Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Lord Garth]

Which was why she obliterated a rebel camp from orbit?

Enemy targets. When one target attacks another, everyone there is destroyed. When the Enterprise destroys an enemy ship, everyone aboard is destroyed. They're not civilians. They're enemy combatants.

Why she executed her inner circle to keep them from learning about the Multi-verse?

Not genocide. But still bad.

Why she helped Captain Killy commit genocide against the Talosians?

Okay. Even though I don't think she actually destroyed them because the Talosians are very good at letting you see what they want you to see, the intent is there. I'll give you that one.

Here's a question: how you feel about Truman nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Most of the people he had killed were civilians.

 

[BillJ]

Here's a question: how you feel about Truman nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

When I was younger? USA! USA! USA!

Now? After some study of what went on (and some personal growth over the years), I think it was an absolutely poor choice. We dumped our morals so we could make a statement. Not only to the Japanese but Stalin as well.

The idea of hiring a monster to work for the Federation leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's a question: how you feel about Truman nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Most of the people he had killed were civilians.

A bad choice amongst a huge list of horrible choices.

 

[Rahul]

Which was why she obliterated a rebel camp from orbit? Why she executed her inner circle to keep them from learning about the Multi-verse? Why she helped Captain Killy commit genocide against the Talosians? Those were just things that we know of...

She is every bit the monster Gul Dukat was.

Gul Dukat is super vanilla compared to Georgiou....
And that's the guy that was too close to actual Nazi's for the DS9 writers to ever consider giving him a real heel-face turn, instead of (to great effect) using him for "villain-team--up" stories.

I wouldn't have a problem with Georgious being also used in a "villain team-up" way, like Kirk had to work with Khan in "Into Darkness", or Seth McFarlane's Orville with the Krill against the Kaylons. But that's not what they're going for, since a while already... Instead what they're doing is sickening, if you actually think in-universe about it. The ONLY way to halfheartedly accept this idea is "Michelle Yeoh awesomely chews scenery, thus she returns". And there goes all story-immersion, because events are only happening for stupid real-world reasons and make no sense in-universe or character-wise WHATSOEVER.

 

[BillJ]

I actually started thinking about Discovery and the 33rd century. I wonder if that is a smoke screen and they end up in an alternate-23rd century? One that gives them the storytelling freedom they want and also lines up with talk of the Georgiou series taking place in the 23rd century.

 

[Rahul]

I actually started thinking about Discovery and the 33rd century. I wonder if that is a smoke screen and they end up in an alternate-23rd century? One that gives them the storytelling freedom they want and also lines up with talk of the Georgiou series taking place in the 23rd century.

Quite honestly, DIS, in my mind, already occupies the same "half-canon" state as The Animated Series. Like, in both cases when you watch an episode of DIS or TAS, it explicitly takes place in the same universe as the rest of the Trek series. But if you watch an episode of the "main" series, they don't necesarily include TAS or DIS in it's entirety... though certainly parts of it.

 

[Lord Garth]

I actually started thinking about Discovery and the 33rd century. I wonder if that is a smoke screen and they end up in an alternate-23rd century? One that gives them the storytelling freedom they want and also lines up with talk of the Georgiou series taking place in the 23rd century.

I hadn't thought about that. You might be onto something. The whole point of taking DSC out of the 23rd Century was to not brush up against Canon, but the Georgiou Series would put them right back into that situation.

I don't see how Section 31 couldn't still exist in the 33rd Century. They might as well just leave everything Disco-related there. They wrapped everything up and what would Georgiou need to go back to in the 23rd Century? It's not even her home Universe, and she wasn't there long to begin with.

 

[Mudd]

 

[fireproof78]

Gul Dukat is super vanilla compared to Georgiou....
And that's the guy that was too close to actual Nazi's for the DS9 writers to ever consider giving him a real heel-face turn, instead of (to great effect) using him for "villain-team--up" stories.

I wouldn't have a problem with Georgious being also used in a "villain team-up" way, like Kirk had to work with Khan in "Into Darkness", or Seth McFarlane's Orville with the Krill against the Kaylons. But that's not what they're going for, since a while already... Instead what they're doing is sickening, if you actually think in-universe about it. The ONLY way to halfheartedly accept this idea is "Michelle Yeoh awesomely chews scenery, thus she returns". And there goes all story-immersion, because events are only happening for stupid real-world reasons and make no sense in-universe or character-wise WHATSOEVER.

Humans do desperate things when faced with their own destruction. It makes perfect sense to me from a character and human point of view.

 

[valkyrie013]

Pike Short shorts? cool!

 

[Greg Cox]

Quite honestly, DIS, in my mind, already occupies the same "half-canon" state as The Animated Series. Like, in both cases when you watch an episode of DIS or TAS, it explicitly takes place in the same universe as the rest of the Trek series. But if you watch an episode of the "main" series, they don't necesarily include TAS or DIS in it's entirety... though certainly parts of it.

I can see that. I've often thought we can be too binary and absolutist when it comes to whether something is Prime/not-Prime or canon/not-canon, to the extent that you sometimes see people insisting that a single discrepancy conclusively "proves" that something is not Prime, which always strikes me as being way too stringent about such things.

I'm perfectly happy to just treat DISCO or TAS or whatever as Prime-ish. Allowing for a certain degree of fudging.

87.62% percent "Prime" is good enough for me.

 

[BillJ]

I'm perfectly happy to just treat DISCO or TAS or whatever as Prime-ish. Allowing for a certain degree of fudging.

I treat Discovery as the broad strokes being roughly the same, the details are different.

 

[XCV330]

Enemy targets. When one target attacks another, everyone there is destroyed. When the Enterprise destroys an enemy ship, everyone aboard is destroyed. They're not civilians. They're enemy combatants.



Not genocide. But still bad.



Okay. Even though I don't think she actually destroyed them because the Talosians are very good at letting you see what they want you to see, the intent is there. I'll give you that one.

Here's a question: how you feel about Truman nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Most of the people he had killed were civilians.

Truman's decision hinged on the fact that if he had not done so, he was about to turn thousands of young civilians into dead soldiers in any kind of landing and occupation. I suppose he could have dropped one or two on a barely occupied Kuril island to get the point across and force peace talks. Maybe that would have worked? We'll never know.

 

[fireproof78]

I can see that. I've often thought we can be too binary and absolutist when it comes to whether something is Prime/not-Prime or canon/not-canon--to the extent that you sometimes see people insisting that a single discrepancy conclusively "proves" that something is not Prime, which always strikes me as being way too stringent about such things.

I'm perfectly happy to just treat DISCO or TAS or whatever as Prime-ish. Allowing for a certain degree of fudging.

87.62% percent "Prime" is good enough for me.

The events and characters are the most important part to me. I agree with this perspective. Doesn't make it a different timeline-just different in realization, but not in characters or the stories.

In Star Trek, I allow for a lot of fudging.

 

[Gonzo]

I can see that. I've often thought we can be too binary and absolutist when it comes to whether something is Prime/not-Prime or canon/not-canon--to the extent that you sometimes see people insisting that a single discrepancy conclusively "proves" that something is not Prime, which always strikes me as being way too stringent about such things.

I'm perfectly happy to just treat DISCO or TAS or whatever as Prime-ish. Allowing for a certain degree of fudging.

87.62% percent "Prime" is good enough for me.

Never minded either way myself, I can appreciate why some have issues with what we have been shown though, Season 2 fixed most of the glaring ones, at least for me.

So if Prime-ish is allowed does that mean Canon-ish is too.

 

[Greg Cox]

Never minded either way myself, I can appreciate why some have issues with what we have been shown though, Season 2 fixed most of the glaring ones, at least for me.

So if Prime-ish is allowed does that mean Canon-ish is too.

Absolutely. No need to get too fundamentalist about this stuff.

 

[Gonzo]

Truman's decision hinged on the fact that if he had not done so, he was about to turn thousands of young civilians into dead soldiers in any kind of landing and occupation. I suppose he could have dropped one or two on a barely occupied Kuril island to get the point across and force peace talks. Maybe that would have worked? We'll never know.

I had this conversation with a relative the other day who didnt really understand just how bad it could have been, thats not to say it wasnt plenty bad enough of course.

The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed approx 50000 in each city (rough estimates from the time).

If the Allies had been forced to invade mainland Japan the death toll would have been in the millions and Japan would have needed a century to recover rather than decades.

Dont forget the Japanese Military had told its civilian population that the Americans were coming to rape and murder them, many believed them and threw themselves off cliffs or took poison.

The fact the first bomb didnt work shows that only a strike on a big city was going to work, even then it took two hits as the Military didnt believe the Americans had done it at first and it took a second strike to really make the Military throw in the towel (barely), even so it was a very close vote in cabinet at the time as the Military still wanted to continue the fight, if I remember correctly one of the Generals committed ritual suicide right there and then when he was ordered to surrender.

That would have been a problem as the Americans only had the two bombs ready and could not have repeated the operation a third time.

Think about it like this, the Americans could have dropped the bombs on Tokyo (pop over 3m in 1940) and Osaka (pop over 1m in 1940) if they had wanted to but instead they hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima due to them both being major manufacturing hubs.

It could have been so much worse with the possibility that the Japanese could have decided to carry on with the war anyway, if so I have no doubt the total dead would have been many millions.

 

[Mudd]

Humans do desperate things when faced with their own destruction. It makes perfect sense to me from a character and human point of view.

Because something has happened in real life is one of the poorest excuses for putting it into a story.

Yeah, I don't watch shows about people in glitter Spandex flying around in spaceships shooting ray-guns at each other because I'm in the mood for realpolitik and cynicism. Frankly, the Trek people don't have a chance of doing that kind of thing 1/100th as well as a lot of other stories that don't turn on people wearing plastic foreheads staring at blinking lights.

 

[fireproof78]

Because something has happened in real life is one of the poorest excuses for putting it into a story.

Stories are told by human beings for human beings. Mileage will vary but I prefer stories where I can relate to them and connect to the human experience, especially in fantastical settings.

 

[Lord Garth]

February 2nd, 2019 in the TOS Forum

You know that in 1966 there was a show called Star Trek that did politically controversial material, like endorsing draft resistance, etc. Maybe you've gotten too used to more recent, bland, timid entertainment - it's not like STD is anything other than conventional mainstream TV entertainment. Time to wake up.

+

This said today in this forum by the same exact poster...

Yeah, I don't watch shows about people in glitter Spandex flying around in spaceships shooting ray-guns at each other because I'm in the mood for realpolitik and cynicism. Frankly, the Trek people don't have a chance of doing that kind of thing 1/100th as well as a lot of other stories that don't turn on people wearing plastic foreheads staring at blinking lights.

It's nice to see when someone is of two minds.