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

[SG-17]

That to me seems just as implausible as a rule forbidding its use. All these different races, once they get wind of it, would figure out different ways of accessing it.

The fix is simple. Time travel.

 

[SG-17]

ut were you this super positive about other series too? Because I sure weren't (even though I don't think the Genesis device is good example at all.) Did nothing ever bug you in any previous series, did you never think anything was silly or badly written? For example I think the Voyager is one of the biggest reasons why setting show in the 24th century would be difficult. They introduced such a huge amount of setting breaking technologies and idiotic concepts (Fluidic Space, Slipsteam, nano-probes-can-do-everything) that it would take unprecedented amount of brushing things under the carpet to keep the setting functional (and I expect this is exactly what happens with the Picard show.) So I am indeed annoyed when similar level of nonsense is introduced in a prequel series too. The transwarp beaming in Kelvinverse is very similar issue.

I don't see how any of these are "setting breaking technologies and idiotic concepts". They all play off of established lore in some way. Many of them are inconsequential to the greater Trek universe at large and many of them that aren't are interesting potential avenues of exploration in the future. Slipstream Drive for example is something I'd love explored in the future if we get a 25th century show. How much 8472 wants to interact with the regular galaxy is interesting too, especially after their final appearance in Voyager. How did their experience with humanity affect their culture, etc?

Voyager probably handled all of the crazy stuff that is in every Trek series all of the time the best due to the setting and nature of the show.

 

[XCV330]

Yep, I hated all of those.

No offense made but you don't seem to like much of anything. I'm not keeping a compendium but you've stated before you don't like DS9, you clearly don't like a lot of Enterprise and Voyager, your dislike of DSC is fairly apparent. I don't know where you stand on TNG but its fairly clear there are parts of TOS you must certainly not care for if you don't like those same parts in other series.

I am genuinely curious, for someone this vitriolic about Star trek on a star trek forum, lets flip it into the positive side, what do you like?

 

[Longinus]

No offense made but you don't seem to like much of anything. I'm not keeping a compendium but you've stated before you don't like DS9, you clearly don't like a lot of Enterprise and Voyager, your dislike of DSC is fairly apparent. I don't know where you stand on TNG but its fairly clear there are parts of TOS you must certainly not care for if you don't like those same parts in other series.

I am genuinely curious, for someone this vitriolic about Star trek on a star trek forum, lets flip it into the positive side, what do you like?

I mostly like TNG and TOS and the associated movies. Disco is interesting as there are some aspects of it I loathe and some aspects that I adore. In that sense it is more like DS9 which elicted similar reactions from me and unlike ENT, VOY and the Kelvin films which are just mostly bad and I don't really care about them.

 

[XCV330]

I mostly like TNG and TOS and the associated movies. Disco is interesting as there are some aspects of it I loathe and some aspects that I adore. In that sense it is more like DS9 which elicted similar reactions from me and unlike ENT, VOY and the Kelvin films which are just mostly bad and I don't really care about them.

fair enough. I tend to tiptoe around the Voyager episodes as well. I do think if its possible to imagine an early 70's version of DSC with the spore drive as a recurrent theme it isn't that hard to see it fitting into a lot of the science-fantasy elements TOS embraced. I don't think they avoided the fantastical so much with TNG as much as GR and successors codified it into things like Q. Attempting to face the incomprehensible is just what Trek often does, sometimes more successfully than others.

Back to the subject at hand. i do think its pretty much a given that somehow the spore drive has to be dealt with but if the show runs a long time, that gives awhile until that happens.

 

[Maurice]

Dilithium is often used as MacGuffin in plots where it is actually relevant. It is something that needs to be obtained or it is stolen, etc. It is written to be rare and hard to replace, so that it makes sense.

The titular Maltese Falcon ultimately means nothing and yields nothing, just as does the embezzled money in Psycho. OTTH Kirk needs the dilithium crystals to run his ship, and it's basically "fuel" and only he really wants it. The miners want the women and Mudd wants the money. See the distinction? The actual MacGuffin in Star Wars is not Artoo (as Lucas claims), it's the Death Star plans, but even then those plans ultimately fuel the climax of the film, so arguably not quite the same thing. You want an actual MacGuffin in Star Trek? Sherman's Planet. That's a MacGuffin.

 

[Maurice]

It didn't work as a stable long term habitable planet creator, but even that could have been down to being a result of Regula being too small or the bulk of the material used being from the Mutara Nebula rather than just the protomatter being the problem. They gave up without further testing, because it was also a terrifying weapon with too many political implications and most of the development team was dead. But that doesn't necessarily mean other less ethical cultures wouldn't show an interest or that it didn't have other applications.

It worked as a weapon of mass destruction, as previously mentioned. It worked as a means of bringing dead people back to life. It worked as a method of creating massive amounts of vegetation or rapidly growing lifeforms (like the microbes and Spock, which could be applied to livestock) for harvesting as food to feed a starving population before the previously barren planetoid breaks up. It's got to be an amazing source of (temporary) energy for massive projects, and can be used for solar system scale engineering.

Everyone forgets that Genesis does actually work, at least to a degree. Remember the Genesis cave? I know the ST3 novel claimed it degraded, but we never see any indication of that in the films. When they watch the tape in TWOK Kirk says, "Well, the tape was made about a year ago. I can only assume they've reached Stage Two by now." As such I doubt the Genesis cave was made last week. It seems to have been there for a while. And they never discuss that the torpedo was detonated in a nebula instead of being deployed as designed. If I fire a Sidewinder missile underwater instead of in the air as designed I suspect it might not work, either.

But, to the point, yeah, they just sweep it under the rug and forget about it.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Everyone forgets that Genesis does actually work, at least to a degree. Remember the Genesis cave?

And it might come to pass that neither does the spore drive. Or maybe it works now, but it somehow eventually becomes physically unusable.

You want an actual MacGuffin in Star Trek? Sherman's Planet. That's a MacGuffin.

Mr. Peabody thinks otherwise.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Everyone forgets that Genesis does actually work, at least to a degree. Remember the Genesis cave? I know the ST3 novel claimed it degraded, but we never see any indication of that in the films. When they watch the tape in TWOK Kirk says, "Well, the tape was made about a year ago. I can only assume they've reached Stage Two by now." As such I doubt the Genesis cave was made last week. It seems to have been there for a while. And they never discuss that the torpedo was detonated in a nebula instead of being deployed as designed. If I fire a Sidewinder missile underwater instead of in the air as designed I suspect it might not work, either.

I always figured that David's use of protomatter came about as a result of trying to upscale the Genesis Effect from a contained, limited-scope reaction inside the cave to a self-sustaining planetary-scale (and beyond) chain reaction in the final Genesis Torpedo. So yeah, it likely works fine in a smaller-scale closed environment, or at the very least those conditions prolong how well the created environment remains intact.

 

[XCV330]

24th century should have billions of people living in hollow asteroid paradises thanks to genesis device..unless. it didn't work out.. maybe it too failed after awhile.. but they didn't stop and

Dat means dey just use genesis for making rock prisons for beltalowda. Mi beratnas, im séfesowng ke? Depelésh imim ge to.

oh sorry.. lapsed into Expanse for a minute

 

[Longinus]

I always figured that David's use of protomatter came about as a result of trying to upscale the Genesis Effect from a contained, limited-scope reaction inside the cave to a self-sustaining planetary-scale (and beyond) chain reaction in the final Genesis Torpedo. So yeah, it likely works fine in a smaller-scale closed environment, or at the very least those conditions prolong how well the created environment remains intact.

And if it works at that scale, great! They certainly can terraform environments in the 24th century, perhaps that is the tech used, perhaps not. 'It's not a big deal either way.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

And if it works at that scale, great! They certainly can terraform environments in the 24th century, perhaps that is the tech used, perhaps not. 'It's not a big deal either way.

That had nothing to do with countering your argument. I was just discussing the success or not of the Genesis Device with Maurice.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I always figured that David's use of protomatter came about as a result of trying to upscale the Genesis Effect from a contained, limited-scope reaction inside the cave to a self-sustaining planetary-scale (and beyond) chain reaction in the final Genesis Torpedo. So yeah, it likely works fine in a smaller-scale closed environment, or at the very least those conditions prolong how well the created environment remains intact.

What you're saying is reasonable, because there was apparently no indication in the Genesis Cave of the unstable rapid-aging effects immediately observed on the Genesis Planet.

 

[Spot261]

I always figured that David's use of protomatter came about as a result of trying to upscale the Genesis Effect from a contained, limited-scope reaction inside the cave to a self-sustaining planetary-scale (and beyond) chain reaction in the final Genesis Torpedo. So yeah, it likely works fine in a smaller-scale closed environment, or at the very least those conditions prolong how well the created environment remains intact.

So Genesis is humanity playing God, but adding protomatter is like playing God on steroids? It gets bigger and more impressive but blows up way too easily?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

So Genesis is humanity playing God, but adding protomatter is like playing God on steroids? It gets bigger and more impressive but blows up way too easily?

'Roid rage could help explain the God of the Old testament.
[...and I promise to stop talking religion or politics from this point forward]

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Ultimately continuity issues are a minor annoyance, though with the spore drive it is related to a bigger problem with Disco, that being colossally stupid and badly handled serialised 'big plots.' Klingon war, the mirror jaunt and the spore mystery are examples of those. What seems to work pretty well is more episodic classic Trek like stories they have been doing this season. Serialisation of the characters work too. I just don't get this attitude that you either have to unequivocally hate every bit or alternatively you have to love it all and have defend to death any and every brainfart the writers happen to come up with.

I think that, in the end, "bigger problems" (and their defence) are defined subjectively by the person perceiving them. You might say I'm a rabid ENT fan because I will go through relatively great lengths to defend the show's flaws. That's because, to me, those flaws are irrelevant. But I absolutely hate the Space Nazis with a burning passion. That matters to me. So maybe we feel like someone is unilaterally condemning or defending something, but that's because we all place different value on different things.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

I think that, in the end, "bigger problems" (and their defence) are defined subjectively by the person perceiving them. You might say I'm a rabid ENT fan because I will go through relatively great lengths to defend the show's flaws. That's because, to me, those flaws are irrelevant. But I absolutely hate the Space Nazis with a burning passion. That matters to me. So maybe we feel like someone is unilaterally condemning or defending something, but that's because we all place different value on different things.

All sci-fi requires a bit of faith to some degree or another. I pick on Q simply as a way of putting DSC in context from what's gone before and what's been accepted before, but each person's conclusions about every little thing are very subjective, as you said.

In a TNG thread about plot holes, I observed that even though good storytelling has no holes in it, one could argue that good storytelling also gets you to miss a plot hole or ignore it for the sake of enjoying the larger story. Subjective conclusions drawn from subjective information written by subjective writers. And here that's alright. But I'll always argue for real science to at least be somewhere in the equation.

 

[Longinus]

About the original topic. Whilst I am not the biggest fan of the god-like super aliens (though Q is great due de Lancie's amazing performance,) it is really not the same thing, at least to me. I think those thing are attempt to (somewhat clumsily) show the next level civilisations. Like the Trek tech would basically seem like magic to more primitive civilisations, do these aliens appear 'magic' to the Trek characters. I mean they know they're not really 'magic' merely that they're operating on such tech level that they're completely beyond the understanding of the main characters.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But I absolutely hate the Space Nazis with a burning passion.

There are very fine Space Nazis on both sides of the galaxy.

 

[fireproof78]

All sci-fi requires a bit of faith to some degree or another. I pick on Q simply as a way of putting DSC in context from what's gone before and what's been accepted before, but each person's conclusions about every little thing are very subjective, as you said.

In a TNG thread about plot holes, I observed that even though good storytelling has no holes in it, one could argue that good storytelling also gets you to miss a plot hole or ignore it for the sake of enjoying the larger story. Subjective conclusions drawn from subjective information written by subjective writers. And here that's alright. But I'll always argue for real science to at least be somewhere in the equation.

I will always argue for real science as well. While the spore drive has its problems in terms of extrapolation from current scientific understanding, I see Q as far, far, more problematic than the spore drive.

I think the other side is more to the point of enjoyment. If individuals do not enjoy a show then it is easier and much more likely to pull apart things that would be glossed over in other elements of the franchise. My personal frustration simply comes from the condemnation of one but not the other. It requires a lot of honest reflection that I think is very uncomfortable.