Cool with Q, but not the spore drive? Interesting...

[Jadeb]

I'm skeptical of this approach because it seems like it has the potential to be a big waste of time. Let's create a McGuffin, make a big to-do about it even though we know the inevitable outcome, then find a way to put all our toys neatly back into the box. That sounds like Old Trek to me, only stretched way out. Isn't the advantage of serialized storytelling that it doesn't do that?

 

[XCV330]

I'm skeptical of this approach because it seems like it has the potential to be a big waste of time. Let's create a McGuffin, make a big to-do about it even though we know the inevitable outcome, then find a way to put all our toys neatly back into the box. That sounds like Old Trek to me, only stretched way out. Isn't the advantage of serialized storytelling that it doesn't do that?

Biggest advantage of spore drive so far is that its allowed it to go places in a hurry, and places that no other ship could get to at all. even if the show was set in the 25th century, Spore drive would still be problematic because questions of plot would arise. why restrict yourself to one galaxy or time or universe when you have this ship that can go anywhere or anywhen. Actually, that sounds like fun. Season 3? Just make it where they can't get back home.

 

[EnderAKH]

"Why haven't we ever heard of the Xindi before? Or the Delphic Expanse?" The more things change...

 

[fireproof78]

I'm skeptical of this approach because it seems like it has the potential to be a big waste of time. Let's create a McGuffin, make a big to-do about it even though we know the inevitable outcome, then find a way to put all our toys neatly back into the box. That sounds like Old Trek to me, only stretched way out. Isn't the advantage of serialized storytelling that it doesn't do that?

I don't think so. I think serialized storytelling allows for the opportunity to actually allow exploration of the implications of the McGuffin, rather than just ending with a laugh track and moving on, never to speak of it again.

 

[Jadeb]

Biggest advantage of spore drive so far is that its allowed it to go places in a hurry, and places that no other ship could get to at all. even if the show was set in the 25th century, Spore drive would still be problematic because questions of plot would arise. why restrict yourself to one galaxy or time or universe when you have this ship that can go anywhere or anywhen. Actually, that sounds like fun. Season 3? Just make it where they can't get back home.

If they do something really interesting with it, I'm down. I like the idea of anywhere, anywhen. But I don't see a lot of value in just being able to go faster or travel greater distances. The hero ship has always traveled at the speed of plot.

 

[Teelie]

And my critique of that critique is the lack of information regarding how the spore drive ends up.

Mileage will vary, but I see no reason to worry about it when the ending isn't known.

So it sounds as if you'd be fine with the idea of the spore drive if sometime before the end of DIS the use of the spore drive somehow becomes impossible, such as maybe the mycelial network begins rejecting its use for travel (or some other reason its future use becomes impossible).

Star Trek is full of technologies that were used once and are then never mentioned again, so what's tne difference now? I don't see any continuity issues, starfleet experimented with a warp drive replacement and it failed, it's just not a one episode plot this time.

I get that but most of these were used once, never again or sparingly seen, given an explanation why they can't work. The spore drive has been going on two entire seasons now with the first season's entire premise being how revolutionary the spore drive is. Most of these other technologies we see and get abandoned aren't seen nearly so much or shown to be such a potential change in the status quo of the universe.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

… For all intents & purposes, Q (as a concept) is not a science-fiction character. He is a fantasy character. Even Harry Potter goes to the trouble of casting spells, but Q's finger-snapping is all we get. … For years, I wanted to see sci-fi do a simple task: 1) pick up a real science journal, 2) glean the latest theories/breakthroughs/technology, 3) develop & incorporate them into storylines that were realistic and challenged the imagination. ...

Well you bring up a highly debated point as to "Sci Fi" versus "Science Fiction." You use the two terms interchangeably and therein lies your problem. There are some wonderful videos on Youtube with authors debating the terms and what they represent (I recommend the one with both Asimov and Ellison). One thing they generally agree on is that they are not one and the same (hence your disappointment all these years).

The concept of "Q" is sci-fi as that terms does include science fantasy. Science fiction is more literate and deals with science and the human condition. Sci fi, especially in film and television is all about the plot. Overall it appears, as you've defined the 3 tasks you want to see, you are looking for sci fi rather than science fiction.

Having said that, both sci fi and science fiction have made use of "real" science journals as well as the "latest theories/breakthroughs/technology." The difference is what they do with it. If it is just name dropped and used as story fodder then it is sci fi. If it is a thoughtful examination of how the human condition is impacted then it is science fiction. I greatly enjoy Star Trek Discovery but by and large it is pure sci-fi.

 

[XCV330]

Well you bring up a highly debated point as to "Sci Fi" versus "Science Fiction." You use the two terms interchangeably and therein lies your problem. There are some wonderful videos on Youtube with authors debating the terms and what they represent (I recommend the one with both Asimov and Ellison). One thing they generally agree on is that they are not one and the same (hence your disappointment all these years).

The concept of "Q" is sci-fi as that terms does include science fantasy. Science fiction is more literate and deals with science and the human condition. Sci fi, especially in film and television is all about the plot. Overall it appears, as you've defined the 3 tasks you want to see, you are looking for sci fi rather than science fiction.

Having said that, both sci fi and science fiction have made use of "real" science journals as well as the "latest theories/breakthroughs/technology." The difference is what they do with it. If it is just name dropped and used as story fodder then it is sci fi. If it is a thoughtful examination of how the human condition is impacted then it is science fiction. I greatly enjoy Star Trek Discovery but by and large it is pure sci-fi.

sighs...

FIJAGH

If Asimov or Ellison still have trouble with using sci-fi as an abbreviation for science fiction, they should hop out of their respective urns and say so. There did used to be some divide about the term. Maybe there were die-hard Gernsbackians that didn't like it when people refused to say scientifiction as well.

For almost everyone else, especially people not stuck back in time arguing that point at a panel in world con '81, sci-fi is just an abbreviation for science fiction. I haven't heard anyone say "skiffy" in ages.


"Let's Take Science Fiction Out of the Universities and Put It Back into the Gutter Where It Belongs" -Dena Brown

 

[Doc Mugatu]

My problem isn't with the Spore Drive existing so much as when. It's a prequel series and yet none of the previous series even so much as made a passing reference to it before. It's so out of left field compared to the rest of the canon.

Q is a quirk of Star Trek. He is more of a fantasy character but he still works in that universe. Mainly because he was a rarely used antagonist/prop for the story. The Spore Drive is a big, seemingly revolutionary part of the lore we never heard of.

My confusion is how folks don't see the "spore drive" as standard sci-fi hocus pocus? It is a device to magically zip folks from here to there purely to service the plot and shrouded in technobabble. No different than warp drive or transporters or phasers. All sci fi.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I haven't heard anyone say "skiffy" in ages.

I would happily bring back "sigh figh" if you like.

Yup. Asimov and Ellison just weighed in. Still a difference between "sci fi" and "science fiction." At least for those who have standards and care about quality.

 

[Lord Garth]

I call Discovery sci-fi, but I mean it in a non-derogatory way. I also have some novels by Kim Stanley Robinson: Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars, for instance, and I call those science-fiction. I can enjoy both for what they are and on their own terms. Too bad more people can't do that or just don't want to.

 

[Terok Nor]

I don't have a problem with the idea of Spore drive or it being in Star Trek. My problem is it renders Voyager and several other episodes from various shows redundant. That's likely why it's being phased out of Discovery. It's like inventing the wheel and spending the next 120 years not using it. Pandora's box is open. This Spore thingy would make more sense in a post Voyager era. As it stands, Section 31, Starfleet, the Klingons and who knows else knows about it for 120 years but it's never pursued even though it holds the key to basically everything - time travel, infinite travel to anywhere in the universe, multi dimensional travel, resurrection, you name it.

That said, it's not the first time something like this has happened. The Borg can cure death according to a Voyager episode. After that one episode its never mentioned again and when the next crewman dies they aren't brought back to life like Neelix was. Spore drive is a bigger deal because it's been heavily featured for multiple seasons and is a product of a time earlier on in the Star Trek continuity. For all we know once Voyager got back to Earth people were being revived from death non stop thanks to Borg nanoprobes. We know for a fact Spore drive vanished into thin air because we have 700 episodes post Discovery confirming that fact.

I think it's a stupid idea to use in a Star Trek show anyhow. It may have basis in science but it's a total drama killer in a TV show. There are no stakes. Lost in the Delta Quadrant? No problem. Spore drive. Dead? No problem. Spore network. Need to time travel in a hurry? Spore drive. Easy as pie with the touch of a button.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I get that but most of these were used once, never again or sparingly seen, given an explanation why they can't work. The spore drive has been going on two entire seasons now with the first season's entire premise being how revolutionary the spore drive is. Most of these other technologies we see and get abandoned aren't seen nearly so much or shown to be such a potential change in the status quo of the universe.

Yeah, but if something happens to the Mycelial network that prevents anyone (human or alien) from using it again, and the past uses were generally classified, then I don't see how that will change the status quo of the universe.

It would be a technology most people didn't know about, and can't use anyway even if they did know about it.

 

[fireproof78]

I get that but most of these were used once, never again or sparingly seen, given an explanation why they can't work. The spore drive has been going on two entire seasons now with the first season's entire premise being how revolutionary the spore drive is. Most of these other technologies we see and get abandoned aren't seen nearly so much or shown to be such a potential change in the status quo of the universe.

Which means it is beneficial to wait and see, right? The Spore Drive is a game changer which means that something catastrophic will happen to render it mute. Kurtzman is aware, has said as much, and regardless of personal opinions about the man, I at least believe that the spore drive will be rendered unusable for one reason or another by the end of the series.

But, it isn't the end of the series yet so why worry about it?

I think it's a stupid idea to use in a Star Trek show anyhow. It may have basis in science but it's a total drama killer in a TV show. There are no stakes. Lost in the Delta Quadrant? No problem. Spore drive. Dead? No problem. Spore network. Need to time travel in a hurry? Spore drive. Easy as pie with the touch of a button.

Do you honestly sit there and watch Discovery and think of these things?

I mean, as you state, there are several technologies in Trek that have done similar things. Warp 10? Curing evolution? Curing aging? On and on it goes. But, the spore drive is the line? Why?

I wonder if this is how individuals treated Star Trek II until we got Star Trek III? Genesis Device is a game changer! They can make planets! Now there is no drama because everyone can have an inhabitable planet, so no more fighting with other species!

This seems to be a lot of hand wringing and gymnastics for something unknown.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I would happily bring back "sigh figh" if you like.
Yup. Asimov and Ellison just weighed in. Still a difference between "sci fi" and "science fiction." At least for those who have standards and care about quality.

I call Discovery sci-fi, but I mean it in a non-derogatory way. I also have some novels by Kim Stanley Robinson: Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars, for instance, and I call those science-fiction. I can enjoy both for what they are and on their own terms. Too bad more people can't do that or just don't want to.

I agree that:
(1) There is a difference between science fiction and sci-fi, and
(2) I like both of them. "Sci-fi" is not a derogatory term, just a term describing a different kind of storytelling.

Or maybe I should put it this way: There is stuff out there that I call "sci-fi" and stuff that I call "science fiction". Whether those are the proper terms everyone uses to describe those things, I don't know. What I do know is that there are in fact different types of things that qualify as "fictional stories told with a fantastical scientific slant", and I think two terms are required to differentiate them.

I grew up in the reading the literary science fiction of Asimov, Bradbury, Bova, Clarke, Dick, Ellison, Niven, Robinson, etc, and find those sort of stories to be very different than the way stories are told on Star Trek. I chose to call that former stuff "science fiction" and the latter "sci-fi". I love both things; one is not better than the other. However, both things are different. The latter having a "sciency or spacey" backdrop does not make it just like the former.

EDIT TO ADD:
I will say that a few Star Trek episodes have included themes that I would call Science Fiction.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I call Discovery sci-fi, but I mean it in a non-derogatory way. … I can enjoy both for what they are and on their own terms. Too bad more people can't do that or just don't want to.

I very much agree. I love the great sci fi space operas such as Star Trek and I love the science fiction of Asimov and Clarke. I love fantasy such as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think all are part of a well balanced diet.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I agree that:
(1) There is a difference between science fiction and sci-fi, and
(2) I like both of them. "Sci-fi" is not a derogatory term, just a term describing a different kind of storytelling.

Or maybe I should put it this way: There is stuff out there that I call "sci-fi" and stuff that I call "science fiction". Whether those are the proper terms everyone uses to describe those things, I don't know. What I do know is that there are in fact different types of things that qualify as "fictional stories told with a fantastical scientific slant", and I think two terms are required to differentiate them.

I grew up in the reading the literary science fiction of Asimov, Bradbury, Bova, Clarke, Dick, Ellison, Niven, Robinson, etc, and find those sort of stories to be very different than the way stories are told on Star Trek. I chose to call that former stuff "science fiction" and the latter "sci-fi". I love both things; one is not better than the other. However, both things are different. The latter having a "sciency or spacey" backdrop does not make it just like the former.

EDIT TO ADD:
I will say that a few Star Trek episodes have included themes that I would call Science Fiction.

Well said!

 

[XCV330]

Still a difference between "sci fi" and "science fiction." At least for those who have standards and care about quality.

Please, please, please; tell me you wore an ascot, smoked from a long filter holder and sipped creme de menthe in your smoking jacket when you typed that, with lots of eyebrow raising at just the right moment, because I think visually.

It helps when I'm writing that shitty sci-fi.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Please, please, please; tell me you wore an ascot, smoked from a long filter holder and sipped creme de menthe in your smoking jacket when you typed that, with lots of eyebrow raising at just the right moment, because I think visually.

It helps when I'm writing that shitty sci-fi.

What an amateur. You forgot my pencil moustache and monocle.

 

[XCV330]

What an amateur. You forgot my pencil moustache and monocle.

You're my hero or villain, now.