Spoilers The bait, the lure, the self-destruct

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Quite a bit to digest from the latest episode, but I couldn't help thinking about Terminator 2 - and not in any way related to Airiam.

To train a dog, you offer it treats, praise, and earn its trust. I can't help thinking that the Red Angel has been training Discovery - not to prevent the apocalyptic future, but to CREATE it. If this is the case, the visions were a tool to get the do-gooder DSC crew to do its bidding in a way that ONLY Discovery could.

If DSC alone has the inherent capabilities to bring about the Red Angel's apocalyptic future, perhaps the DSC crew realizes this at a point that's very late in the game, and then Terminator-style goes back in time to prevent its own existence or the spore-drive technology from ever existing. And perhaps Burnham removes herself from the timeline in the process, explaining the lack of Burnham or the spore-drive in any future ST. It's a sacrifice that saves the galaxy.

To save the galaxy, they have to prevent their own involvement in the timeline, or else be a pawn/tool for the Red Angel's plan. And even if it's not the Red Angel's plan, it's a plan that might be in motion through Airiam. Just an idea, anyway.

 

[Ovation]

So you think the main character of the show will be written out in the middle of the second of three+ seasons in such a way as to entirely erase herself from all events depicted thus far, just to resolve “continuity issues”?

Seems likely.









Or not.

 

[DaveyNY]

Heh...
I hope somebody just mentions Daniels name once this season.
Even if it's just some off-the-cuff remark about how Captain Archer use to claim that he talked to a guy from the future.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

So you think the main character of the show will be written out in the middle of the second of three+ seasons in such a way as to entirely erase herself from all events depicted thus far, just to resolve “continuity issues”?

Seems likely.









Or not.

Nope. In ENT, the Temporal Cold War didn't play out over the course of just a couple episodes with a quick resolution. Likewise, we may not see a clear resolution to this by the end of the season, even though we've come to expect that because of how Season 1 played out.

But I've said before that there's something kinda appealing about the idea of them building up Burnham so much, only to perhaps kill her off when we least expect it. I like Burnham just fine, but that would be quite the twist. And if people are looking for a way to resolve the lack of spore drive or Burnham in ST lore, this is a way.

 

[ITDUDE]

But I've said before that there's something kinda appealing about the idea of them building up Burnham so much, only to perhaps kill her off when we least expect it. I like Burnham just fine, but that would be quite the twist. And if people are looking for a way to resolve the lack of spore drive or Burnham in ST lore, this is a way.

I, for one, would welcome such development.

 

[Ovation]

I, for one, would welcome such development.

If I were you, I’d prepare for disappointment.

 

[ITDUDE]

If I were you, I’d prepare for disappointment.

So basically continue being a Trek fan as life of a Trekkie is full of disappointments...

 

[Ovation]

So basically continue being a Trek fan as life of a Trekkie is full of disappointments...

Really? I find myself, on occasion, mildly disappointed by a specific movie or episode. But hardly anything to get worked up over.

It’s probably because I started watching Trek as a 6 year old in the early 70s and never stopped, so I’ve never bothered to apply “critical viewing” habits to any of it (I spend too much time doing that with historical feature films as an ongoing research and teaching interest—sometimes I like to just go with the flow). About the same thing applies to Bond movies. All I want from Trek or Bond is to be entertained. So far, so good.

 

[ITDUDE]

It’s probably because I started watching Trek as a 6 year old in the early 70s and never stopped, so I’ve never bothered to apply “critical viewing” habits to any of it (I spend too much time doing that with historical feature films as an ongoing research and teaching interest—sometimes I like to just go with the flow). About the same thing applies to Bond movies. All I want from Trek or Bond is to be entertained. So far, so good.

That's the key. What one finds as entertaining differs from person to person. I like a shoot-em-up, brainless action flics as much as the next guy, but I always wanted my Trek to be a little bit more thought provoking (and I started with TNG at age 11). Latest iteration is more pew-pew than I like in my Trek. It has its moments, but it's closer to to brainless action than to anything thought provoking.

 

[eschaton]

It still shocks me that even though Discovery has been established to be basically a time machine this hasn't been utilized even once to date.

 

[KennyB]

Couldn't this have been included in the OTHER speculation thread?

 

[PiotrB]

And perhaps Burnham removes herself from the timeline in the process, explaining the lack of Burnham or the spore-drive in any future ST. It's a sacrifice that saves the galaxy.

Fortunately, nothing like that will happen. This is proven by tweet videos[1][2] with information about the third season and who is the main character in them. It is really time to abandon these fantasies that Michael Burnham is no longer the main character and disappears from the series because it becomes really pathetic. Anyone with wishes like this must finally understand that as long as the actress wants to play this character there will be no changes.

1. https://twitter.com/StarTrekNetflix/status/1103033905546813445
   
2. https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/1100803269352247296

 

[ITDUDE]

Anyone with wishes like this must finally understand that as long as the actress wants to play this character there will be no changes.

That's not how it works.
TV exec can and do replace leads in shows for variety of reasons, and almost never is it up-to the actor/actors to keep going as long as they feel like it.

 

[Tuskin38]

Latest iteration is more pew-pew than I like in my Trek. It has its moments, but it's closer to to brainless action than to anything thought provoking.

Only 2 phasers have been fired at all this season. This Season has had less pew pew than a mid-late DS9 season.

Only one ship weapon has been fired as well, and that was a torpedo to disable a shuttle.

 

[ITDUDE]

Only 2 phasers have been fired at all this season. Season has been less pew pew than a mid-late DS9 season.

Really? Well, with all the action and noise could have swore it was more, but I suppose I include season 1 in my analogy anyway.

 

[Tuskin38]

Really? Well, with all the action and noise could have swore it was more, but I suppose I include season 1 in my analogy anyway.

The only weapons fired have been those drones Georgiou used in episode 3, and the phaser she fired at Burnham last week.

This season has had hardly any mindless action, and has a few thought provoking episodes.

 

[fireproof78]

I have found recent Trek to me as thought provoking as most Trek, if one is willing to give it the opportunity.

 

[PiotrB]

That's not how it works.
TV exec can and do replace leads in shows for variety of reasons, and almost never is it up-to the actor/actors to keep going as long as they feel like it.

Then they do not advertise the new season in the same way as in the linked tweets. So, as I wrote in the third season nothing will change.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

It still shocks me that even though Discovery has been established to be basically a time machine this hasn't been utilized even once to date.

They unintentionally used it when they returned from the MU, but that's it. I think the writers are trying to use it sparingly.

As for the other posts, the tweets are irrelevant (sorry to say) to the premise of the OP. Before the writers knew that there would be a season 3, there's every reason to think that they would incorporate elements into season 2 that could be used for a potential finale so that they could close out the series in a way that would explain all the canon issues. But having been granted a 3rd season, they can extend that story arc in the exact same way that ENT drew out the Temporal Cold War story arc. Just because it might not be answered in season 2 doesn't mean that Discovery won't sacrifice itself in the way described. So more Burnham is just fine with me, and that fits just fine with everything else.

 

[Deledrius]

It still shocks me that even though Discovery has been established to be basically a time machine this hasn't been utilized even once to date.

The most egregious example is when they accidentally used it (and established this fact) to miss the war and fail in their mission to get the sensor data to Starfleet, resulting in countless deaths. If there was any time to suggest "hey, can we use this to fix what we just did" that would have been it. I'd understand if Stamets doesn't believe he could reasonably navigate the network, but it wasn't even floated by anyone on the crew as the obvious thing to do.

It's a better plan than jumping inside of Qo'noS and planting a bomb, and both the spores and Stamets were available as proven by the execution of that plan.