Agreed as well. Trolls aim to trigger. Best to just ignore them, either literally or figuratively.
New Short Trek: Ask Not
- Thread starter antinoos
- Start date
Agreed as well. Trolls aim to trigger. Best to just ignore them, either literally or figuratively.
Wesley at starfleet academy makes sense. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that starfleet would go thru all that for a posting, even to the enterprise
Closed captioning listed Bouman.
Funny. That makes me think of "Coming of Age" where there are four promising kids who'd all make great cadets and only one is chosen. That's what doesn't make sense.
Someone had to tell The new writers Trek is no a dystopia. Loyalty tests and black bags on heads isn’t what Starfleet is about. Does the enterprise have to loyalty test everyone signing aboard the ship it’s stupid . Like most new trek the longer you have to think about it the more I dislike it
Not just new Trek writers, for the sake of argument. This was also the case with DS9 and parts of VOY and ENT as well. It's not a recent thing. If you can include those series in with the criticism you've leveled toward Discovery and "Ask Not", then it's a fair statement to make; even if I don't agree with it.
Last edited:
Please spare us the rose-colored glasses view of Star Trek's unbridled optimism and "What Starfleet is all about." Never been true, and never will be. It's an eye-roller that just never ceases to manifest when people want to come up with a reason for why the good ole days were so much better. There are plenty of reasons to be critical....but the "where is our promised utopia / Gene's Vision" stuff never fails to confuse me, because it's simply never been true.
Of course they don't "loyalty test" everyone, but there's been prescedent set since 1982 (Kobyashi Maru) and 1986 (Coming of Age "psych test") as well as many other examples of certain simulation tests designed to test the physical and psychological readiness of future officers.
When you're talking about putting a team together for extended missions in deep space that have unimaginable dangers, risks, and challenges, where any one person may be the difference between life or death for 100's or even thousands of lives....yeah....this kind of thing seems pretty light.
It's not a utopia in TOS era either.
From the looks of it, all four appeared underage. The other three supposedly would attempt entry again the next year; the winner merely gets the special prize, which does not benefit Starfleet in any way (they supposedly want a degree of maturity, and an age limit is just about the only practical way to get that) but does make the winner happy and is good PR in that respect.
Yet ST2:TWoK is indeed about testing everybody, or everybody aiming directly at command, at any rate (Spock skipped this, but Spock is an odd bird in so many respects).
Logistically, testing those few aiming at command would probably be doable. Testing random engineering crew, not so much. But perhaps the Sidhus were suspected of being spies or saboteurs, due to their dubious "sole survivor" status (if you survive, how much did you promise to pay to the attacker?), and had to be tested for the sake of UFP security? I haven't seen the short or read the transcript if any, so I have no idea if this works.
How does it work, though? The cadet proves she is ready to shoot Captain Pike's head off, so she's trusted with Captain Pike's starship engines? Is she supposed to be put in charge of the onboard Section 47 detachment that will kill Pike if he tries to betray the Federation?
Timo Saloniemi
This is a good explanation, if these are like AP students who get to win a chance to go to college early...
... but thanks for helping out my opponent in the debate.
Kewl!
It'd also be cool if this show used, in a good light, to reflect positive accomplishments and hard work throughout STEM history as well. There's more out there than people think. And not as jokes; we got enough of Madame Curie as the butt of them in the anti-STEM show "The Big Bang Theory".
Yeah but having seen enough of decades' worth of Trek, TOS iis a utopia just as DSC is a dystopia. Each is neither. At least the crew in TOS are a little more consistent with maturity in how they deal with each other. But DSC takes place before TOS, so it doesn't not fit.
If it's "supposed to be" a linear progression, then the future should be more of a utopia than the past. Even the immediate past.
So: ENT --> DSC --> TOS --> TNG does fit. In ENT, a large part of the Human population is xenophobic. Particularly after the Xindi attack. In DSC, Starfleet still resorts to extremes if it feels it has no choice. TOS represents a Humanity that is still "half savage" to quote the Metrons, but is better than it was. In TNG, Humanity has become worthy of higher beings' notice such as the Traveller and Q.
"But DSC only takes place 10 years before TOS!" Yes. But let's put the 23rd Century into a 20th Century context. There's a huge difference between 1956 and 1969. Especially socially. So the difference between TOS and DSC is still valid if we add 300 years and just switch it to 2256 and 2269. Not every decade in the same century has to be the same. Just look at the 20th Century itself, as I already mentioned.
And let's stick to the 20th Century. I don't want to drag the 21st Century and Current Events into this.
EDIT: The progression from TNG --> DS9 --> 2387 --> PIC will be interesting too. But it's a whole other discussion and I'll wait until Picard is out before I talk about my thoughts there.
Last edited:
Meh. Although I'm gonna take a guess that this cadet is going to be hugely important somehow down the line, much like Poe in the first Short Trek.
I can only see that happening if we do get a Pike spin-off. I don't see how they could include her in season 3 of Disco.
Yeah, but they also weren't dragging prisoners around in black hoods like the Taliban.
Unless this takes place a few years prior to Discovery?
"Such Sweet Sorrow, Part I" deserves to be mentioned there as well.
Stop moving that decimal point to the left!
