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

[Greg Cox]

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..

Although it may be worth noting that, even among the authors cited, there's a wide spectrum when it comes to their approaches to actual science and "realism." Bradbury and Dick and Ellison, for example, weren't remotely as concerned with getting the science right as, say, Asimov or Clarke or Niven. It says something about how big an umbrella "science fiction" is that we even try to lump Bradbury and Ellison in with the likes of Clarke or Niven. The former were basically fantasists who occasionally used sf imagery like spaceships and robots; the latter were more in the Campbellian tradition of hardish SF.

And, as for, "science fiction" vs "sci-fi" . .. well, yes, some old-school SF writers made a big deal out of that distinction back in the day, but I think that battle was lost decades ago. These days "sci-fi" is just a common and convenient nickname for SF and doesn't carry any of the connotations that people once ascribed to it.

At this point, it's like insisting that "Trekkers" are different than "Trekkies." It's a pedantic distinction that no longer matters to 99% of the world.

 

[Jadeb]

I wish I had a pencil-thin mustache. Then I could solve some mysteries, too.

 

[Jadeb]

At this point, it's like insisting that "Trekkers" are different than "Trekkies." It's a pedantic distinction that no longer matters to 99% of the world.

But very revealing about the person insisting!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Although it may be worth noting that, even among the authors cited, there's a wide spectrum when it comes to their approaches to actual science and "realism." Bradbury and Dick and Ellison, for example, weren't remotely as concerned with getting the science right as, say, Asimov or Clarke or Niven. It says something about how big an umbrella "science fiction" is that we even try to lump Bradbury and Ellison in with the likes of Clarke or Niven. The former were basically fantasists who occasionally used sf imagery like spaceships and robots; the latter were more in the Campbellian tradition of hardish SF.

And, as for, "science fiction" vs "sci-fi" . .. well, yes, some old-school SF writers made a big deal out of that distinction back in the day, but I think that battle was lost decades ago. These days "sci-fi" is just a common and convenient nickname for SF and doesn't carry any of the connotations that people once ascribed to it.

At this point, it's like insisting that "Trekkers" are different than "Trekkies." It's a pedantic distinction that no longer matters to 99% of the world.

Getting the science right is not necessarily a requirement for good science fiction, I don’t think.

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all, ever, but good science fiction stories can in fact be told that includes “bad” science. The way the characteristics of the planet Mars are portrayed in The Martian Chronicles, for example.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

People are simply unfamiliar with the science behind what Q does. That unfamiliarity is at the heart of this.

That film project sounds fun. If it's anywhere in YouTube world, let me know! I guess I would revisit one of the questions from the OP:
"Someone might say, "Well, the unexplained always looks like magic until it's understood." Awesome. So I can come up with the most far-fetched and outlandish ideas, and as long as I don't *explain* it, it's plausible and acceptable?"

I think we all agree that sci-fi writers can't be held to the absolute standards of actual physicists and engineers, but it has to at least take a stab at realism. In talking about different flavors of science-fiction, I would agree that this one definitely puts the story over the tech, and that's not a crime. But if there's room for Q, there should be room for the mycelial network.

In terms of the chronology, I'm confident that they will address that, and I laid out a theory about it in another thread. But "Lord Garth" used a nice phrase - "The Prequel Paradox" - and I think as more time goes by, we have to be more open to prequels as a means towards reboots.

Every generation has a different picture of what the future will look like, based on their own technological understandings and also their own cultural values. Both have changed significantly since 1966 when TOS first aired. In '66, they were doing the best they could with what they knew, but didn't conceive (at least in a comprehensive way) of many technological advances that we take for granted today.

In the process, we end up with a bit of a time capsule where 2019 tech has already surpassed TOS tech in certain areas. And by 2050, much of it will seem downright ancient. If we want the treks to continue, there has to be room for new ideas so that 2266 doesn't look so much like 1966. Many of the same observations can even be made of the 1990s series, too.

It's still fun to watch Back to the Future II's vision of 2015. Still waiting for my flying car and hoverboard, and it's easy to overshoot technological innovations, but when we're talking about a difference of hundreds of years in the ST universe, it's pretty plausible to think that there will be significant changes we haven't dreamed of yet. Just look at the difference from 1819 to 2019. A certain level of flexibility is good so the future doesn't look like a time capsule.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I thought the issue with spore drive was it seemed they shouldn’t have it that early.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I thought the issue with spore drive was it seemed they shouldn’t have it that early.

It's not that it's "too advanced", but the issue is "why don't Kirk, Picard, Janeway, etc have a spore drive if it's so great?"

However, that potential problem could be easily addressed by the writers by having something happen before the end of this series that renders the technology useless, such as something happening to the mycelial network that makes using the network for starship space travel impossible.

That could be how the Discovery can have it, but Kirk, Picard, Janeway, etc. don't.

 

[fireproof78]

It's not that it's "too advanced", but the issue is "why don't Kirk, Picard, Janeway, etc have a spore drive if it's so great?"

However, that potential problem could be easily addressed by the writers by having something happen before the end of this series that renders the technology useless, such as something happening to the mycelial network that makes using the network for starship space travel impossible.

That could be how the Discovery can have it, but Kirk, Picard, Janeway, etc. don't.

That implies having patience to see what happens.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

I don't have time for patience!

 

[fireproof78]

I don't have time for patience!

Fandom in a nutshell.

 

[Greg Cox]

Fandom in a nutshell.

"They haven't even started filming the new series, but I already hate it!"

 

[Maurice]

Re Q, I always imagined he was like the Mice in The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, to wit...

"[...] These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vast hyperintelligent pandimensional beings. The whole business with the cheese and the squeaking is just a front."​

 

[Longinus]

However, that potential problem could be easily addressed by the writers by having something happen before the end of this series that renders the technology useless, such as something happening to the mycelial network that makes using the network for starship space travel impossible.

Not that easy. It was usable for billions of years. Considering it allows instant travel to anywhere, including parallel dimensions, why no one anywhere ever did develop it? Why isn't our galaxy swarming with spore travellers from ancient civilisations and parallel universes? Furthermore, as we learned in the mirror episodes, it is possible to create a device, which will destroy the entire multiverse via the spore network. Why hasn't this happened yet? It needs to only happen once ever in the entire multiverse, it is literally impossible that it wouldn't have happened.

Frankly, they made this thing way too powerful. The plots really didn't even need it. All that was needed was the Disco the be much faster than other ships. They could have been testing the thing that eventually become Excelsior's transwarp drive (which eventually became TNGs warp drive.)

 

[fireproof78]

Not that easy. It was usable for billions of years. Considering it allows instant travel to anywhere, including parallel dimensions, why no one anywhere ever did develop it? Why isn't our galaxy swarming with spore travellers from ancient civilisations and parallel universes? Furthermore, as we learned in the mirror episodes, it is possible to create a device, which will destroy the entire multiverse via the spore network. Why hasn't this happened yet? It needs to only happen once ever in the entire multiverse, it is literally impossible that it wouldn't have happened.

Frankly, they made this thing way too powerful. The plots really didn't even need it. All that was needed was the Disco the be much faster than other ships. They could have been testing the thing that eventually become Excelsior's transwarp drive (which eventually became TNGs warp drive.)

Considering the number of beings we have seen who can travel instantaneously who is to say that wasn't the mechanism?

Also, considering it can travel across time and space it's possible that what renders it inaccessible/inoperable, extends in to time as well.

 

[Longinus]

Exactly. The Klingons were all worked up about the Genesis Device back in the movie era, and it was apparently front-page news across the galaxy, yet come the 24th century, nobody on any of the latter-day series ever mentioned it.

Why did none of the other galactic powers ever resort to the spore drive in the 24th century? Same reason that the Genesis Device was apparently forgotten after the fourth movie.

Don't see anyone arguing that TNG and its spawn aren't really "Prime" just because the Genesis Device is never mentioned.

It is a bit disconcerting that a prominent Trek author apparently hasn't seen Star Trek III...

For the Genesis device to be analogous with the spore drive, it would require that after a one short spore jump the whole ship would catastrophically blow up, and then it would be revealed that it can never work any better than that.

 

[fireproof78]

For the Genesis device to be analogous with the spore drive, it would require that after a one short spore jump the whole ship would catastrophically blow up, and then it would be revealed that it can never work any better than that.

As many have noted with the spore drive not everyone would want to use it travel. Some would want to use it as a weapon. Same thing with the Genesis Device. The Genesis Device functions fine as a weapon, which would be more than sufficient for Klingons, Romulans, and other Alpha/Beta Quadrant powers.

 

[Longinus]

As many have noted with the spore drive not everyone would want to use it travel. Some would want to use it as a weapon. Same thing with the Genesis Device. The Genesis Device functions fine as a weapon, which would be more than sufficient for Klingons, Romulans, and other Alpha/Beta Quadrant powers.

Sure. Except that any straship worth its salt can already nuke a planet. And by TNG era there exist missiles that can literally kill stars*. The value of the Genesis device as a weapon was that it allowed you to eat your cake and have it too, i.e. nuke a planet and still have a habitable planet. But that part didn't work, so it's not really such a big deal.

(* That's the sort of super tech I think it was unwise to introduce, but it's not a continuity problem.)

 

[XCV330]

(skipping the asinine stupid preamble)

For the Genesis device to be analogous with the spore drive, it would require that after a one short spore jump the whole ship would catastrophically blow up, and then it would be revealed that it can never work any better than that.

Genesis technology was a defacto weaponized tech that ONLY had military applications because the original reason for its creation was revealed to be flawed. There was never given any specific reason why other major powers either couldn't replicate that tech. It doesnt' even make sense that the Fed wasn't willing to drop genesis bombs on dominion worlds once things got extremely dangerous, considering they were willing to commit genocide and DID have a General Order that would have permitted that kind of action.

But by TNG it's just not there. It is a gaping hole that should have had some kind of mention. Either "well at least the Organians won't let anyone use the Genesis Effect anymore" or find out a very simple way to disable it so it is a strategically pointless undertaking to make any more genesis torpedos.

There has to be some reason eventually that Starfleet drops Spore Drive, or its the same situation, and I think the writers are very well aware of that. But that doesnt mean we don't get to see it used as long as Discovery is on the air. They have time to deal with it.

 

[Longinus]

@XCV330 As I already said, its capabilities as weapon are not that remarkable.

 

[fireproof78]

@XCV330 As I already said, its capabilities as weapon are not that remarkable.

They are remarkable enough to that it stands out by it's lack of acknowledgment later on.

Sure. Except that any straship worth its salt can already nuke a planet. And by TNG era there exist missiles that can literally kill stars*. The value of the Genesis device as a weapon was that it allowed you to eat your cake and have it too, i.e. nuke a planet and still have a habitable planet. But that part didn't work, so it's not really such a big deal.

(* That's the sort of super tech I think it was unwise to introduce, but it's not a continuity problem.)

Here's the thing: this is a rationalization of why it is never, ever, mentioned again. Lot's of Star Trek's problems get handwaved away in such a manner. I see lots of different workarounds presented by different fans, audience members, and the like, to excuse things like plot holes. I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.


My frustration comes from the fact that Discovery receives none of that grace or consideration. There is no willingness to engage in rationalizations or excuses. Not willing to use our imaginations to be creative. The spore drive is overpowered and it is a continuity error because it is never, ever, mentioned again. The Genesis Device is a diplomatic taboo topic, that apparently upset many powers, but that's no big deal. No one ever tinkered with it again? Just let it aside. I mean, they can cure the common cold in the 24th century but revisiting 23rd-century experiment that didn't quite work? Yawn.

The larger point is a willingness to excuse older Trek but new Trek receives little of that consideration. That's what bothers me. It is the lack of consistency in the critique of new Trek vs. old Trek. So, it becomes very, very, hard for me to take such critiques seriously when old Trek is just as guilty of it.