Has anyone else come to the realisation that time crystals are featured in the opening credits and have been since the first episode?
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x12 - "Through the Valley of Shadows"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
We'll have none of this foreshadowing nonsense around here.
Actually, I kept wondering about those crystals on and off and that still hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it.
Just to clarify again as I say this, I am not a proponent of Control-as-Borg-origin (although as I've said, I do like the idea that Control might have created its nanotech with the aid of information Section 31 had about the Borg from First Contact and "Regeneration" [ENT]).
However, I must rebut this specific point. Our very first introduction to the Borg (beyond vague earlier hints in "The Neutral Zone" [TNG]) does make mention of an AI component to the Borg collective. In "Q Who?" (TNG), Riker says: "Apparently the Borg have developed the technology to link artificial intelligence directly into the humanoid brain." (Of course, that is just him theorizing based on only cursory observations. Still notable, though.)
-MMoM
Two scripts from one of the most literary and humane SF writers, considered one of the absolute gods of the genre now, T Sturgeon. They weren't flukes tossed in over the transom. But, yeah, Star Trek was fluff.
How about Asimov?
"[He] speaks of his appreciation for the show three times during the video, now describing Star Trek as the "sanest" and "most meaningful" program of its kind, one that "tackled real social problems," was "not devoted entirely to adventure," and had "fully realized characters" (citing Mr. Spock as Exhibit A). He may still have objected to the infamous split infinitive "to boldly go" (once a nitpicker, always a nitpicker), but he still thought the show "really presented the brotherhood of intelligence."
After Asimov wrote his initial critique in TV Guide, he and Gene Roddenberry exchanged letters, and the two formidable sci-fi minds became friends and even collaborators thereafter. A 1967 Time magazine profile described Asimov as "batting out books on a new electric typewriter, emerging only occasionally to watch Star Trek (his favorite TV show)," and he went on to become an advisor to the show. A Letters of Note post on Roddenberry and Asimov's correspondence contains a 1967 exchange wherein they put their heads together to solve the problem of how to give Captain Kirk lines as good as the ones that naturally go to a more unusual character like Spock. Since Asimov also contributed original ideas to the show, after having gone on record as a fan. . . ." (http://www.openculture.com/2015/12/...tar-trek-critic-to-star-trek-fan-advisor.html
Yup, sounds like that literary SF guy couldn't stand the show either.
Even iconoclast Ellison deigned to write for it. He hated what they did to it, b/c y'know, he was smart and tv producers were stupid. (Must be where GR got his idea about network brass.) Still, he respected the thing enough to write for it.
Hard science writers disdained Star Trek? Well, I'm sure Arthur C. Clarke musta LOATHED it, then, right? Yup, so much so, that he published a love letter titled "Forty Years of Star Trek" in the National Enquirer . . . No, wait, it was in Locus, the respected journal about the field of science fiction?! Here's a reprint, if anyone cares: http://startrekofgodsandmen.com/mai...thur-c-clarke-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=147
Now, let it be noted he admits that Trek is not "hard" s-f. I don't think anyone is making that claim here. I have been clear that it is nonsense. But sciency nonsense, the way I likes it. That's all. But to make the claim that it was considered fluff or that intelligent people disdained it, is simply not true.
When it comes to DSC and its more overt use of traditionally fantasy tropes (mordor, Gothic cathedral, crystals, well: "On matters of taste threre can be no disputing." Yet here we are enjoying the sport and each others' company, anyway. It's a lot better than grading paperwork right now.
Love and peace to you all. I've been here since before the first JJ movie, and really enjoy it. Thanks for the fun.
I absolutely wish he gets to mention this in a private moment to Spock, who quietly murmurs that he has an idea about that.
Yup. It's entertainment...I heard that from someone, somewhere. Something in a writer's bible about entertaining so many people weekly...can't place my finger on it...
Well, this is a treacherous path to start down, because he also went on to say a few points down the list: "Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords)."
Of course, a few lines later, we then get: "Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How many cowboys, police officers, and doctors wrote westerns, detective, and hospital shows?"
No wonder people got somewhat...confused.
-MMoM
Last edited:
Someone should have mentioned #II to the writers of Star Trek: Voyager.
Calypso seems to say discovery gets 1000 years in the future the long way.
Because some things are simply dumber than others. I was never crazy about the Bajoran time orbs either.
It does amaze me that the same people who likely cheered their way through concepts like :
The Mirror Universe
An immortal human who was Brahams and DaVinci
A talking time portal
The Genesis Device
Katra transfers and refusions
Slingshot effects
Red Matter
Magic Augment blood
Transwarp fucking beaming
Time travel through a black hole
Bajoran orbs / wormhole aliens
Warp 10 salamanders (ok, nobody was cheering here...I get it)
Touch telepathy
Long distance telepathy
Barriers at the edge and center of the Galaxy
Instant communications / conversations possible across 100's of light years
Cross-species mating
Humanoid appearance and culture on 80% of the planets we see
Parallel planet development
Holodecks
Personal communicators that have premonitions about who you want to contact
FTL drives that channel antimatter through dilithium crystals
Fluidic space
...are choosing "time crystals" as the place to draw their line in the sand. Really, folks?
I've always viewed Stupid Trek Tech or science concepts to fall under the bucket of how things that seem magical to us are simply advancements or discoveries from 3-400 years in the future. The ideas of string theory, moon landings, black holes, nuclear physics, cellular communications, etc would all seem fantastic and ridiculously magical to a layperson from the 1700's.
I take it as these are advancements in technology or in scientific understanding that have advanced considerably over 3 centuries. I feel if you look at how rapidly technology advances, it's actually not at all implausible. We can be so arrogant in our current understanding of science sometimes. We probably don't have a thousandth of the real picture.
Relax everyone, it's just a fun show. It's not going to be real. Ever. So just have fun with it!
Last edited:
I don’t think so. Quantum physics, at least as far as my Scientific American sensibilities goes, gives enough of a basis for good storytelling involving time travel and parallel dimensions. Even space battles involving drawn swords can be explained, just as Doc Smith did in the Lensmen series. The key is confidence and verisimilitude.Well, this is a treacherous path to start down, because he also went on to say a few points down the list: "Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords)."
Of course, a few lines later, we then get: "Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How many cowboys, police officers, and doctors wrote westerns, detective, and hospital shows?"
No wonder people got somewhat...confused.
-MMoM
I haven’t been able to track down the quote, but I recall Joseph Stefano saying something to the effect of “it’s hard to say anything important with your tongue in your cheek.” This notion, along with GR’s rules (and there is admittedly a tension within those rules), will go a long way to framing a good story. That, and Aristotle.
Which was lampshaded by Michael Burnham this season when she referred to Clarke’s Law.
This implies that Ellison had seen the show on NBC before "deigning" to write for it. That wasn't the case; he was turning out drafts of his story before "the thing" had aired a single episode.
I recall (in Gerrold's The World of Star Trek) that the producers had asked Asimov whether a barrier at the edge of the galaxy was "plausible" and he said it was. (Given the sheer lousiness of the Final Frontier script, I'm sure no one asked whether a barrier at the center was plausible.)
Last edited:
His decision will not look cheaper if someone else will save him after his sacrifice has saved them all. But nobody knows his fate except of Tenavik... or Spock can read Pike's mind accidentally.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Pike will be fine, he doesnt know what we know, that he will end up with Vina anyway.
Although I got the feeling that Vina was dropping him hints in previous episodes.
I am just hoping we get to see more of the character in his own show.
Although I got the feeling that Vina was dropping him hints in previous episodes.
I am just hoping we get to see more of the character in his own show.
Or perhaps people thought that half of the things on your list were silly too. (I considered doing a case by case analysis, but I think that would be too deraily even for this board. Some of the things you list however, such as humanoid aliens and existence of telepathy, whilst not exactly realistic are so common genre conventions that they feel out of place on this list.)
I think one thing that makes these 'silly' elements more noticeable in Discovery is the serialised nature. In more episodic Trek there was certainly cases when something really stupid happened. But it was that one episode, we moved on and forgot about it. In Discovery these elements are tied in to the overall are narrative, forming an integral part of it, so they're kinda on your face all the time. I think the Bajoran Orbs are somewhat comparable to this, though. A lot of people didn't really like them either, or the whole Pah Wraith vs Prophet thing that was involved in that. (I liked the Wormhole aliens at first, as it was a genuine attempt to portray advanced super aliens that really felt that they weren't just humans with superpowers, but that shit devolved into utter nonsense really fast.)
Last edited:
I just want to point out that Harlan was specifically pizzed-off at Mr. Roddenberry for what he did to Ellison's original story treatment.
Not some random 'Producer'.
As I actually lived through those years, I can tell you that the Literary loathing toward Trek came in the years after the show was canceled, not during it's run.
And it was usually expressed by the more higher minded (read: snobbish) Sci-Fi authors.
(and Harlan of course, who never forgave Gene for "mutilating" City on the Edge..)
Last edited:
If so, those objections seem few and far between regarding those concepts and their general acceptance.
Perhaps the issue here is that DSC is not entertaining for everyone and thus these issues stand out far more?
The most implausible thing about any generation of Star Trek is the frequent encountering of aliens (humanoid and otherwise) who speak American English. This tendency goes all the way back to "The Corbomite Maneuver." All of the technological and scientific implausibilities listed above pale by comparison.
(Yes, the occasional episode mentions or shows a translation device, but this only serves to highlight the majority of such episodes that don't.)
(Yes, the occasional episode mentions or shows a translation device, but this only serves to highlight the majority of such episodes that don't.)
Last edited:
Oh, but that's just a conceit of it being fiction, doncha know?
That isn't nearly as bad as "time crystals" because...Also, the transporter derserves to be topping the list of implausibilities.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
