS9 again - what a ledge

So DS9 must be Fan Wank the series.

 

[Belz...]

In the nicest way, that doesn’t explain anything.

Sorry.

It explains everything. The owner of a franchise can, at any point, make retroactive changes without any explanation needed. That's why you can recast a role without having to address the change in appearance, for instance.

I would suggest that the continuing debate disproves your assertion.

That some people debate evolution or climate change doesn't prove that there's a controversy or further science needed. By the same logic, that some people here don't or don't want to understand the concept of retroactive in-universe changes doesn't mean they deserve further explanation.

It isn't a retcon, because it didn't change the number of people under Pike's command prior to "The Cage".

It's a retcon if the new number is meant to apply to the original. I don't remember if the line is maintained as-is in The Menagerie, but if not, we can assume the 430 number supersedes the 203 one. Hell, the number isn't even stable in TOS.

In my opinion, you should just use your brain.

We do, and here's a shocker: canon is subject to change. I may not like it, but that's what it is. Always has been.

You sure?

He openly mentions having a human ancestor, yet no mention of a human sister.

What do you think that proves? Omission is not contradiction.

Neither does Sarek if his breakdown in TNG during the Picard mind meld is anything to go by.

Never mentions a “Michael”.

Doesn't mention his beloved cousins, either.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

but calling it "wrong" is hardly constructive,

That’s a fair point - I was simply trying to respond to the comment made elsewhere on the same terms. Bascially the argument was that loads of things in TOS were never mentioned again - my point is that just because we never heard of so many concepts again doesn’t mean that the franchise should be encouraged to do the same thing and add to that list. It makes the universe seem disjointed.

Likely, it will be made defunct in some way and really doesn't need to be considered a continuity violation

Yeah that’s probably true - let’s face it, they’re going to have to do that - which we all knew from the beginning. I’m not looking forward to that story being told is all. It’ll be like voyager’s “here’s why this wormhole won’t take us home” - when we all know it’s because it’s only season 4 and Star Trek runs for 7 seasons.

So DS9 must be Fan Wank the series.

Is a concerted effort to make the universe coherent and logical within itself fan wank now? I can’t keep up with the constant flux of that term’s semantic associations.

It explains everything

That reads very much like an ipse dixit statement.

that some people here don't or don't want to understand the concept of retroactive in-universe changes doesn't mean they deserve further explanation.

I understand retcons. I don’t like the retcons DSC has made.

Doesn't mention his beloved cousins, either.

That’s also a good point - I guess you mean one of the cousins who helped young animated Spock that one time? I’d still argue a daughter would mean more to him than a cousin. Michael deserves a place in the Picard breakdown list.

Unless she’s going to do something really terrible which will undo her redemption in s1?

I actually wouldn’t mind that.

 

[Longinus]

Yeah that’s probably true - let’s face it, they’re going to have to do that - which we all knew from the beginning. I’m not looking forward to that story being told is all. It’ll be like voyager’s “here’s why this wormhole won’t take us home” - when we all know it’s because it’s only season 4 and Star Trek runs for 7 seasons.

It is just awkward. I really do not understand the mindset that came up with this. If you're making a prequel, it is just stupid to introduce a drive system that is better than anything ever used by anyone in the shows set in the later eras. Especially as most of the plots did not even require it to be so über powerful. All that was required was that Discovery was significantly faster than other ships of the era, and there could be some sort of fuckup to allow the mirror travel. The latter is nonsense anyhow, so any tech can allow it if required. The former could have been fulfilled by Discovery testing the prototype of Excelsior warp drive. Well, I guess they needed to be able to teleport in that cave in Kronos, but that whole episode was full of stupid and would have needed a complete rewrite anyhow.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

It is just awkward. I really do not understand the mindset that came up with this. If you're making a prequel, it is just stupid to introduce a drive system that is better than anything ever used by anyone in the shows set in the later eras. Especially as most of the plots did not even require it to be so über powerful. All that was required was that Discovery was significantly faster than other ships of the era, and there could be some sort of fuckup to allow the mirror travel. The latter is nonsense anyhow, so any tech can allow it if required. The former could have been fulfilled by Discovery testing the prototype of Excelsior warp drive. Well, I guess they needed to be able to teleport in that cave in Kronos, but that whole episode was full of stupid and would have needed a complete rewrite anyhow.

My guess is that the whole thing was brought in to solve certain... complications in the writing of the show.

Like coming up with creative ways to solve problems using the established trends and tropes of the Trek universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked that it was sort of based on real science. But it was just so fantastical relative to the rest of the technology *of that era* that I just didn’t buy it.

Post-voyager? I’d have been like “hell yeah FTL jump drives from BSG exist! Tactical advantage much?”

Post-Enterprise? Doesn’t make sense when you *know* they’re going to have to classify it or whatever. Gives the whole thing an air of predictability.

 

[fireproof78]

That’s a fair point - I was simply trying to respond to the comment made elsewhere on the same terms. Bascially the argument was that loads of things in TOS were never mentioned again - my point is that just because we never heard of so many concepts again doesn’t mean that the franchise should be encouraged to do the same thing and add to that list. It makes the universe seem disjointed.

The problem is that TOS was not the only offender. What about Warp 10 from TNG to VOY? What about transporters to cure aging? Perhaps the alien race that was responsible for several of the main alien races?

This is something that Star Trek has done for a long time. But, whenever new Trek does it it's "wrong" just like Khan's "magic blood" (never mind the current existence of blood based therapies in contemporary medicine) or Discovery's spore drive. It gets filed away with the "top men" and joins the rest of Star Trek tech. It's a tradition as old as the franchise.

Post-voyager? I’d have been like “hell yeah FTL jump drives from BSG exist! Tactical advantage much?”

If DSC was post-VOY there would be complaints that it wasn't transwarp

 

[lawman]

Yeah that’s probably true - let’s face it, they’re going to have to do that - which we all knew from the beginning. I’m not looking forward to that story being told is all. It’ll be like voyager’s “here’s why this wormhole won’t take us home” - when we all know it’s because it’s only season 4 and Star Trek runs for 7 seasons.

I heartily agree. I can't help thinking this whole debate (and mean this whole debate about multiple aspects of DSC's continuity, going back months now) is orbiting around a really basic cognitive difference in how people approach narrative fiction:

Some people don't mind at all when storytellers do things that don't make sense in-universe and can only be explained by real-world reasons. In fact, far from minding, sometimes they even celebrate it (e.g., various redesigns).

Other people are bothered by this, and feel that it violates the implicit compact between storyteller and audience that allows us to suspend disbelief.

I'm definitely in the latter category, and I gather that you are too.

I've been a comic-book reader for years, so I certainly understand retcons as a concept!... and I don't mind them per se. Some are very well done, in fact. But it's the ones that make sense within the reality of the story itself that really work. The ones that don't do that come across as arbitrary and capricious, and as often as not wind up being undone later.

This is something that Star Trek has done for a long time. But, whenever new Trek does it it's "wrong" just like Khan's "magic blood" (never mind the current existence of blood based therapies in contemporary medicine) or Discovery's spore drive. It gets filed away with the "top men" and joins the rest of Star Trek tech. It's a tradition as old as the franchise.

Yes, it's been done many a time... and it's almost always bad storytelling. Magic tech that only works for one story does damage to the overall fabric of the fictional universe... and usually comes across as lazy writing even for the story it's in. So the fact that it's been done before (all too often) is hardly an excuse for doing it again.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

What about Warp 10 from TNG to VOY?

Ok well on TNG it was the traveller and an accident and the con man engineer guy probably went into hiding for being a fraud - plus it led to a land where imaginary things become manifest so probably not worth repeating while humans have imaginations.

As for VOY: salamanders.

What about transporters to cure aging?

When they become super old or super young you mean? Since the former was a disease and the latter a transporter accident, I’d say they only use the transporter like that in cases of emergency.

But it’s an interesting question - and kinda renders the plot of INS irrelevant...

Perhaps the alien race that was responsible for several of the main alien races?

Picard’s findings were discussed by academics for decades probably. By like archaeologists and whatnot. I’d love to see Trek does Indiana Jones but I guess CBS don’t agree.

Khan's "magic blood"

It did kinda cure death, though. No blood based treatments now can do that yet can they? I really disliked into darkness I can’t be objective about that film it’s the only one where i nearly walked out of the theatre halfway through.

If DSC was post-VOY there would be complaints that it wasn't transwarp

I’m self aware enough to know that those complaints would have come from me in that scenario

 

[jaime]

What's helped me enjoy Discovery and Trek more in general is not giving a Saurian's ass anymore about canon. Prime, Kelvin, whatever Timeline... I just don't give a damn anymore. What matter's is the story.

I'd rather have a great story that violates canon (and the Prime Directive) than a mediocre one that shoehorns into canon. It's an attitude I picked up during the Bruce Timm animated DC shows (Batman, Superman, JL, etc.). They all reference each other at times, but I view each one as its own thing.

That's how I view Trek now. DISCO may reference TOS and whatnot but it's its own show and universe.

If Trek is not tied in continuity with itself, it’s just another SF show, and I probably wouldn’t be arsed with it at all. I have other SF shows, and there’s x number of hours to watch them in.
The fact I am not the only one who sees it this why is why they say it’s prime.
The minute they spore jump the space shark on that, is when I stop bothering.
I was barely bothered by the JJ stuff for pretty much that reason, from the moment I watched the first one.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I heartily agree. I can't help thinking this whole debate (and mean this whole debate about multiple aspects of DSC's continuity, going back months now) is orbiting around a really basic cognitive difference in how people approach narrative fiction:

Some people don't mind at all when storytellers do things that don't make sense in-universe and can only be explained by real-world reasons. In fact, far from minding, sometimes they even celebrate it (e.g., various redesigns).

Other people are bothered by this, and feel that it violates the implicit compact between storyteller and audience that allows us to suspend disbelief.

I'm definitely in the latter category, and I gather that you are too.

I've been a comic-book reader for years, so I certainly understand retcons as a concept!... and I don't mind them per se. Some are very well done, in fact. But it's the ones that make sense within the reality of the story itself that really work. The ones that don't do that come across as arbitrary and capricious, and as often as not wind up being undone later.

Totally agree with this

It seems to be about how one immerses oneself in the universe.

I like it to make sense internally (within reason - it’s still Star Trek after all) but I like it when they come up with reasons why things look different. I *loved* the augment virus storyline. It made the show more real and less imaginary for me - less like a television show and more like an alternate world.

We’re in a different tv world now it seems where reboots of all kinds abound.

I have no ill will toward anyone who likes that kind of tv (idic and all that!) but since milage varies on this sort of thing, I guess I have a low milage tolerance for this new kind of televisual approach.

Tangentially, Michael Dorn has just recently said his captain Worf show could still happen - so maybe that will provide more of the internal consistency (unfairly described as “fanwank”) that I crave?

Unless they put him in that terrible Klingorc makeup and give him one of those ludicrous new D7s.

 

[Belz...]

That reads very much like an ipse dixit statement.

Since you presumably read the rest of my post, given that you've answered it, why did you feel the need to post this bit? Isn't it misleading, since I do explain the statement right after?

I understand retcons

Then you should understand why they don't need to be explained, in-universe or otherwise.

That’s also a good point - I guess you mean one of the cousins who helped young animated Spock that one time?

I mean people who belong to Sarek's family and who we've never heard of. Why would he mention any of them? The argument is silly. He didn't mention her because he didn't have a strained relationship with her, and she didn't exist in canon at the time. He didn't mention Sybok, either.

It is just awkward. I really do not understand the mindset that came up with this. If you're making a prequel, it is just stupid to introduce a drive system that is better than anything ever used by anyone in the shows set in the later eras. Especially as most of the plots did not even require it to be so über powerful.

On the other hand, transwarp drive was not heard of again after TSFS. So what happened? Fans assume that the experiment failed, but why wouldn't Starfleet continue to try to make the tech work? Because the makers of the show just dropped it, that's why.

 

[Longinus]

On the other hand, transwarp drive was not heard of again after TSFS. So what happened? Fans assume that the experiment failed, but why wouldn't Starfleet continue to try to make the tech work? Because the makers of the show just dropped it, that's why.

It worked just fine and as a result the warp scale got re-calibrated. They just stopped calling it transwarp once the technology became the standard. (We never saw Excelsior to do anything that would be particularly extraordinary. It was just faster warp.)

 

[TrickyDickie]

I don't get taking our universe and the Trek universe and combining them in a blender.

Well, the look of the TOS Enterprise from the 60s is dated and modern audiences will not appreciate that.

Hello..........It's science-fiction set in another universe. Do we have to automatically believe that the 23rd century in the Trek universe will look like the 23rd century here?

If we project ahead, our 23rd century will have an entirely different 'look' from now.

Yet, people are demanding that new 23rd century Trek needs the aesthetic of our 21st century?

That's unnecessary, if not downright dumb.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, it's been done many a time... and it's almost always bad storytelling. Magic tech that only works for one story does damage to the overall fabric of the fictional universe... and usually comes across as lazy writing even for the story it's in. So the fact that it's been done before (all too often) is hardly an excuse for doing it again.

It is hardly offensive to me if a franchise that has done it before does it again, nor are the instances of bad storytelling some how more egregious because its the 21st century or something.

Ok well on TNG it was the traveller and an accident and the con man engineer guy probably went into hiding for being a fraud - plus it led to a land where imaginary things become manifest so probably not worth repeating while humans have imaginations.

As for VOY: salamanders.

The larger point being that one caused one thing (travelling to another galaxy) and the other caused another thing (salamanders). Neither consistent nor any particular explanation given other than fan explanations, i.e recalculating the warp scale.

It did kinda cure death, though. No blood based treatments now can do that yet can they? I really disliked into darkness I can’t be objective about that film it’s the only one where i nearly walked out of the theatre halfway through.

Kirk was "barely dead" and the blood provided regeneration of damage tissues from radiation. Hardly a "cure" for death, since Bones put him on ice to prevent any additional damage. Also, far more plausible than a lot of other Trek tech.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Isn't it misleading, since I do explain the statement right after?

No it’s not misleading since even your explanation was still your opinion

Then you should understand why they don't need to be explained, in-universe or otherwise.

I’m not saying I need them explained - I’m saying I’d like them explained. There’s a big difference.

The argument is silly. He didn't mention her because he didn't have a strained relationship with her, and she didn't exist in canon at the time.

The argument is just as silly as any other argument about Star Trek - I prefer not to pass those kinds of judgments.

And since we’ve only seen one season of DSC we don’t really know what the relationship between Michael and Sarek will be by the 24th century. Heck, Michael might still be alive like Dr McCoy.

The more important point you make is that she didn’t exist in canon at the time. I feel that Michael didn’t need to be Sarek’s daughter at all - as it was inevitably going to open the door for this kind of “silly” argument.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Picard’s findings were discussed by academics for decades probably. By like archaeologists and whatnot. I’d love to see Trek does Indiana Jones but I guess CBS doesn’t agree.

I would love an archaeological take on Star Trek for a change. They've teased endlessly about The Preservers, who spread their seed throughout the galaxy in order to ensure sentient life would thrive. Let's explore that. Find the common threads that make the petty border disputes useless. Make the major players of the Alpha Quadrant sit down amicably. There are three other quadrants. How do we engage them? And what do we do if their answer is no?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

The larger point being that one caused one thing (travelling to another galaxy) and the other caused another thing (salamanders). Neither consistent nor any particular explanation given other than fan explanations, i.e recalculating the warp scale

Agreed - all’s im saying is that we’re all (knowingly I feel) waiting on a similar reason for the spore drive going the same way as “warp 10” - as you said earlier, “top men” and all that

It’s just a shame that we know that day is coming. But that’s the fault of prequels I guess.

Kirk was "barely dead" and the blood provided regeneration of damage tissues from radiation. Hardly a "cure" for death, since Bones put him on ice to prevent any additional damage. Also, far more plausible than a lot of other Trek tech.

I know I was just being silly lol. And I don’t mind Trek tech being implausible now - the boffins of the future will figure out how to make it real - that’s why we have tablet pcs now - because Captain Kirk needed something to sign the duty roster on in the 60s..!

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I would love an archaeological take on Star Trek for a change. They've teased endlessly about The Preservers, who spread their seed throughout the galaxy in order to ensure sentient life would thrive. Let's explore that. Find the common threads that make the petty border disputes useless. Make the major players of the Alpha Quadrant sit down amicably. There are three other quadrants. How do we engage them? And what do we do if their answer is no?

That was one of the great things about that episode.

“Guys, for all our differences, we are basically the same at our core”.

Even the romulan guy got that.

I’d watch the hell out of the kind of show you suggest

 

[lawman]

That was one of the great things about that episode.

“Guys, for all our differences, we are basically the same at our core”.

Even the romulan guy got that.

I’d watch the hell out of the kind of show you suggest

Have you watched the latest season of The Expanse? I'd say it did a better job of exemplifying these kinds of ideals than anything Star Trek has come up with in a while...