• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x01 - "That Hope Is You, Part 1"

Rate the episode...


  • Total voters
    255
stumbled across this comment from a MosBef on the world web, and was pleased to see someone who hasn't been braindrained:

"it still seems like the people working on Trek simply don’t believe in the original concept of a world that’s mostly better than our own. Whether it’s the shadowy subterfuge of Section 31, Picard’s assertion that Trek values failed in the face of the synth attack, or this season jumping forward to a time when the Federation is broken and there’s no society reflecting secular humanist values, the writers/show runners just don’t seem to trust that there can be a compelling show about mostly good people from a mostly good society confronting a troubling problem. It just seems like for whatever reason writers think that people aren’t interested in smaller stories anymore. It can’t just be about someone working through a personal problem, or town/settlement having a problem, or even a world dealing with a crisis. It has to be that society is fundamentally broken, or there’s an extinction-level event, etc. The problem with that, and it was the problem with Picard too, is that it just turns it into a hero story; it’s about how one good person or small group of people inspire or save everyone else, rather than a story about how a better philosophy creates a better, fairer, safer, more happy society. With Picard (the man) gone, the society loses its way until he comes back to fix it. Or it’s up to the crew of the Disco to inspire the rubble of future society."
The situations in Picard and Discovery Season 3 are quite different. In PIC, the Federation is still recognizable. In DSC S3, it isn't. And this person whose intellect you worship doesn't even bother to back up any of his points or to explain how something he'd think is more compelling actually is.

And if you want to play the Gene Roddenberry game, I'm much more familiar with Gene's Vision than either of you. And I don't pretend to speak for someone who's been dead for almost 30 years. I'll let Gene speak for himself.

I'll cut-and-paste it, and not just put in quotes. That way it's harder for someone to just gloss over.

.
.
.

Excerpt of Gene Roddenberry Lecture from Wichita University, 1974
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

All of which usually brings up an interesting question. It goes something like, “Hey, wait Roddenberry, how can say that it’s all just beginning for us when you’ve gone ahead and wrote shows like “Genesis II” and others, which have said that our technological civilization that we enjoy now is probably going to crumble?” And an answer while writing the original Star Trek format, I never considered for a moment that the USS Enterprise, and the Federation, and the thing represented by that were necessarily a direct and [un]interrupted outgrowth and our present civilization with its heavy emphasis on material things.

And you might ask, “Doesn’t the collapse of all our much of what we have now mean the end to all of us?” Of course not. Humanity is an incredible creature. Knock us down, destroy our civilization, and we will probably get up and build a better one on top of it as we have done time and time again. And those of you that are frightened at some of the things happening on our day, and I thought that our civilization could crumble too, let us consider what happened the last time. The collapse of Rome, or perhaps since these things take generations to happen, the disintegration of Rome prepared the way for much more than was lost.

What happens in a case of civilization crumbling is something like those deep ocean currents that bring nutrients to the top and out of this spawn an incredible variety of new life. I think this is something talked about in History, but fall of the Roman Empire, and the rebuilding which followed, spawned treasures far beyond the capacity of Rome, Greece, or the Byzantine Empire. Consider these: the art of the Renaissance, the humanitarian philosophies, the medical revolution, that phenomenon named Shakespeare, the great poets, Beethoven’s symphonies, in fact the whole explosion of music that has persisted into our day. Our present technology then, in slightly over 50 years, has gone from the first spruce and fabric airplane to putting a man on the moon.

Should this civilization fall, it happens. There are a lot of factors right now that make some shake up sound quite desirable. For example, as I’ve been saying for years and as you’ve read in the newspaper recently, the nuclear bomb is no longer the exclusive property of reasonable and mature nations like the United States, Russia, China [mild laughter] We are about at the time of nuclear capacity potentially in the hands of any country willing to pay the price and even extremely large industrial corporations, or even extremely wealthy individuals. And as I’ve said on a news conference, yesterday, the idea of AT&T having an atomic bomb just scares the Hell out of me.

Pessimism? Absolutely not. What I’m being is an optimist. What I’m saying is that there are heartening indications all around us: in the power crunch, the population explosion, the food problem, and all of these things, that some of our society will become unglued before we are able to blast ourselves and our planet out of existence. In other words: I’m saying that these things we’re facing may be natural checks and balances protecting us as we slowly evolve into a more mature species. These crises may be happening as they were planned. I agree with Arthur C. Clarke and a number of other writers who have stated that call it what you will: God, El, Allah, Von Daniken Space Travelers if you want to go that way. Any wisdom capable of putting intelligence on this planet is no doubt capable of a plan that will protect it through its present childhood until we have reached the point where we’re able to take care of ourselves. We are going to have another chance and another and still another, if we need it, until we have built an adult reasoning civilization.

.
.
.

Now, I'm going to assume someone as intellectual as you read everything I typed, so lets continue on. In "Encounter at Farpoint", Q calls Humanity a "dangerous, savage child race". Picard denies it vehemently and becomes defensive. At the end of the episode, Q says he doesn't promise never to return and then pops up time and time again. And Picard keeps arguing with him.

So, in TNG, Humanity has not reached "maturity" if Picard is its representative. It's only reached adolescence. Which means it still stumbles. Sometimes spectacularly.

That not good enough for you? Try "Return to Tomorrow" (TOS) on for size. Link to transcript.

KIRK: That's twice you've referred to us as my children.
SARGON: Because it is possible you are our descendants, Captain Kirk. Six thousand centuries ago, our vessels were colonising this galaxy, just as your own starships have now begun to explore that vastness. As you now leave your own seed on distant planets, so we left our seed behind us. Perhaps your own legends of an Adam and an Eve were two of our travellers.
MULHALL: Our beliefs and our studies indicate that life on our planet, Earth, evolved independently.
SPOCK: That would tend, however, to explain certain elements of Vulcan prehistory.
SARGON: In either case, I do not know. It was so long ago, and the records of our travels were lost in the cataclysm which we loosened upon ourselves.
KIRK: A war?
SARGON: A struggle for such goals and the unleashing of such power that you could not comprehend.
KIRK: Then perhaps your intelligence wasn't so great, Sargon. We faced a similar crisis in our early nuclear age. We found the wisdom not to destroy ourselves.
SARGON: And we survived our primitive nuclear era, my son. But there comes to all races an ultimate crisis which you have yet to face.
KIRK: I don't understand.
SARGON: One day our minds became so powerful, we dared think of ourselves as gods.

Next time you post here, don't assume I didn't think any of this out, can't defend it or am "brain-drained". I can show off just as much as you can. I can refer back to Gene as much as you can too. But instead of that, let's have an actual discussion. Thanks.
 
It's actually to modulate the reaction between matter and anti-matter.

As has already been said, the fact that an inert crystalline substance spontaneously "explodes" across the galaxy at the same time (regardless of the conditions its in) is the dumbest, most laughable, most non-scientific level of idiocy that has arguably ever existed in Star Trek this side of "Threshold." it's the most Alex Kurtzman-y idea in a long line of awful Kurtzman-y ideas.

Let alone the fact that it's been 700 years, there would be countless alternate fuel sources. Let alone we already know many advanced species/governments don't use dilithium.

UGH. Why did I give this show another chance?

I figure it was some sort of subspace frequency that impacted dilithium on a molecular level.

Since there is dilithium, I don't think dilithium exploded across the galaxy. What probably happened is something like what fireproof78 says. What exploded were the ships and power generating stations that used dilithium. When it broked down, the matter and anti-matter were no longer controlled and exploded. On ships, on planets.

It's only been 130 years (or so) since the burn, not 700. If something was working for so long (dilithium controlled warp engines), why would they be looking to change that? Sure, some research may be done. But all the ships went boom. And the crews.
 
While it remains to be seen, I find it very unlikely the season arc will be "Michal Burnham saves the day and reinstates the Federation." She may be a bit of a catalyst, but unless you're talking about someone along the lines of Alexander the Great - who just conquers everything - a single person cannot set up a large government all by themselves.

I think the hints we have to date suggest that it's certainly going to be a collaborative effort. Not the least among them that it's already been leaked that the Federation still exists in some attenuated, diminished form.
 
While it remains to be seen, I find it very unlikely the season arc will be "Michal Burnham saves the day and reinstates the Federation." She may be a bit of a catalyst, but unless you're talking about someone along the lines of Alexander the Great - who just conquers everything - a single person cannot set up a large government all by themselves.

I think the hints we have to date suggest that it's certainly going to be a collaborative effort. Not the least among them that it's already been leaked that the Federation still exists in some attenuated, diminished form.

I am desperately hoping Burnham doesn’t single-handedly rebuild the Federation. Not only because that would be a horribly implausible narrative choice, but also because I don’t think I could take the fandom reaction.
 
To show the creation of a better, fairer, safer, more happy society, said society needs to be worse, more unfair, unsafe, and less happy to begin with ;)
In an age like the one we live in, I don't want sunshine-happiness escapism with every problem we have today coming pre-solved in the backstory without even the vaguest allusions as to how it happened, just so that I could forget about all the bad stuff going on around me for a while. I want to actually see the characters leading or participating in a successful effort to (re)create a better future.
 
Most of that
It still seems like the people working on Trek simply don’t believe in the original concept of a world that’s mostly better than our own. Whether it’s the shadowy subterfuge of Section 31, Picard’s assertion that Trek values failed in the face of the synth attack, or this season jumping forward to a time when the Federation is broken and there’s no society reflecting secular humanist values, the writers/show runners just don’t seem to trust that there can be a compelling show about mostly good people from a mostly good society confronting a troubling problem. It just seems like for whatever reason writers think that people aren’t interested in smaller stories anymore. It can’t just be about someone working through a personal problem, or town/settlement having a problem, or even a world dealing with a crisis. It has to be that society is fundamentally broken, or there’s an extinction-level event, etc. The problem with that, and it was the problem with Picard too, is that it just turns it into a hero story; it’s about how one good person or small group of people inspire or save everyone else, rather than a story about how a better philosophy creates a better, fairer, safer, more happy society. With Picard (the man) gone, the society loses its way until he comes back to fix it. Or it’s up to the crew of the Disco to inspire the rubble of future society.
I'd agree with most of that.
 
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What about Saru or Sahil?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"You realize Saru is in command of Discovery, right?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"How's the weather outside?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What would you think if it were Kirk or Picard?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"Do you have anything else to say?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What don't you like about Discovery?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"

Burnham Hatred is starting to look like a really canned broken record.
 
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What about Saru or Sahil?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"You realize Saru is in command of Discovery, right?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"How's the weather outside?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What would you think if it were Kirk or Picard?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"Do you have anything else to say?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"
"What don't you like about Discovery?"
"It was all Michael Burnham!"

Burnham Hatred is starting to look like a really canned broken record.

One could say the same about the STD gushers who go "the Boreville is for Boomers who vote Trump!"
 
One could say the same about the STD gushers who go "the Boreville is for Boomers who vote Trump!"

giphy.gif
 
One could say the same about the STD gushers who go "the Boreville is for Boomers who vote Trump!"
I don't actually have an issue with The Orville. I watched the first season as it aired. I didn't have a problem with it, but it didn't hook me either. When the second season started, I didn't come back, and it was as simple as that.

The more militant fans of The Orville though, that's a different story. But, even there, you don't see me going into Orville threads posting drive-bys. Or posting in there at all, for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Me, I'm a fan of Discovery, but I also enjoy The Orville a hell of a lot.
I'm somewhat the opposite. I like Orville, I like Discovery a hell of a lot more. Without going into all the differences I see between them, Orville hits some emotional beats that often Star Trek struggles with.
 
I'm somewhat the opposite. I like Orville, I like Discovery a hell of a lot more. Without going into all the differences I see between them, Orville hits some emotional beats that often Star Trek struggles with.

I wouldn't say that (overall) I prefer one over the other as it's more what I'm in the mood for at the time. I like both enough to make sure that I've got them on the available home media (Blu for Disc, DVD for Orville here)
 
I don't actually have an issue with The Orville. I watched the first season as it aired. I didn't have a problem with it, but it didn't hook me either. When the second season started, I didn't come back, and it was as simple as that.

The more militant fans of The Orville though, that's a different story. But, even there, you don't see me going into Orville threads posting drive-bys. Or posting in there at all, for that matter.
The point is, there's a persistent false narrative across the interwebs the criticism of all things STD, be it the production team, the lead actress, the questionable canon, whatever, all stems from butthurt old people who're closed-minded about progress.

That you yourself are better than "militant" fans of STD, unfortunately doesn't erase their respective broken record playing on and on and on.
 
In a universe where a character survives by transferring his immortal soul into his friend's brain while his body is resurrected and rejuvenated by a magic planet, which is unstable so it causes him to rapidly age until he's the same age he was when he died, and then his body and soul are reunited by a lady touching both his body and his friend at the same time.
Why bring up Jean-Luc Picard's ressurection and the planet of soong:s Android's (from "Picard") to support your point?
:whistle::wtf::angel:;)
 
I'd agree with most of that.

I have noticed some linguistic slight of hand with some of the producers of Trek, when they talk about an "optimistic future where we aspire to be better."

Aspiring to be better is really no different than how the vast majority of us live our own lives. Sometimes we fail. And it's true many shows don't focus on the characters attempting to do good and leave the world a better place, but have a more nasty, cynical tone. But the point of Star Trek isn't just that people are trying to be better, it's that they actually are better. This was built in from the beginning of TOS, and not just some early TNG conceit.
 
But the point of Star Trek isn't just that people are trying to be better, it's that they actually are better. This was built in from the beginning of TOS, and not just some early TNG conceit.
Better is not coterminous with infallible, and from the beginning, in the episode that Roddenberry hoped might be the second pilot, a human commits mass murder in order to control a fountain of youth.

ETA: Even in the first pilot, the captain, the supposed epitome of humanity, contemplates human (for lack of a better word) trafficking. He wasn't even more evolved than the 1960s.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top